What is Your Take on Abortion? Pro-choice, pro-life, or somewhere in the Middle?

[AxisMundi]

Can't say that I have.

So should we just abort them at conception, then?

Merely pointing out that the "adoption option" isn't always a viable option.

 

[Mister_T]

Merely pointing out that the "adoption option" isn't always a viable option.

I don't think I ever said it was always a viable option. I insinuated that it wasn't with this:

There's also adoption, but unfortunately there is a need for people willing to adopt a child.

 

[Levite]

I wholeheartedly disagree. We, the people, are the government and thus the government should reflect the ideas and opinions of the people to the best of its ability.

I am perfectly comfortable expressing my opinions. I discuss them all the time, in private and in public. But voting to make illegal a medical procedure which is elective to private individuals is not expressing an opinion. That is taking away the rights to self-determination and privacy of 50% of our citizens. And since I have yet to hear any argument in favor of such a radical intrusion on individuals' rights that is not ultimately based on certain very specific religious interpretations from two or three religions, I see absolutely zero reason why we the people should voluntarily surrender any personal freedoms. People who don't favor abortions are under no compulsion to get them.

The bottom line is, there is a difference between my personal opinion (e.g., cosmetic breast enhancements are ugly, vain, and idiotic. I don't think women should get them) versus something I would actually go into a booth a vote for to change society (e.g., I would never vote to outlaw cosmetic breast enhancements just because I hate them. And in fact, if some idiot tried to pass a law that forbade cosmetic breast enhancements, I would fight it and vote against it, because people have a right to do stuff I don't agree with).

Me deciding that my personal opinion means that we should pass a law intruding on the personal lives and private medical choices of millions of people would be narcissistic, controlling, and singularly lacking in compassion for others.

 

[Mister Emu]

And since I have yet to hear any argument in favor of such a radical intrusion on individuals' rights that is not ultimately based on certain very specific religious interpretations from two or three religions,

The slain are unique instances of human life. They deserve that most fundamental right, life. No appeal to religion.

Me deciding that my personal opinion means that we should pass a law intruding on the personal lives and private medical choices of millions of people would be narcissistic, controlling, and singularly lacking in compassion for others.

I would tend to agree, in matters of personal preference, we should not decide for others. But in matters of life and death, we have not only a right, but an obligation to involve ourselves in whether the society we are part of sanctions it.

 

[Sententia]

You think you are calling a spade a spade but I believe you have spent way to much time in the garden and the sun is getting to you!

Odd response by you considering my post? (hee hee) Why not reply to my response to you. hee hee

 

[Peacewise]

pro choice.

 

[Sententia]

The difference is between morality, and how a social contract operates. A social contract doesn't need to consider morality. I, personally, agree that it should. However it doesn't have to. That was my point.

Your words are quoted. You agree there is a scientific answer to a 'perfect' morality that is based in logic while simultaneously stating morality is not perfect and not logical and varies from person to person. You sound conflicted hence my statement you disagree with yourself.

Besides, morally speaking abortion IS wrong.

It could be wrong but more often then not is not wrong. Your statement that abortion is wrong means you can't think of an abortion as being the only moral solution? But despite morals you still think there are cases where it could be ok... just not moral?

I don't think she should allowed to be able to have one just because she wants to. I already said there are cases where I think it's OK.

I did not disagree with myself.

Sigh. So you think some immoral acts are ok? Your position as stated is that abortion is always wrong and always immoral but despite that in some cases it can be OK?

Morality can be deduced by logic, by the application of morality is interpretive. For instance, logic dictates that theft is immoral. However, what is meant by theft?

The point of me asking you to watch the Ted Speech featuring Sam Harris on Morality is the exact contradiction to your point of view which you argued you can't see how it supports my point of view. After you stated you think logic can lead us to 'perfect' morality you then follow up with morality is all relative...

Personally I think you are just working things out. Hence my response to you. The video I posted is of Sam Harris at Ted giving a speech entitled: "Science can answer moral questions"

Now I am not sure you watched the video since your subsequent points seem to already be addressed within the video but you did respond. (If anyone missed it the link is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html)

Here is your response:

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how Sam Harris' video supports your position. If anything, the video only proves that abortion for no other reason then the choice of the woman is morally wrong. Taking life in general is morally wrong unless there's a good reason for it and unless it is absolutely necessary.

I agree that science can answer moral question. I believe that the use of logic can lead us to perfect morality.

