Abortion as Mercy

[The Reverend Bob]

If part of your ethics are to do no harm, to prevent and mitigate suffering and to be unselfish shouldn't be the act of abortion be construed as a mercy? When a child is born into this world, I am 100% sure that it will suffer, most likely for the rest of its life, this is an act of causing harm. And what is child-bearing? What is the reason for it other than some selfish need? Other than someone gets it into their head that they want children regardless of the consequences of the act. That seems to me the epitome of selfishness. We cannot determine the fate of the child born into this world other than they will suffer and cause harm, so what makes you think that bringing a child to term is anything other than selfishness unless you find some means to prevent that suffering and that harm? If you can't then why have children other than your own selfish desire?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

If part of your ethics are to do no harm, to prevent and mitigate suffering and to be unselfish shouldn't be the act of abortion be construed as a mercy? When a child is born into this world, I am 100% sure that it will suffer, most likely for the rest of its life, this is an act of causing harm. And what is child-bearing? What is the reason for it other than some selfish need? Other than someone gets it into their head that they want children regardless of the consequences of the act. That seems to me the epitome of selfishness. We cannot determine the fate of the child born into this world other than they will suffer and cause harm, so what makes you think that bringing a child to term is anything other than selfishness unless you find some means to prevent that suffering and that harm? If you can't then why have children other than your own selfish desire?

You have a very pessimistic view of life. In order for your argument to hold any weight, suffering will always need to be more frequent than enjoyment. This certainly should not be the case. BTW, I'm not arguing against abortion, simply against the validity of your argument.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If part of your ethics are to do no harm, to prevent and mitigate suffering and to be unselfish shouldn't be the act of abortion be construed as a mercy? When a child is born into this world, I am 100% sure that it will suffer, most likely for the rest of its life, this is an act of causing harm. And what is child-bearing? What is the reason for it other than some selfish need? Other than someone gets it into their head that they want children regardless of the consequences of the act. That seems to me the epitome of selfishness. We cannot determine the fate of the child born into this world other than they will suffer and cause harm, so what makes you think that bringing a child to term is anything other than selfishness unless you find some means to prevent that suffering and that harm? If you can't then why have children other than your own selfish desire?

Actually a very good OP
I can not answer for others, But my Fianceè and I have decided to not have children, due to how the world is now.

 

[columbus]

If one believes that reaching "the age of accountability" puts one in danger of choosing badly and risking eternal punishment, and that innocent children go to Heaven, then the logical conclusion is pretty clear.
Abortion/infanticide is the ideal parenting technique.

I've mentioned this before to Abrahamic religionists. They were generally outraged. Seems like an irrational response to me.
Tom

 

[The Reverend Bob]

This certainly should not be the case.

It is the case though. 1/2 of the worlds population lives in poverty and 1/3 live in extreme poverty

 

[dianaiad]

If one believes that reaching "the age of accountability" puts one in danger of choosing badly and risking eternal punishment, and that innocent children go to Heaven, then the logical conclusion is pretty clear.
Abortion/infanticide is the ideal parenting technique.

I've mentioned this before to Abrahamic religionists. They were generally outraged. Seems like an irrational response to me.
Tom

I only know of one group, specifically, which believes that innocent children go to heaven, having that a part of their official doctrine. Most Christians do not believe this. They can't, and still hold to any sort of Calvinist world view.

So I'm asking you which specific Christian group are you addressing? Because Christians come in all sorts of flavors when this question is addressed.

 

[columbus]

Most Christians do not believe this. They can't, and still hold to any sort of Calvinist world view.

I don't know what you are referring to. Every Christian group I know about believes that the innocent go to Heaven.

Well, the Catholic Church used to have a thing about limbo. But even they don't much believe that any more.

What religious group, that believes in Heaven and Hell, think that babies who die don't go to Heaven?
Tom

 

[Rational Agnostic]

It is the case though. 1/2 of the worlds population lives in poverty and 1/3 live in extreme poverty

You're assuming that poverty = unhappiness, and that it is better to never be born than to live in poverty. This is erroneous. The people who live in poverty in this century still have better lives than everyone who was alive 1000 years ago, and much better lives than wild animals who have to struggle for their very survival every day. So, by your logic, someone born in an earlier historical era, or a wild animal, would prefer to die than live. Yet this is certainly not the case. Even wild animals with terrible lives fight for existence and don't want to die.

 

[dianaiad]

I don't know what you are referring to. Every Christian group I know about believes that the innocent go to Heaven.

Well, the Catholic Church used to have a thing about limbo. But even they don't much believe that any more.

What religious group, that believes in Heaven and Hell, think that babies who die don't go to Heaven?
Tom

Any group that believes in the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. Which is a goodly percentage of them.

Any group which believes in 'original sin' has to believe that babies do not necessarily go to heaven. In fact, they pretty much have to believe that hell is the default position. That's why so many of 'em have infant baptism.

The problem here is that there seems to be a disconnect between what many Christians believe in their 'heart of hearts' and what their official doctrine is. I don't know many Christians who LIKE the idea that a newborn (or a fetus) goes to hell because original sin guarantees that none are born innocent, and mostly they don't like to think about it.

However, it is very much an unavoidable part of their doctrine. Predestination and Calvinism demand it. It's unavoidable.

Now me?

I agree with what they believe in their 'heart of hearts...' but then I don't believe in original sin and if there was any religious belief that I would hold in utter contempt, it would be Calvinism in any of its forms. The 'saving grace' here is the irony of those who claim to believe in Calvinism....don't, really. They don't like the idea of babies cast into hell any more than I do.

But my own belief is a bit more complicated than 'innnocent children go to heaven." I mean, I believe that...but I also believe firmly that there is a REASON for this earth life for us. there is a real purpose for us being born, using our physical bodies, learning to grow in character. It's an integral part of our eternal lives, and infants (and perhaps fetuses) who die, or are killed, before they can do that learning and growing are missing something extremely important. It is NOT 'mercy' to abort.

My own opinions regarding abortion don't rest on my religious beliefs at all, actually, so I'm going to address this from the base I do get my opinions from: how is it mercy to end a life that otherwise might have had a great, adventurous, productive and enjoyable one? Indeed, it's selfishness personified; it is our JOB to raise our children to be productive, happy people who can take what life hands out and find joy in it anyway; to be glad they were born.

To kill a human because you don't want to do that job? THAT is the purest of sociopathic selfish actions, IMO.

Now if I were to go on my religious beliefs, there's some leeway; MAYBE that spirit has another chance at another body and be born anyway to someone else. Maybe. It's all speculation and I'm not going to go kill someone because of that very 'out of left field' speculation. It's certainly not found in any doctrine of ours.

However, for us, abortion is a matter of the woman, her doctor and her religious leaders: it is decided after a goodly amount of thought and prayer, and the decision is hers, along with the consequences of it. Unless it is a medical emergency and then, of course, the decision is obvious. In fact, my religion is a bit more...understanding...than I am personally. Not much more, but somewhat.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

You're assuming that poverty = unhappiness, and that it is better to never be born than to live in poverty. This is erroneous. The people who live in poverty in this century still have better lives than everyone who was alive 1000 years ago, and much better lives than wild animals who have to struggle for their very survival every day. So, by your logic, someone born in an earlier historical era, or a wild animal, would prefer to die than live. Yet this is certainly not the case. Even wild animals with terrible lives fight for existence and don't want to die.

Your being erroneous by assuming the Western standard of poverty. Most of the world has no health care, lives on less than $2.50 a day. Barely enough to feed themselves

 

[dybmh]

The simple answer is, regarding abortion: the people who are opposed to it, the activists, seem to be doing it for unselfish motives. There are people who jump on the bad wagon for political reasons. And there are people who jump on the band wagon because it makes them feel superior.

But, all in all, from my conversations with people in the real world, pro-lifers are indeed pro-life.

If in that same conversation, the topic flips to health-care or American Military involvement overseas; most pro-lifers I talk with could be labeled anti-life, but that is irrelevant to the spirit of the OP.

That said, you asked,

Abortion as Mercy... why have children other than your own selfish desire?

Even if it starts out selfish, "It would be fun to have kids." or "I want kids to take care of me when I get old", most parents I know give and give and give. And they never stop giving. I honestly think most parents need to give a little less. Let the kids lead, let the kids fail a little more often. But it is definitely not selfish.

When my wife and I decided to have kids, it was because, she and I are good people and we thought it would be good for the world to do our part to bring good kids into the world. It's not a guaranteed thing that our kids will turn out productive. But, so far so good.

It would have been a lot more selfish to maintain our careers, go travel the world, and spend money on ourselves. Instead, we have 2 kids, and we are trying to raise them right. Caring about people, recognizing diversity and stereotypes, rewarding restraint. And it's not easy. And we worry about them. And we have sacrificed a lot.

But it's fun too. It keeps us young.

But the decision was not at all a selfish desire, not for my wife and I.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Your being erroneous by assuming the Western standard of poverty. Most of the world has no health care, lives on less than $2.50 a day. Barely enough to feed themselves

Wild animals don't have healthcare, don't have money, and struggle to find enough food, which is the point I already made. Yet they prefer life to death. Similarly, early humans had no healthcare or money, and nearly starved. Yet, they still managed to find enjoyment in life. Why not use a pro-choice argument that is actually root in reality rather than fantasy?

 

[Nakosis]

If part of your ethics are to do no harm, to prevent and mitigate suffering and to be unselfish shouldn't be the act of abortion be construed as a mercy? When a child is born into this world, I am 100% sure that it will suffer, most likely for the rest of its life, this is an act of causing harm. And what is child-bearing? What is the reason for it other than some selfish need? Other than someone gets it into their head that they want children regardless of the consequences of the act. That seems to me the epitome of selfishness. We cannot determine the fate of the child born into this world other than they will suffer and cause harm, so what makes you think that bringing a child to term is anything other than selfishness unless you find some means to prevent that suffering and that harm? If you can't then why have children other than your own selfish desire?

I don't think we have the right to judge the life that is worth living. Sure we all suffer and have to deal with it. Doesn't mean if I decide your suffering is greater than mine I should end your life and consider it mercy.

