Abort or Continue

This thread i would like to see peoples opinions on abortion and why they think its good or bad. i personally agree with abortion but do not think it should be use as a contraceptive alternative. Some peoples religion and feeling are oposite to mine, so i would like to know what you peeps think.
🙂

Originally posted by purclecow
This thread i would like to see peoples opinions on abortion and why they think its good or bad. i personally agree with abortion but do not think it should be use as a contraceptive alternative. Some peoples religion and feeling are oposite to mine, so i would like to know what you peeps think.
🙂

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Abortion is wrong except where the mother's life is in danger and an emergency abortion is needed. It is wrong and unconscionable, in my opinion, to use it simply because one chooses not to have a baby for whatever reason other than medically emergent ones: i.e. birth control, change of heart, disrupt college plans, etc... While I do respect the mo ...[text shortened]... h century, and a woman should be able to kill her unborn baby if she wants to...but you asked...

As in the huge debate between pcaspian and bbar, i will make a distinction between three types of pregnancy, plus a special situation in wich i don't have an answer ready;

1) Pregnancy without concensus of the woman.
2) Pregnancy with consensus of the woman, and the sex was intended for pregnancy
3) Pregnancy with consensus of the woman, and the sex was not intended for pregnancy.
4) The life of the woman is in danger for some reason, when near-birth

Case 1; I feel that abortion is admittable in this case, in the VERY EARLY stages of pregnancy. If the fetus is developped too far i find it wrong to abort that child. Pregnancy tests will indicate pregnancy, and with that the woman will know early enough to abort the pregnancy. If the woman doesn't take a test, then abortion is wrong. No test; no abortion.

Case 2; No abortion. You choose to have a child, you give birth to it and take your responsibilities (this applies to the father as well!)

Case 3; Same as Case 1, abortion is admittable in the VERY EARLY stages of pregnancy. If the fetus is developped too much, it's wrong to end that life. Again, tests will show if the woman is pregnant or not. By not taking a test, the woman consents to perhaps having a child. No test; no abortion. Also, if the precautions taken were inadequate; no abortion. Only in the case of a true accident will abortion be admittable in some cases.

Case 4; I have no idea...both the child and the mother have an equal right to live (remember; the child didn't choose to be conceived! It is not the child's fault to be there!).

Originally posted by purclecow
is it wrong to abort if a woman is raped and ends up pregnant with the rapists baby?

Well, if you want my views, I follow Buddha's.

He says that the moment the sperm meets the ovum is the moment a mind leaves the bardo state (the bardo state is the state at which the mind has left the body of it's previous life and is waiting to be placed in another body. A mind can be in bardo for anywhere up to about 49 days) and enters a body. By performing an abortion, the mind re-enters bardo, and you have just killed a living being.

Of course, while the baby is in the womb it does not have the gross awareness that we do outside the womb. The mind is subtle when we are in our mothers wombs, and the more subtle our mind, the less we can remember. As we develop awareness of our senses, our mind becomes less subtle and we can remember a lot more. This is why we cannot remember the bardo state or being born (or previous lives), simply because our mind was too subtle. When we dream our mind is also fairly subtle, but not as subtle as when we experience deep sleep, which is why sometimes it is hard to remember dreams.

Whoops, kinda trailed off there...

Originally posted by DreamlaX
Well, if you want my views, I follow Buddha's.

He says that the moment the sperm meets the ovum is the moment a mind leaves the bardo state (the bardo state is the state at which the mind has left the body of it's previous life and is waiting to be placed in another body. A mind can be in bardo for anywhere up to about 49 days) and enters a body. By pe ...[text shortened]... eep, which is why sometimes it is hard to remember dreams.

Whoops, kinda trailed off there...

Its her body and she would have to look the child, therefoe she can abort if she wants.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Abortion is wrong except where the mother's life is in danger and an emergency abortion is needed. It is wrong and unconscionable, in my opinion, to use it simply because one chooses not to have a baby for whatever reason other than medically emergent ones: i.e. birth control, change of heart, disrupt college plans, etc... While I do respect the mo ...[text shortened]... h century, and a woman should be able to kill her unborn baby if she wants to...but you asked...

The argument from Rape and Incest is often used in the abortion debate by Pro-Choicers. It is also often used by Bbarr in order to be able to negatively lable his opponents as being "stupid", "ignorant", "religiously insane", "monstrous" or whatever comes to his mind at that moment. The fallacy of "Attack ad Hominem".

The Argument from Rape and Incest.

