Columbus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_BostonMA
Not necessarily. LWF has argued on other threads that rape victims should not be allowed to abort.

Contraception is not always 100% effective.

There hasn't been a response to this.
Most of the arguments for abortion seem based upon the perception that pregnancy is a random event for which no-one is responsible. A person "becomes" pregnant, as opposed to "chooses" the risk of pregnancy. No-one seems willing to address the fact that pregnancy is a choice, it is always preventable. Making a bad choice does not give you the right to kill rather than live with the results of your choice.
Women are commonly pressured into making such bad choices. This is a tremendous moral challenge. No-one should ever be put in a position where they feel they must exchange sex for anything. But it happens all the time. Abortion allows males to sweep a lot of bad behaviour under the rug. Eliminating abortion will require working on this problem. Allowing abortion facilitates much immoral behaviour on the part of men who see women as sex objects instead of people.

Tom

Anne Fidel

I disagree that having any fate at all is better than none. There is nothing more awful, more pitiable, or more heartbreaking than an infant in pain, and if that is all that they will ever know, it's better that they never live.

I disagree that my view is any kind of dogma or blind faith. I have thought very deeply about this issue myself. If an embryo doesn't even know that it's alive and can't think or feel, I don't see the problem with an abortion from a murder standpoint. Morals on this issue usually do depend on the opinions of people and not the facts. The fact is that an abortion destroys a potential human being. Personal morals come into play when deciding what constitutes an actual human being. If you believe that an embryo smaller than the naked eye is a human being and deserves equal rights, then abortion would be murder for you. Since you are a man, I don't see where the problem is, since you can't have one in the first place. You can say that since half the genetic material is from you, you should have a say, but I respectfully decline that position. The woman is the one who is pregnant and should have final say on everything from abortion to drugs during childbirth to whether or not to breastfeed. The rest of the parenting can be equal. Sorry, we get to carry the child, we get to make those decisions. That's nature for you.

As for whether or not abortion is a good thing, I personally don't think so. However, that answer very much depends upon your individual situation.

Anne Fidel

I became pregnant on birth control. I used it properly, but I still got pregnant. Sure, my husband and I could have been abstinate, but I have a feeling that abstinance could be a bit harmful for a marriage. In my personal viewpoint, I feel that I have a responsibility to have any child that I become pregnant with, because just having sex even with protection is a risk. I am not asking all women to share that viewpoint, though.

For what it's worth (and I'm shocked to be revealing something so personal), I was raped when I was 16. If I had gotten pregnant, I don't know whether or not I would have had the baby. I never even told anyone about the rape at the time. I was so frightened, traumatized, and ashamed that I wasn't very emotionally stable. I don't know what kind of mother I would have been in that state. I don't know that I could have made myself go through pregnancy on top of all that. My heart goes out to any woman or teen who has ever had to face anything like that. I would never force a girl or woman who had been raped to continue a pregnancy.

It seems to me that you equate sex with bad behavior for which pregnancy is a just punishment. This confuses me a bit. Sex is a natural and beautiful thing, whether between a loving couple or a couple of strangers. It's not a sin. Here's the problem....the pregnancy that results more often than not winds up being the sole responsibility of the woman. Sure, if she can find the guy and legally force him to pay child-support, she gets a little cash out of him. Assuming he's a good guy and understands his responsibilities, of course. There's no guarantee that he's going to be there to change diapers or teach the kid to read, of course. So how is it that women are being somehow abused by being given the option for an abortion? Seems to me they can't win either way. Either they can have an abortion, for which they go through the emotional and physical pain for, or they can have the baby and chase that deadbeat dad across state lines for a measely couple hundred dollars a month in assistance. Abortions give women options, they don't take them away.

Yggdrasill

Hence, "human" is arbitrary.And everyone who like concise, objective and universal definitions.Virtually all definitions. The definition of computer
is "an electronic machine which is used for storing, organizing and finding words, numbers and pictures, for doing calculations and for controlling other machines:", it is composed of objective requirements for a computer. It must be an electronic machine, with the definition of electronic
being "using, based on or used in a system of operation which involves the control of electric current by various devices", that leads us to conclude that the computer must use electricity. And the purpose of the computer is "storing, organizing and finding words, numbers and pictures, for doing calculations and for controlling other machines", if it doesn't do anything like this, it's not a computer.The analogy is faulty, it would only be comparable if Nickolson had said "Tell us who you are." and Sandler said "I am Adam Sandler", then Nickolson would have to ask "I don't want to know your name, I want to know who you are.", and Sandler would continue saying things like "Adam Sandler is who I am.", "I am no other than Adam Sandler", "The one who I am is Adam Sandler", etc. Explaining what he does, his hobbies, his personality is telling them who he is, but listing a synonym isn't giving any information.Viritually no definitions are synonyms, only the crappy ones. If they were synonyms, they'd be a single word that has the definition of hat you're trying to define, like the "computer"="PC" analogy.It seems to me like we are not in agreement, your definition of "human" is arbitrary.Okay, so how do you define "person"? I wouldn't use the word "person", because it would strech the common usage of the word too much, "person" implies "human", and "human" is arbitrary.

