Abortion

[MysticSang'ha]

I understand, which is why I asked a while back what it would take to change your stance. Did anyone answer that? And no one asked me the same question, either, I think...

Several of us answered. I said giving pregnant women a LOT of money would change my stance. Then I said it was your turn.

Something tells me you didn't see any responses to your challenge because you were looking for something specific.

 

[Cephus]

I understand, which is why I asked a while back what it would take to change your stance. Did anyone answer that? And no one asked me the same question, either, I think...

Currently, there isn't anything that can change my stance, just like there isn't anything that would change my stance on slavery. I suppose if we developed the technology to easily and safely remove the fetus and incubate it in an artificial womb and if there were adoptive parents available for every single unwanted pregnancy, then I'd be fine with it, but until then, no. Bodily autonomy wins out.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nope. We aren't using "reproductive health". We are using "reproductive rights". So, your straw man is irrelevant. Abortion rights are not solely dependent on the mother's health. While it is a concern, the "rights" we are discussing are based on every woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Reproductive health is defined as a state of physical, mental, and social well-being in all matters relating to the reproductive system, at all stages of life. So, while a woman's right to choose is included in this broad category, we are actually discussing "reproductive rights" and a woman's right to disallow the use of her body to any other living thing.

So she may allow the use of her body to a man, then deny the use of her body to the progeny.

And a man may allow the use of his body by a woman, but she may deny his issue.

There's a disconnect you have there IMHO.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Several of us answered. I said giving pregnant women a LOT of money would change my stance. Then I said it was your turn.

Something tells me you didn't see any responses to your challenge because you were looking for something specific.

No, I was just asking.

I would change my mind forever, despite my past, if someone can demonstrate how the Bible supports choice/allows for choice except for jeopardy to the life of the mother.

Go for it!

 

[leibowde84]

So she may allow the use of her body to a man, then deny the use of her body to the progeny.

And a man may allow the use of his body by a woman, but she may deny his issue.

There's a disconnect you have there IMHO.

Nope. You are confused about something, because this objection doesn't speak to bodily autonomy. Of course a woman is free to "allow" the use of her body to anyone, including a fetus, a man, a child, a homeless person, etc.. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, as bodily autonomy is not infringed upon in any way if the woman allows the use of her body. Bodily autonomy only comes into play when the woman is FORCED to give up the use of her body AGAINST HER WILL.

 

[SomeRandom]

So she may allow the use of her body to a man, then deny the use of her body to the progeny.

Yes, she can choose to deny the use of her body to both a fetus and any man, even if that man is her husband. She can also choose to allow the use of her body to a fetus and/or any man.

And a man may allow the use of his body by a woman, but she may deny his issue.

What issue? Sex? Yes, rape is against the law. A man can choose not to allow use of his body by a woman, that's his right. The reverse is the same.
Abort without his consent? Yes, she's the one carrying it, not him. What's the problem exactly? It's her body specifically that's affected by pregnancy, not his. He can discuss it with her, he can even pledge to raise the fetus by himself, if that's what he wants. But until he carries it inside his own body, the ultimate decision is up to the woman. And always should be. If a procedure becomes available that allows men to carry the unwanted fetus of his one night stand, wife, girlfriend whatever, then he can carry it if he truly does object to abortion. But I, for one, am truly curious to see just how many men have this conviction.

There's a disconnect you have there IMHO.

What disconnect? A woman can choose to deny or allow the use of her body to a fetus, a man, either or, or both. I fail to see the disconnect. In all scenarios she's exercising her right to bodily autonomy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, she can choose to deny the use of her body to both a fetus and any man, even if that man is her husband. She can also choose to allow the use of her body to a fetus and/or any man.



What issue? Sex? Yes, rape is against the law. A man can choose not to allow use of his body by a woman, that's his right. The reverse is the same.
Abort without his consent? Yes, she's the one carrying it, not him. What's the problem exactly? It's her body specifically that's affected by pregnancy, not his. He can discuss it with her, he can even pledge to raise the fetus by himself, if that's what he wants. But until he carries it inside his own body, the ultimate decision is up to the woman. And always should be. If a procedure becomes available that allows men to carry the unwanted fetus of his one night stand, wife, girlfriend whatever, then he can carry it if he truly does object to abortion. But I, for one, am truly curious to see just how many men have this conviction.



What disconnect? A woman can choose to deny or allow the use of her body to a fetus, a man, either or, or both. I fail to see the disconnect. In all scenarios she's exercising her right to bodily autonomy.

It sounds to me that it is therefore implied that men should be very selective in their choice of partners. How would you feel about a pre-sex agreement, with a woman consenting not to abort if she becomes pregnant during sex?