So you don't see how that video supports my position? Well lets try and rehash this conversation just a few pages back... You said this:

I suggest you read the writings of Thomas Paine. The idea of a social contract form of government (which is what America is) is based on the idea that "Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights"

A government is when free men come together for their benefit and the protection of their freedom. If said free men decide that they will not tolerate abortion within their society, then it is the duty of those involved in the social contract to comply. If a party disagrees, then they are no longer a part of the contract unless they can convince the other members of the contract to agree.

That being said, if I am a member of a society and each member has a voice in how things should be done, then the only thing that matters when I voice my opinion on a matter (IE when I vote) is my opinion as formed by either fact or fiction, truth or falsehood, or anything else under the sun that I base it on.

Read what you wrote. Do you get what you are saying? My original response is fairly cordial.

Free men decided they would not tolerate non-christians and started killing them all. They also didnt tolerate blasphemy and cut out their tongues. Sure they were abiding by their social contract but they were still wrong and immoral and attempted justification is still a failure at justification. They were wrong.

Actually do watch/listen to Sam: Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions | Video on TED.com

What does that have to do with what you wrote and why would I post such a video? Did I post that video as support for my argument regarding abortion or was it for another purpose?

You are talking about social contracts and whatever the masses vote shall be so regardless of morality. You seem oblivious to fairly common arguments regarding the tyranny of the masses or even the tyranny of the minority.

You seem to want to accept immoral behavior if the social contract allows it because you can always rebel as if you are completely oblivious to history.

Sam is talking about a scientific definition of morality. It is in direct opposition of what you seem to hold as beliefs. Lets look at the opening argument:

I'm going to speak today about the relationship between science and human values. Now, it's generally understood that questions of morality -- questions of good and evil and right and wrong -- are questions about which science officially has no opinion. It's thought that science can help us get what we value, but it can never tell us what we ought to value. And, consequently, most people -- I think most people probably here -- think that science will never answer the most important questions in human life: questions like, "What is worth living for?" "What is worth dying for?" "What constitutes a good life?"

So, I'm going to argue that this is an illusion -- that the separation between science and human values is an illusion -- and actually quite a dangerous one at this point in human history. Now, it's often said that science can not give us a foundation for morality and human values, because science deals with facts, and facts and values seem to belong to different spheres. It's often thought that there is no description of the way the world is that can tell us how the world ought to be. But I think this is quite clearly untrue.

I also think is clearly untrue. That aside that is for you to interpret and respond and perhaps even in another thread. In this thread you are stating Abortion is never moral. Ever. Despite that, sometimes it is ok. You need to think about that and what you are saying. You have said there is a perfect morality while maintaining morality is a moving target that varies from culture to culture. (Or person to person)

Abortion CAN be moral. You are neither the mother nor the doctor involved in the decision and thus can not actually judge the act as either moral or immoral but the fact that you think you don't have too... that abortion is always not moral is very telling.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I am in the middle. I think women should be allowed to abort before 9 weeks of gestation for whatever reason. After that, it becomes rather murky and dependent on the situation.

 

[TheKnight]

I see absolutely zero reason why we the people should voluntarily surrender any personal freedoms. People who don't favor abortions are under no compulsion to get them...Me deciding that my personal opinion means that we should pass a law intruding on the personal lives and private medical choices of millions of people would be narcissistic, controlling, and singularly lacking in compassion for others.

My reason for being against your opinion is that I am assuming you would also vote against a person's right to murder someone else, or against a person's right to wantonly slaughter animals.

So why then would you not also vote against the taking of the life of the fetus (be it human or not)?

Your words are quoted. You agree there is a scientific answer to a 'perfect' morality that is based in logic while simultaneously stating morality is not perfect and not logical and varies from person to person. You sound conflicted hence my statement you disagree with yourself.

There is a way to logically reach morality. However logic changes depending on the premises one starts with.

Most people use emotion rather than logic to determine what is moral.

It could be wrong but more often then not is not wrong. Your statement that abortion is wrong means you can't think of an abortion as being the only moral solution? But despite morals you still think there are cases where it could be ok... just not moral?

You're right. I was not clear. I see morality as being situational. An action is only immoral or moral within a specific context. So abortion in the context of the sole desire of the woman is wrong in my opinion, as is abortion when a woman has no means to provide for a child.

However, I am not against abortion to save the woman's life. I believe in situational morality. Rather than black and white always right always wrong moral principles.

Sigh. So you think some immoral acts are ok? Your position as stated is that abortion is always wrong and always immoral but despite that in some cases it can be OK?