A woman who becomes pregnant due to an act of either rape or incest is the victim of a horribly violent and morally reprehensible crime. Although pregnancy as a result of either rape or incest is extremely rare, there is no getting around the fact that pregnancy does occur in some instances. Bioethicist Andrew Varga summarizes the argument from rape and incest in the following way:

It is argued that in these tragic cases the great value of the mental health of a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest can best be safe-guarded by abortion. It is also said that a pregnancy caused by rape or incest is the result of a grave injustice and that the victim should not be obliged to carry the fetus to viability. This would keep reminding her for nine months of the violence committed against her and would just increase her mental anguish. It is reasoned that the value of the woman's mental health is greater than the value of the fetus. In addition, it is maintained that the fetus is an aggressor against the woman's integrity and personal life; it is only just and morally defensible to repel an aggressor even by killing him if that is the only way to defend personal and human values. It is concluded, then, that abortion is justified in these cases.

Despite its forceful appeal to our sympathies, there are several problems with this argument. First, it is not relevant to the case for abortion on demand, the position defended by the popular pro-choice movement. This position states that a woman has a right to have an abortion for any reason she prefers during the entire nine months of pregnancy, whether it be for gender-selection, convenience, or rape. To argue for abortion on demand from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare circumstances, such as when one's spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital. Proving an exception does not establish a general rule.


Second, the unborn entity is not an aggressor when its presence does not endanger its mother's life (as in the case of a tubal pregnancy). It is the rapist who is the aggressor. The unborn entity is just as much an innocent victim as its mother. Hence, abortion cannot be justified on the basis that the unborn is an aggressor.

Third, this argument begs the question by assuming that the unborn is not fully human. For if the unborn is fully human, then we must weigh the relieving of the woman's mental suffering against the right-to-life of an innocent human being. And homicide of another is never justified to relieve one of emotional distress. Although such a judgment is indeed anguishing, we must not forget that the same innocent unborn entity that the career-oriented woman will abort in order to avoid interference with a job promotion is biologically and morally indistinguishable from the unborn entity that results from an act of rape or incest. And since abortion for career advancement cannot be justified if the unborn entity is fully human, abortion cannot be justified in the cases of rape and incest. In both cases abortion results in the death of an innocent human life. As Dr. Bernard Nathanson has written, "The unwanted pregnancy flows biologically from the sexual act, but not morally from it." Hence, this argument, is successful only if the unborn are not fully human.

Some pro-choice advocates claim that the pro-lifer lacks compassion, since the pro-lifer's position on rape and incest forces a woman to carry her baby against her will. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the rapist who has already forced this woman to carry a child, not the pro-lifer. The pro-life advocate wants to prevent another innocent human being (the unborn entity) from being the victim of a violent and morally reprehensible act (abortion), for two wrongs do not make a right. As theologian and ethicist Dr. Michael Bauman has observed: "A child does not lose its right to life simply because its father or its mother was a sexual criminal or a deviant."

Furthermore, the anguish and psychic suffering caused by rape and incest has been treated quite effectively. Professor Stephen Krason points out that "psychological studies have shown that, when given the proper support, most pregnant rape victims progressively change their attitudes about their unborn child from something repulsive to someone who is innocent and uniquely worthwhile." The pro-life advocate believes that help should be given to the rape victim "to make it as easy as possible for her to give up her baby for adoption, if she desires. Dealing with the woman pregnant from rape, then, can be an opportunity for us -- both as individuals and society -- to develop true understanding and charity. Is it not better to try to develop these virtues than to countenance an ethic of destruction as the solution?"



So far the Argument for Rape and Incest.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The argument from Rape and Incest is often used in the abortion debate by Pro-Choicers. It is also often used by Bbarr in order to be able to negatively lable his opponents as being "stupid", "ignorant", "religiously insane", "monstrous" or whatever comes to his mind at that moment. The fallacy of "Attack ad Hominem".

The Argument from Rape an ...[text shortened]... e an ethic of destruction as the solution?"



So far the Argument for Rape and Incest.

Originally posted by purclecow
is it wrong to abort if a woman is raped and ends up pregnant with the rapists baby?

Originally posted by shavixmir
It's a woman's body. End of story Ivanhoe.

If she wants to slit her wrists, it's up to her.
If she wants to masturbate, it's up to her.
If she wants to smoke pot, it's up to her.
And ultimately, if she wants rid of a foetus, you can't stop her! It's up to her.

No morality. No good or bad. It's up to her.
Now, if she doesn't want an ab ...[text shortened]... TTTTTTTTTT:
If she wants to...it's her body....

Argument closed as far as I'm concerned.

I think i have to agree with ivanhoe there. I think that some people just don't have consideration for anyone else and choose to just look after number one. Now the woman cutting herself up is something totally different there. That is nothing to do with someone having a small person alive inside of you. I think the woman doesn't need an abortion but needs some help! How can u possibly refer to abortions with someone cutting themself? That's repulsive

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Shavix; "Argument closed as far as I'm concerned"

.... except for the fact that it is NOT her body, it's someone elses body.

.
Shavix: "To be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd want my girlfriend to abort. ... "

Now thàt is something you should investigate. What is the reason for you not wanting that ?

Wouldn't it be weird if we were ...[text shortened]... e autonomy of the other ?

What are the reasons for not wanting your girlfriend to abort ?
.