 

[viole]

No, I was just asking.

I would change my mind forever, despite my past, if someone can demonstrate how the Bible supports choice/allows for choice except for jeopardy to the life of the mother.

Go for it!

If that was true, you should be OK with slavery since it is obvious that the Bible tolerates it. But since I doubt that you would be OK with slavery, I doubt that reason would be sufficient to make you change your mind. Unless, the Bible is the only thing that prevents you from fully accepting the pro-choice stance.

Which leads me to the following question: would you be pro-choice if you lost your faith completely?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Cephus]

It sounds to me that it is therefore implied that men should be very selective in their choice of partners. How would you feel about a pre-sex agreement, with a woman consenting not to abort if she becomes pregnant during sex?

It wouldn't be enforceable. She can change her mind any time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If I lost my Christian faith, I'd still have the same moral compass as everyone else. Pro choice or pro life, we are understanding one side or the other of the fetus as a human being, a person. It is or isn't.

I find that bodily autonomy is a bit of a misnomer. We are talking about the old two, sex and power. Pro-choice men and women want to have sex and the power to choose for the fetus (or allow others they are voting with/for to have same).

“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” - Ronald Reagan

If you were back in the womb today, would you choose an abortion for yourself? Of course not. A proper soldier only shoots if he is certain it is an enemy combatant and not an innocent in the sights of his gun.

We are all "pro life" which is to say, we're all about people. What else is bodily autonomy but an assertion of a person's inalienable rights?

Does the fetus have inalienable rights? We cannot say, "it doesn't, for it depends on the life/will/stewardship of the mother," because a toddler depends on the stewardship of its parent or guardian also.

If I lost my faith, and allowed new boundaries regarding sex and power, I would be hesitant to kill what could be an innocent human being. I've been pro life as long as I can remember, and I did not convert from being a skeptic to become a Christian until I was 21 years old.

I would say in sum if you are sure the fetus isn't a person, a human being, terminate. If you think it is, I'm sure no one here would ever dream of having an abortion. Is this not an absolute truth/law of excluded middle whether or not we have a faith or religion?

Thank you.

 

[SomeRandom]

It sounds to me that it is therefore implied that men should be very selective in their choice of partners. How would you feel about a pre-sex agreement, with a woman consenting not to abort if she becomes pregnant during sex?

Well yes, men and women should be selective of their choice in partners.
Anyone who has been through High School or possesses a bit of street smarts can tell you that. I mean, we have to be careful of who we hook up with. Lot of psychos out there (both sexes.)

If a woman and a man hook up and the woman agrees of her own free will not to abort if she becomes pregnant as a result of their having sex, then that's her choice. (Though I would hope that the man also agrees to step up and pledge to support her and the potential child. It takes two to tango, after all.)That's the thing about being pro choice, friend. You support choice not just the choice you happen to agree with.

Anyway that proposed agreement, I don't particularly care if a couple uses it or not, tbh. What people agree to or not agree to is their business, not mine.

 

[Marisa]

No, I was just asking.

I would change my mind forever, despite my past, if someone can demonstrate how the Bible supports choice/allows for choice except for jeopardy to the life of the mother.

Go for it!

You mean outside the times when god commands the Israelite soldiers to kill "women who have know men by lying with them"? How could you simply look at a woman and know she's had sex with a man? Maybe because she's pregnant? How about in Numbers when god tells men who suspect their wives of infidelity to a priest, who then performs an abortion with cursed temple water? Do I have to prove that god rubber stamps choice, or is it enough that I can demonstrate that god doesn't care about killing pregnant women or cursing them with a miscarriage and subsequent sterility? Do you even bible, dude?

ETA: It's one thing to be anti-choice the way Tom is. But it's quite another to be anti-choice because you think god is. God is silent on the issue, except for the time he kills children himself, pregnant women himself unless you think there were no pregnant women around in Noah's flood, or that there were no pregnant women in Soddom and Gommorrah, etc. etc. etc. That's just a logic failure, pure and simple. Either that, or you have no idea what's in your holy book.

 

[columbus]

I would change my mind forever, despite my past, if someone can demonstrate how the Bible supports choice/allows for choice except for jeopardy to the life of the mother.

Go for it!

OK. As a person who knows the Bible pretty well I will do it.
You can't show me one verse specifically about abortion, because there aren't any. The authors and audience of the Bible, NT and OT both, simply didn't care. It is a new problem that just wasn't covered at the time.
There are an assortment of reasons for this, but they all come down to being a primitive people.
For one thing, the technology was primitive. A modern coat hanger was futuristic.
For another, the science was primitive. They did not consider the baby alive until it drew a breath, because that is how they defined life.
For another, the ethics were primitive. A child was the property (chattel is the usual word) of the father. If a child was born and the father didn't want it, for whatever reason (deformed, weak, female, etc) he could just toss it. Women, on the other hand, generally wanted any child because they could be put to work while in single digits and married off in their early teens.