You're right. I did not say that it is always wrong and always immoral, but I implied that. I was not clear in my communication. I apologize for insulting your ability to read.

In this thread you are stating Abortion is never moral. Ever.

I did not and have not stated or supported the position that abortion is never moral. I said that abortion is wrong. I didn't say always, but I realize that the implication was that I meant always. I apologize for that.

Despite that, sometimes it is ok. You need to think about that and what you are saying. You have said there is a perfect morality while maintaining morality is a moving target that varies from culture to culture. (Or person to person)

My point with that is that we can reach morality through logic, but not everyone agrees with that or uses logic to find morality. Therefore we must account for that.

 

[dust1n]

Anyone?

I am pro-choice up to the end of the 2nd trimester under any circumstance.

 

[AxisMundi]

I don't think I ever said it was always a viable option. I insinuated that it wasn't with this:

I stand corrected on your opinion.

 

[tarasan]

Anyone?

I believe that it is killing children and should not be allowed, however due to such horror stories of self abortion and sucicide i couldnt make it illegal, I would feel i would ultimately be swaping one death for another.

 

[AxisMundi]

The slain are unique instances of human life. They deserve that most fundamental right, life. No appeal to religion.

Please cite peer reviewed clinical research that shows "life begins at conception". Of course you won't find any since there is no common consensus among the scientific community.

The idea that "life begins at conception" is purely a religiously motivated one. The anti-choice laws and challenges to Roe v Wade are also almost exclusively carried out by conservative Christians and their organizations, like "Focus on the Family".

It is, indeed, religiously appealed.

I would tend to agree, in matters of personal preference, we should not decide for others. But in matters of life and death, we have not only a right, but an obligation to involve ourselves in whether the society we are part of sanctions it.

The "religious right" (which is neither) and conservative Christians in general support the death penalty for murderers and pedoes, and the more hard liners support the same for homosexuals.

You'll forgive us if all we see is a double standard for the sole purpose of politicizing an issue, ie abortion.

 

[Storm]

The idea that "life begins at conception" is purely a religiously motivated one. The anti-choice laws and challenges to Roe v Wade are also almost exclusively carried out by conservative Christians and their organizations, like "Focus on the Family".

It is, indeed, religiously appealed.

Not necessarily. An individual human life begins when sperm meets egg. That's just facts. When a fertilized egg fails to implant, it dies. When it's naturally miscarried or deliberately aborted, it dies.

I'm staunchly pro-choice, but denying that life begins at conception is just silly in my book.

 

[AxisMundi]

Not necessarily. An individual human life begins when sperm meets egg. That's just facts. When a fertilized egg fails to implant, it dies. When it's naturally miscarried or deliberately aborted, it dies.

I'm staunchly pro-choice, but denying that life begins at conception is just silly in my book.

The above leads to a "circular" argument, not in the classic sence but one that leads round-n-round while we continually repeat ourselves.

 

[Storm]

The above leads to a "circular" argument, not in the classic sence but one that leads round-n-round while we continually repeat ourselves.

Not really. You can disagree about the beginning of life all you want, but I've demonstrated that your assertion that it's ALWAYS a religious argument is simply false.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Of course when sperm fertilizes egg we have a biological organism, and therefore 'life'.
But is it 'Human Life', or simply 'Potential Human Life'?
Is an egg in a nest a bird? Or a potential bird?
The pine-cone is life, but it is not yet a tree.

Again, I would be hard pressed to advocate for abortion. But I would never wish to remove that choice from a woman's control over her own undeniable human life.

 

[AxisMundi]

Not really. You can disagree about the beginning of life all you want, but I've demonstrated that your assertion that it's ALWAYS a religious argument is simply false.

Then pelase cite the peer reviewed scientific findings that state, unequivicably, that "life begins at conception".

We all know what is meant by "life" in that statement.

 

[Storm]

Then pelase cite the peer reviewed scientific findings that state, unequivicably, that "life begins at conception".

Don't have to. I believe that life begins at conception, and it's not religiously motivated. Therefore, your absolute assertion is false.

We all know what is meant by "life" in that statement.

I have no idea what you project onto that statement, enlighten me.

 

[AxisMundi]

Don't have to. I believe that life begins at conception, and it's not religiously motivated. Therefore, your absolute assertion is false.

I have no idea what you project onto that statement, enlighten me.

1. A false claim on your behave I believe.

2. Life, as in the soul entering the body.