Yggdrasill

Because I didn't have too much time when I wrote my last post, I'll elaborate a little.The definitions I got from cambridge don't have to be absolutely correct, but they are objective and universal, it is possible to use the words "computer" and "electronic" in contexts where they mean something else, but it has to be clear what they mean. Similarly, in a discussion, when one participant uses a word that the other participants think are poorly defined, it's up to the person who used the word to properly define it. It's entirely possible to define a word in a way that the dictionary hasn't, for the sake of the discussion, as long as that is clear to the participants. I want you to properly define "human".If I had to use a word, I would use the word with the definition of "self-aware, intelligent organisms which are capable of emotion, learning, recieving and processing sensory input and affecting reality.", as far as I know, there is no word with that definition, but if you agree that "person" will be defined as such for the duration of the discussion, saying that only people are valuable is okay with me; but I think that just about all organisms fit the definition to some degree, so you have to add some gradation. I think the relative value of the persons is relative to the degree to which they fit the definition of the word, i.e. those who exactly fit the definition are highly valuable, while for example bacteria, which can only be said to be able to recieve and process primitive sensory input and affect reality to the slightest extent, are almost worthless.

You see, my definition of "person" is objective and universal, while your definition of "human" is arbitrary. I suggest you place them side by side for a comparison, perhaps then you will see the difference between listing a synonym and giving a proper definition.

Stephen_BostonMA

Inalienable means incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. No rights are truly inalienable - not even the right to life, regardless of whether or not abortion is legal.

Innocent people die in wars. "Just" wars are fought to protect life. But aren't there also just wars fought primarily to defend such concepts as liberty and self-determination, or to eliminate slavery?

Stephen_BostonMA

So in other words, make women suffer the consequences of their bad decisions, in order to liberate other women in the future?

Yahzi

So, if you go skiing, and break your leg, should your doctor refuse to treat you because you "chose" to accept the risk of broken legs when you chose to go skiing?

Except it is not always preventable; birth control sometimes fails, and abstinence does not protect you from rape. Your sentence is simply factually false, on all levels.

Choosing to have sex for its social, emotional, and physical effects, while desiring to avoid pregancy, is not a bad choice. I realize that you despise sex in all of its forms, as per Paul's instructions, but the rest of us do not. In fact, science has shown that people with healthy sex lives are healthier. Unless they get pregnant - because pregnancy routinely kills people.

Perhaps we should just castrate all the men. That would solve the problem. In fact, it's the Biblically suggested solution. Oddly, it doesn't seem too popular. Must be Satan's doing.

Abortion allows women to exercise the same control over their bodies that men have over theirs. If the police came and chained you to a hospital bed for 9 months so another person could share your internal organs, you would be outraged. If all they wanted to do was take a pint of blood every week (something you could easily spare), you would be outraged. You take your soveriegn control over your own body for granted. But then, when a woman expressly locks her door and engages in private behaviour, you expect her to support whatever random person happens to sneak past that door.

Just imagine coming home and finding a bum in your house; and the cops telling you that even though you locked your door and put up "No Tresspassing" signs, you are still responsible for feeding the bum for the next 20 years. You chose this risk by having food in your house, which is known to attract bums; you chose not to restrict yourself to eating at resteraunts. Therefore you are legally liable for the results.

Arguments against abortion, like arguments for God, immediately fall apart when you apply their form to any other content.

Yahzi

Nowdays we have the 'morning after' pill. I would imagine that would be the least intrusive, most helpful response to the threat of pregancy from rape: take a pill and stop worrying about it. I can't imagine anyone objecting to this.

But surprise, surprise; they do. The federal guidelines just issued contain no mention of emergency contraception. Score one for the Pope.

I am sorry to hear about your tragedy; I am even more sorry to hear that you did not feel you could talk about it at the time. I do recall reading that 1/4 of the women in America are raped at some point (half of them as juveniles). I am amazed that you can deal with Columbus' insenstivity so well, and I applaud you on your clear thinking and strong character.

It is, after all, attitudes like Columbus's that create the climate in which rape occurs. If pregancy is punishement for sex, then sex is punishment for being alluring, and being alluring is punishment for being born female, so men are at every stage of the game excused from responsiblity for their actions. Which of course is the point of this attitude in the first place: to excuse men and control women.

Stephen_BostonMA

Great posts, Yahzi. :thumbs: