Brian K.

Is this solely a religious issue. I personally am pro-choice, but I am also an atheist. I personally think wether not abortion should be carried out relies on the situation, but no matter the situation, I couldn't tell another person they couldn't abort their fetus. What are your veiws.

alek0

I think only pregnant woman has the right to make the decision. However, I do support restrictions on third trimester abortions (i.e. only for medical reasons). There was plenty of time to decide to do so while fetus was not viable.
Where I come from, abortions for non-medical reasons are legal only in the first trimester. However, it can be done in any health center, and nearest one is rarely more distant than half an hour walk. In addition to that, there are private clinics. In US though based on what I heard, I'd say second trimester abortions should be legal also due to access problems.

But then you know I'm a god damned infidel. I am pro-choice, I am concerned about environment (maybe because I don't think that imaginary friend will step in to save our asses when we screw up entirely), I am for animal rights, against death punishment, in favour of assisted suicide, etc.

Can someone explain me the paradox of some pro-lifers supporting wars and capital punishment?
Not to mention that pro-life is actually pro_human_fetus_life_only_while_in_the_womb_we_don 't_care_if_it_starves_after_it_is_born. All other lives don't matter that much to them it seems. Or else they'd be spending time feeding the hungry instead of protesting in front of abortion clinics.

ManM

If we consider the fetus to be a human being, abortion is equivalent to murder.

Of course, the final decision is up to the mother, and I really have no business trying to choose for her. I personally think there is a very simple solution: if you don't want a baby, don't have sex.

Queen of Swords

Unless the abortion is performed before the fetus develops.

Bree

Why don't more people think of birth control as abortion - since you're basically "killing the child" before it even has a chance to have a chance to be developed???

Jayhawker Soule

I am a long-standing atheist who has raised 4 kids and now squanders much of his excess capital on grandchildren. I know of no issue that has given me more difficulty than the abortion issue.

I do, however, believe the following:

• The issue is not "pro-choice" verses "pro-life", but whether or not abortion is to be legal or criminal. I can think of no circumstances wherein the criminalization of abortion would not result in the greater harm in today's society.
• The "pro choice" issue has meaning only after the issue of "life" is resolved or intentionally set aside by society as a whole.
• A goal of an enlightened society would be the elimination of abortion as a necessary or preferred option.
• Respect for life is a good thing. To the extent that they exist, attitudes that enable or justify abortion for convenience are socially destructive.

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

kctan

Well you could also think of the sperms & eggs dying by themselves due to its producers not having sex & where will this get you ?

Abstainers are guilty of murdering their offsprings by not having sex & thus not giving them a chance to be borned...

Thinking in this way, priests & nuns are the worst murderers of them all.

Jamie_L

Having lost a child late in a pregnancy, it's hard for me to fathom wanting to end a pregnancy on purpose.

But that's me, and I know from all sorts of other situations that I'm not the yardstick that ought to be used to measure other people's lives.

I've got ethical problems with late-term abortions that don't involve protecting the mother's health/life.

Bottom line, though is I have a hard time justifying laws written by largely old, male legilative bodies that apply only to female constituents - mostly young ones at that. And as someone has mentioned - what really does the most good for society?

Jamie

bd-from-kg

Brian K.:

No. It’s a moral issue. Naturally, as is always true of moral issues, those whose moral views are based on their religious beliefs will cite those beliefs to explain their moral views.

Why “but”? Most atheists are pro-choice.

If you think it depends on the situation, you must think that abortion is sometimes wrong. It doesn’t make sense to say that you think something is wrong, but that you couldn’t tell someone that you think it’s wrong. The point of moral judgments is to convey approval or disapproval. If you refuse to communicate your moral judgments, there’s not much point in making them in the first place.

alek0:

Why?

Why?

[By the way, are you aware that in the U.S. the Supreme Court has effectively made it impossible to restrict abortions for any reason in any trimester, or even one second before the baby has emerged completely? ]

So what? What has viability to do with anything?

From the tone here it appears that you approve of your country’s policies in this area, yet earlier you said that you support restrictions on abortions only in the third trimester. Which is it, and why? What’s the rationale behind making abortions legal in the first trimester but not in the second? What’s the rationale behind making abortions legal in the second trimester but not in the third?

Your position would not be considered “pro-choice” in the U.S. (although it wouldn’t be considered “pro-life” either).

The rest of your post is an irrelevant ad hominem rant.

Your post would have been more interesting if you had made some minimal attempt to support any of your views with actual arguments.