So there is no more scriptural opposition to abortion than there is to identity theft. It just didn't happen enough to matter.
Modern religionists are retrofitting their own moral lights onto Scripture, not learning from It. That is why you won't find Scriptures on the subject.
Tom

 

[BilliardsBall]

Putting the Bible to one side for the moment...

"Bodily autonomy" reminds me how in all societies always, a person's right to life supersedes another person's right to liberty. Again, if the fetus is a person, no one would abort, including you and I.

Do we really need the Bible to figure out whether a fetus is a person? Is science alone qualified to tell us what personhood is?

If people have inalienable rights, were these rights naturally evolved or are they metaphysical rights? How much does love cost? What does love weigh? What is the chemical makeup of hate?

Once we know what is the guarantor of inalienable rights and autonomies, we can more safely assign them to others.

SomeRandom made a good point, too, "What people agree to or not agree to is their business, not mine." This description defies the golden rule of treating people the way you wish to be treated, for if I am harming myself, I want someone to stop me. Abortion violates the golden rule, for each person here should they return to the womb today would not wish to be aborted but to live.

 

[Marisa]

Putting the Bible to one side for the moment...

Not going to live up to bold exclamation, I see.

 

[columbus]

Putting the Bible to one side for the moment...

How about we put the Bible to the side permanently on a subject It doesn't mention?
Tom

 

[columbus]

"Bodily autonomy" reminds me how in all societies always, a person's right to life supersedes another person's right to liberty.

This is not true. The rights you are talking about are quite modern. "Post Christian", to be precise. Those are secular humanist values, nowhere to be found in Scripture.
One of the best things to happen in Christendom is the general dumping of scriptural morality in favor of more Enlightened ethics. This started a few centuries ago and has a lot to do with why Christendom is a better place to live than most of the rest of the world.
Christians often like to pretend that they always taught this stuff. But it is not true and the truth is not hard to find. Until Christians start being more honest about the source of their morality they are not going to be very convincing, even to each other. There is a reason why most Christians think it is morally OK for female parents to unChoose having unsafe sex by killing their progeny quickly.
Tom

 

[SomeRandom]

"Bodily autonomy" reminds me how in all societies always, a person's right to life supersedes another person's right to liberty. Again, if the fetus is a person, no one would abort, including you and I.

Not true. There are countries where abortion was or is illegal (often with the exception of life threatening pregnancies.) Regardless of this provision, this still causes all sorts of problems as you have sexually abused children not able to get a life saving or medically necessary abortions and you end up with stories like this one.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...bortion-for-9yearold-rape-victim-1640165.html
Or this one.
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/05/87269/paraguay-10-year-old-rape-survivor-denied-abortion
Or this one in Ireland when a suicidal rape victim was denied an abortion just last year.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/18/ireland-woman-forced-caesarean-pregnant-rape-friend
That's why bodily autonomy is precious. Because it deals with a fully autonomous person (even if they still depend on their parents) receiving rights over that of a bunch of cells, which frankly should never supersede the rights of the mother (unless the mother so chooses.)

Once you start chipping away at that, you end up like we were in the 1940s or something. Women dying from unsafe coathanger abortions or a woman going to a shady back alley doctor because she simply cannot afford another child in her already 7 strong Catholic family, despite doing her "wifely duty." And all sorts of other reasons why a woman may choose to abort.

SomeRandom made a good point, too, "What people agree to or not agree to is their business, not mine." This description defies the golden rule of treating people the way you wish to be treated, for if I am harming myself, I want someone to stop me. Abortion violates the golden rule, for each person here should they return to the womb today would not wish to be aborted but to live.

You can't mind your own business? What are you the gossip queen on the street or something?

The Golden Rule is good and all, but life is often a bit more complicated.
Let's say a friend of mine is pregnant at 15 and let's say the father, although wishing to support her, ends up in jail, for whatever reason. Desperate for money, maybe. Fell into a bad crowd. Whatever.
Her parents kicked her out because religious folk seem to be rather callous with "sinners" I have noticed (not all, of course.)
She comes to me in tears, she has been taught that abortion is "sinful" but she's destitute, living on the street, but far too embarrassed to admit this to me. Should I support her decision to abort at 8 weeks? Should I force her to bring the fetus to term? Which would be following the Golden Rule?