However great the suffering that IMO is still a choice for the individual to make, not those who have taken it upon themselves to decide someone else's life is not worth living.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Wild animals don't have healthcare, don't have money, and struggle to find enough food, which is the point I already made. Yet they prefer life to death.

Somehow you have access to the mind of a water buffalo starving

Similarly, early humans had no healthcare or money, and nearly starved. Yet, they still managed to find enjoyment in life.

And you also have access to a time machine and are able to read the minds of early humans and know how they felt about things.

Why not use a pro-choice argument that is actually root in reality rather than fantasy?

Come again. Because your argument is the epitome of fantasy, all you gave was emotionalism when I gave actual facts.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Somehow you have access to the mind of a water buffalo starving

If you fire at a wild animal it will run away, proving that it wants to live.

And you also have access to a time machine and are able to read the minds of early humans and know how they felt about things.

The majority of early humans didn't kill themselves before they reproduced, since the human race still exists. Thus, clearly they preferred existence to non-existence.

Come again. Because your argument is the epitome of fantasy, all you gave was emotionalism when I gave actual facts.

You have given no facts. If you really think life is only suffering, I think you should seek professional help. And I am not trying to be condescending. Despising life is not a healthy way to live.

 

[dianaiad]

Just a chime in....

Look. I think life is very worth living. I find joy in every single day I have...but I guarantee you that most people looking at my life would consider it to be, er...not good. Chemotherapy is not fun, and I'm never going to be able to live without it. I'm certainly not going to make it until my 75th birthday, absent a miracle.

I don't care. I find joy in my life. So do the children I used to teach who were physically and mentally disabled. Some of YOU may think we'd be better off dead, but we don't think so.

So to those of you who think that it is 'mercy' to abort, or that children are parasites, or that having children is selfish and the world would be better off with fewer people?

Two words.

You first.

 

[dianaiad]

It is the case though. 1/2 of the worlds population lives in poverty and 1/3 live in extreme poverty

So the solution is to not have kids and spend the money and time one would have used for them on oneself, instead, all while y'all look down your noses at those of us who do have children, and sacrifice money and time to raise them right, and call US 'selfish?"

Figures.

If you are so convinced of your argument, why aren't you in China or India or Africa or somewhere, working your tail off to FIX that for those who are, as you claim, too poverty stricken to have any enjoyment in life? Why aren't you so busy doing that, that you have no time to argue with people on a debate forum?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

So the solution is to not have kids and spend the money and time one would have used for them on oneself, instead, all while y'all look down your noses at those of us who do have children, and sacrifice money and time to raise them right, and call US 'selfish?"

Figures.

If you are so convinced of your argument, why aren't you in China or India or Africa or somewhere, working your tail off to FIX that for those who are, as you claim, too poverty stricken to have any enjoyment in life? Why aren't you so busy doing that, that you have no time to argue with people on a debate forum?

Yes you are selfish. The US is less than 5% of the world's population but using 25% of the world's oil, 25% of the coal and 25% of natural gas. Yet you think it is a good idea to selfishly bring more consumers into this world so they can take and take and take while 2/3rds of this world suffer poverty. Yes it is absolutely certain that you have children for no other selfish reason but to inflict your DNA upon the world. It is selfishness, always has been.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

If you fire at a wild animal it will run away, proving that it wants to live.

You are anthropomorphizing animals. The fight or flee response has nothing to do with a creature's volition but is an evolutionary adaptation. It is a automatic physiological response that has nothing to do with will

The majority of early humans didn't kill themselves before they reproduced, since the human race still exists. Thus, clearly they preferred existence to non-existence.

Again, evolutionary adaptation. The biological imperative or babie-rabies as I call it is physiological in nature. All creatures that reproduce demonstrate it. Thus, clearly it had nothing to do with them preferring existence to non-existence but their selfish genes promoting their survival in disregard to the health, safety or happiness of the organism. Just go ask Dawkins about this one.

You have given no facts. If you really think life is only suffering, I think you should seek professional help. And I am not trying to be condescending. Despising life is not a healthy way to live.

I have shown that most of the world and it's people are suffering and all you have done is construct fantasy about water buffaloes and cavemen.

 

[whirlingmerc]

If part of your ethics are to do no harm, to prevent and mitigate suffering and to be unselfish shouldn't be the act of abortion be construed as a mercy? When a child is born into this world, I am 100% sure that it will suffer, most likely for the rest of its life, this is an act of causing harm. And what is child-bearing? What is the reason for it other than some selfish need? Other than someone gets it into their head that they want children regardless of the consequences of the act. That seems to me the epitome of selfishness. We cannot determine the fate of the child born into this world other than they will suffer and cause harm, so what makes you think that bringing a child to term is anything other than selfishness unless you find some means to prevent that suffering and that harm? If you can't then why have children other than your own selfish desire?

It tends to be the other way. The inconvenience and burden of a child is weighed against more short term choices and freedoms. Once might argue the selfishness is the other way?

Would you say if a 2 year old was inconvenient due to a families economic down turn they would be selfish to keep it since they can't afford to send it to Harvard? Seems a very weak self refuting argument to claim that