1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If you would consider having an abortion (or consider wanting your wife/girlfriend to have one) why?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by justbehappy, Mar 7, 2010.

  1. justbehappy

    justbehappy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    430
    Ratings:
    +13
    It's like they're going to be shipped off to a foreign country. There are programs here that help pregnant mothers pick out a family for their child - And there are MANY to chose from and that are stuck on the waiting list. Many of these are couples that cannot have children on their own.
     
  2. justbehappy

    justbehappy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    430
    Ratings:
    +13
    It's responsible to end your child's life when there is the option to give it to someone who would love it?
     
  3. Revasser

    Revasser Terrible Dancer

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    2,737
    Ratings:
    +326
    Religion:
    6
    Hence "bizarre turn of circumstance." I absolutely agree with you. If you manage to get to the stage where an abortion has to be considered, you and/or your partner have made some major blunders up to that point.
     
  4. Revasser

    Revasser Terrible Dancer

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    2,737
    Ratings:
    +326
    Religion:
    6
    Yes, though I disagree with your calling a potentially days-old embryo a "child".

    Dangerously high levels of human population, the dismal state of adoption bureaucracy and the potential end result for the child if they don't manage to make it through the system all the way to those people who might love them.

    Not to mention the physical, financial and psychological burden to the woman (and in some respects, the man) in carrying an unwanted foetus to term.
     
  5. justbehappy

    justbehappy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    430
    Ratings:
    +13
    It is your child, your offspring, a life from you - whatever you want to call it. Like I said in a previous post, there are programs that let pregnant women chose a family to give their child to. They can meet the family and learn about them, and there are many out there on waiting lists. A lot of there are couples that cannot have children themselves, and the sad thing is that women immediately turn to abortion before even considering options like these. Yes it is emotionally difficult, but that's no excuse to take the easy way out when there are other options that do involve ending a life. Considering adoption to me is the responsible thing to do, and if a woman is having an abortion because they do not want the "physical burden" of pregnancy, than that is completely irresponsible.
     
  6. MSizer

    MSizer MSizer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,369
    Ratings:
    +449
    Not to speak for Revasser, but if abortion takes place within the first 8 weeks, the "child" (as you incorrectly refer to it) does not feel pain, is not self aware, and has no concept of self-interest. Therefore, the "child" is basically electric meat at that stage, much like a plant. I find it hard to understand why you would question terminating such a being, yet you (presumably - I'm only guessing) have no problem with people killing living sentient concious self-aware cows for food. For the record, after week 8, I do not support elective abortion on the grounds that the "child" is likely able to feel pain.

    I don't think it's a justifiable stance.
     
  7. justbehappy

    justbehappy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    430
    Ratings:
    +13
    This is why I wanted to keep it on a personal standpoint. For the record, I am pro-choice, but I would be the one in front of the abortion clinic with a sign. I do not have a right to tell other people what to do with their bodies, but that does not mean I think it is right. By calling it a child, I am simply saying that it is an offspring, and I am aware that it is not developed and cannot feel at an early stage, etc. I don't think I would have a right to debate this if I was not aware of those things. To me, that has nothing to do with it, though. The fact is that it WILL become a completely developed human life under normal circumstances, and I think that every life should have a chance to develop, be born, and continue that life. The only thing that conflicts with that right is that the fact that it is inside another's womb.
     
  8. MSizer

    MSizer MSizer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,369
    Ratings:
    +449
    If that were justification, then we should have moral inhibitions against digging up soil, as it will eventually make up the biological matter that will become a sentient living being too.
     
  9. justbehappy

    justbehappy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    430
    Ratings:
    +13
    This is a completely different issue. I eat vegetables and I eat meat, like most people do, so it is clear that the rights of animals and plants are much different than human lives.
     
  10. MSizer

    MSizer MSizer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,369
    Ratings:
    +449
    Well I disagree with you (partially) on that matter, but it's not what I was referring to.

    My point is that the universal expressed principles of moral domains are harm and fairness. Harm and fairness don't apply to non-concious matter, living or not. That's why a zygote (pre-sentient) is not a moral patient IMO, while a living chicken is (or a post-sentient zygote, human or other).
     
  11. TheKnight

    TheKnight Guardian of Life

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,100
    Ratings:
    +195
    Personally, I would try my best not to end up in a situation where abortion would ever need to be considered.

    Would I get one? Only if there was a threat to the life of the mother that would be caused by the baby's birth. Outside of that, there is no choice on my part or anyone else's. Taking human life (sentient or non-sentient, pain feeling or non-pain feeling) is wrong.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. MSizer

    MSizer MSizer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,369
    Ratings:
    +449
    But are you appealing to an operative principle or an expressed principle to arrive at this conclusion? I suspect an operative one, based on the emotion of disgust as a reaction to ingroup loyalty. What expressed principle can you appeal to using logic to justify your claim?
     
  13. justbehappy

    justbehappy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    430
    Ratings:
    +13
    I think that it being a human life changes things completely. How often do you see debates for the lives of unborn animals? I am not aware of how the majority feels on abortion, but I think there is definitely enough opposed to say that it is not universal that harm to pre-sentient human life is morally just.
     
  14. MSizer

    MSizer MSizer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,369
    Ratings:
    +449
    If the lack of debate for animal rights were an argument supporting the dismissal for concern about the comparative moral patiency between human and non-human animals, then it would be logical to conclude that slavery never should have been abolished, since there was a time where very few opposed it.
     
  15. TheKnight

    TheKnight Guardian of Life

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,100
    Ratings:
    +195
    To justify my claim that taking human life is wrong?

    It's simple. Right and wrong are matters of morality, the moral system I subscribe to (that I came to by logic) states that the taking of human life (and any life in general) without specified good reason is wrong.
     
  16. justbehappy

    justbehappy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    430
    Ratings:
    +13
    You brought up what is universally considered moral, and I was simply saying that abortion being universally moral is incorrect. At that time, I guess you WOULD say that slavery was. But times changed, and people's views changed. At the time that slavery was abolished it was not.
     
  17. MSizer

    MSizer MSizer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,369
    Ratings:
    +449
    I know I'm being a pain in the *** here, but that's not a justification, that's just a repetition of your claim. Why is the taking of human life wrong? I disagree. I think the taking of life from a concious being is wrong, on the grounds that concious beings have the capacity to suffer, which is universally agreed upon as undesirable. I also extend it to ecosystems, on the ground that suffering of sentient beings results from harming ecosystems.

    You haven't provided a justification for your stance.
     
  18. MSizer

    MSizer MSizer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,369
    Ratings:
    +449
    Let me get this straight (honestly, I'm not sure I understood your last post). Are you saying that slavery was morally permissible at one time?
     
  19. justbehappy

    justbehappy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    430
    Ratings:
    +13
    If you go into the room of someone that is in a coma and stab them or what not, is that just? The are unconcious, and they are not suffering.
     
  20. justbehappy

    justbehappy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    430
    Ratings:
    +13
    Universally, yes (at least in America). I am not saying that just because it was it was right, but the VAST majority felt that it was justified.
     
Loading...