Another scenario. A girlfriend of mine is in a bad relationship. It started out normal enough, but eventually turned sour when the man slowly but surely began to control her. This lead to domestic violence and despite all our best efforts to convince her to get to safety, she stays. Because this happens, unfortunately.
She learns that she is pregnant and tells me she fears that if she does not get an abortion one of two things will happen. 1 the baby will become a punching bag, maybe even killed by said husband/boyfriend/significant other.Or 2 he will cause a miscarriage from beating her. Apart from, again, begging her to run for her life, should I support her decision to abort or not? Which is following the Golden Rule?

Another scenario. My baby niece is raped at 10. And of course I want to string up the monster who did that to her by his balls and leave him to rot. Anyway she falls pregnant, the doctors say she should get an abortion so her insides aren't torn to ****ing shreds. Her parents are against the idea, as they are very pious and consider it a sin. So now I have two choices in front of me.
Get the child a medically necessary abortion against the parents wishes but ultimately for her own good or allow the pregnancy to go to term like the parents want and hope that she survives the birthing process without physical or mental scars (which is highly unlikely.)
So which is following the Golden Rule?

Another scenario. A girlfriend of mine and her fiance are overjoyed at her being pregnant. But during pregnancy they discover the fetus has a hole in it's heart. Now they could potentially save it, but it doesn't exactly have a large chance for surviving the birthing process, let alone a post natal surgery. They decide to abort and try again (much) later.
Is that following the Golden Rule?

On last scenario. My sister has cancer. She already has 2 kids, the father is a good hardworking bloke, but is a miner and has to work in another state to support his family.
She falls pregnant but the doctors tell her that she will die unless she aborts. She tells me that she is going through with the pregnancy, regardless. Should I advise her against such an option? Or should I allow her to go through with it, without interjecting my concerns for her well being?
Which is following the Golden Rule?

As for going back in the womb if I am pro choice, what balderdash (hehe I like that word.) The fetus is not a person, it's a potential person. I support choice and in many scenarios abortion is a mercy to said fetus. So why should I get aborted if I am pro choice, exactly?

 

[columbus]

Putting the Bible to one side for the moment...

How about we look at the Bible for a minute.
Specifically the last two chapters of the Book of Judges. The whole text is available on a button at the top of this page, "BIBLE".
The gist of the story is that the Benjamite tribe got into a fight with the other Israelite tribes. The other tribes killed off all the Benjamin women and children. The Benjamites didn't swear vengeance or anything. They whined about wanting new ones. The other tribes wouldn't give theirs to the Benjamites, because Benjamites are such wienies. But they did tell the Benjamites where to go get new ones(Shiloh). We call it kidnap/rape, but they didn't because women and children weren't important.
So everybody lived happily ever after.
That explains the biblical God's attitude towards women and children. Women and children don't matter, even the ones who actually do breathe. Much less the ones that don't.
Abortion is not a moral issue to Bible believers.
Tom

 

[ZenMonkey]

Abortion should remain legal. The government should not be enabled to force a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy. As for the unborn in question ... Are acorns oak trees? Are flower seeds flowers? Are Sturgeon eggs Sturgeon? Are tadpoles frogs? If you give this an ounce of thought the logical line of reason and line of questioning becomes apparent. Will acorns become oak trees? Will flower seeds become flowers? Will sturgeon eggs become fish? Will tadpoles become frogs? Will babies become a toddlers? Will toddlers become teens? Will teens become adults? Will adults become seniors? Will human fertilized eggs become human babies? Absolutely! So why are fetus' not referred to as human beings? Fetus' are undeniably human beings. They are simply going through developmental processes. We all are. We're just further along than a fetus. We're further along than babies. We're further along than toddlers. Most of us are further along than teens. We may consider ourselves to be grown adults, but our developmental processes are not nearly complete. We too are in the process of further development.


Why then should abortion be legal? My view is because of the fact that a woman should retain the right to choose and determine what happens to her own body. The fact that a pregnant woman's body is being shared and depended on by another human being is moot. A woman should not be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy by our government or by anyone else. The woman gets to decide. It's that simple! The issue needs a new direction I think. It needs new life breathed into its nostrils! The issue needs to develop and evolve until a feasible solution is reached. 1. Woman need to be truthfully educated to ensure they understand the reality of a human being living in their womb before allowed to undergo an abortion procedure. 2. Responsibility as well as accountability needs to be strongly encouraged by our government and by the parents in this nation for our children's sake. 3. Initiatives to help limit abortions need to be brought to the table and placed under scrutiny. This is no longer in the arena of government control. The choice to abort a pregnancy needs to stand firm. The moral aspects needs to fall directly on those who choose to abort unwanted pregnancies.