ManM:

That doesn’t make sense. Murder is the illegal taking of a human life. To say that abortion is “equivalent to” murder is to say that it should be treated as murder – i.e., that it should be a major felony. This is inconsistent (to put it mildly) with saying that the final decision is up to the mother.

Also, to say that it’s equivalent to murder is to say that it involves violating the rights of another human being. If there are two people with rights involved there would seem to be no justification for saying that you have “no business” intervening on behalf of the weaker party. We do that all the time, both legally and in everyday life.

QueenofSwords:

And when would that be?

ReasonableDoubt:

Agreed. If only more pro-choice people were willing to actually address this issue.

That seem to be exactly what we’ve done in the U.S. (legally at least) and it hasn’t resolved a thing. You can’t resolve an issue by sweeping it under the rug.

I agree, but what steps do you think an “enlightened” society would take in this regard, and how effective do you think these steps would actually be?

Why?

This seems to be somewhat inconsistent with your final statement:

This only makes sense if you think that abortion is inconsistent with a decent respect for (human) life. The only meaningful way for society as such to express respect for human life is to extend it the protections of the law. To choose not to do so is to itself to express disrespect for human life as such, just as failing to extend legal protection to Jews, for example, would be expressing disrespect for human life as such. Since the only way to avoid the socially destructive consequences of expressing disrespect for human life by failing to protect it is to protect it, how can this also be socially destructive?

Jamie_L

Fine. But the point of most laws is not to punish people for “sinning” or doing “wicked” things, but to protect people from being harmed by others. The point of laws against abortion is to protect the fetus (that is, the unborn child: “fetus” is just Latin for “offspring”). This has nothing to do with “measuring other people’s lives” if by that you mean passing judgment on them.

Would you care to describe these ethical problems?

So there should be no laws that apply only to women? Perhaps we should repeal the laws against rape and sexual assault? What about sexual harassment laws? What about the laws regarding alimony and child support?

And what does being old have to do with anything? Would you have a complaint if legislatures consisted largely of older women?

Anyway, surely it’s obvious that, even though these legislatures consist largely of men, they are exquisitely sensitive to the concerns of women. The reason is obvious: women vote. And even though legislatures contain no children at all, they still seem to provide pretty well for children. Perhaps this is because most adults care about children. It seems plausible that, if legislatures pass laws against abortion, it will be because a majority of their constituents have come to support such laws, and just possibly because they care about what happens to unborn children.

Jayhawker Soule

[RD] The "pro choice" issue has meaning only after the issue of "life" is resolved ...
[bd] Agreed. If only more pro-choice people were willing to actually address this issue.

[RD] ... or intentionally set aside by society as a whole.
[bd] That seem to be exactly what we've done in the U.S. (legally at least) and it hasn't resolved a thing. You can't resolve an issue by sweeping it under the rug.

[RD] True. My point was only [sic!] that questions of 'choice' are subordinate. I can imagine society consciously adopting an agnostic position on the proposition: "abortion entails the taking of human life". In such a circumstance, I would defer decisions about abortion procedures to the medical profession and their patients.

[RD] A goal of an enlightened society would be the elimination of abortion as a necessary or preferred option.
[bg] I agree, but what steps do you think an "enlightened" society would take in this regard, and how effective do you think these steps would actually be?

[RD] I don't know. I would think the following would be a good start: (a) a qualitative and quantitative improvement in sex education, the ease and efficacy of contraceptive methods, and he availability of those methods, (b) making pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal service equally available, (c) streamlining adoption procedures, and (d) a persistent educational struggle against those attitudes which stigmatize those who would avail themselves of these services.

[RD] I can think of no circumstances wherein the criminalization of abortion would not result in the greater harm in today's society.
[bg] Why? This seems to be somewhat inconsistent with your final statement:

[RD] Because I abhore the thought of of a society characterized botched back-alley abortions, jailed doctors and midwives, and a massive influx of unwanted children birthed by terrorized or otherwise defeated women.

[RD] Respect for life is a good thing. To the extent that they exist, attitudes that enable or justify abortion for convenience are socially destructive.
[bg] This only makes sense if you think that abortion is inconsistent with a decent respect for (human) life. The only meaningful way for society as such to express respect for human life is to extend it the protections of the law.

[RD] IMO, neither assertion is correct.

[bg] To choose not to do so is to itself to express disrespect for human life as such, just as failing to extend legal protection to Jews, ...

[RD] This seems a curious comment. I'd be very interested in learning how and why you came to use it.

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>