an abortion thread with no personal attacks

[strijder20]

Do the people who are pro-life here prefer situation A over situation B? I suppose so, but asking it anyway:

A:
A young woman gets pregnant with her boyfriend. Her friend decides to leave her though, and she decides not to commit abortion. Because of the child she has to abandon her studies and earns a low wage for the rest of her life, and she can't spend much time and money to raise her kid. Her child is also making it harder for her to find a husband.

B:
A young woman gets pregnant with her boyfriend. Her friend decides to leave her though, and she decides to commit abortion. A few years later, she graduates, finds a man, marries, and gets pregnant. In this situation, there probably is more time and money for the child than in A.

I think these situations aren't that uncommon, and they are one of the reasons I'm pro-choice.

 

[Arakhor]

Commit abortion? That's an odd phrasing of the term.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think it would be a valid argument to a point. However, I'm well aware that pro-choice people THINK that its not mass murder. In any case, sperm just has the same DNA as the male. When combined with the woman's egg, the fetus has its own DNA. That's the difference.

You so missed the point

Well, I can't make it any clearer than I just did.

edit: Oh and by the way, my intelligence does feel insulted about your explanation what the difference is. If you really think I'm not aware of that, thanks!

 

[Farm Boy]

Do the people who are pro-life here prefer situation A over situation B? I suppose so, but asking it anyway:

A:
A young woman gets pregnant with her boyfriend. Her friend decides to leave her though, and she decides not to commit abortion. Because of the child she has to abandon her studies and earns a low wage for the rest of her life, and she can't spend much time and money to raise her kid. Her child is also making it harder for her to find a husband.

B:
A young woman gets pregnant with her boyfriend. Her friend decides to leave her though, and she decides to commit abortion. A few years later, she graduates, finds a man, marries, and gets pregnant. In this situation, there probably is more time and money for the child than in A.

I think these situations aren't that uncommon, and they are one of the reasons I'm pro-choice.

There are any number of married and stable couples that would be ecstatic to love and parent an unplanned child. I reject your artificial choice and choose option C. Please note option C does not preclude the 2nd half of option B.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Then how come there are so many children waiting for adoption?

 

[strijder20]

There are any number of married and stable couples that would be ecstatic to raise and love an unplanned child. I reject your artificial choice and choose option C.

Darn, that's indeed an obvious option I forgot.
EDIT: Apparently there are too few people wanting to adopt a child, looking at Ziggy's post above me.
(Still, if you don't believe a foetus is a full human being, then the pain of the pregnancy and giving birth isn't worth it, but you indeed made a point)

Commit abortion? That's an odd phrasing of the term.

I'm not a native speaker We sometimes say it like that in Dutch.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Do the people who are pro-life here prefer situation A over situation B? I suppose so, but asking it anyway:

A:
A young woman gets pregnant with her boyfriend. Her friend decides to leave her though, and she decides not to commit abortion. Because of the child she has to abandon her studies and earns a low wage for the rest of her life, and she can't spend much time and money to raise her kid. Her child is also making it harder for her to find a husband.

B:
A young woman gets pregnant with her boyfriend. Her friend decides to leave her though, and she decides to commit abortion. A few years later, she graduates, finds a man, marries, and gets pregnant. In this situation, there probably is more time and money for the child than in A.

I think these situations aren't that uncommon, and they are one of the reasons I'm pro-choice.

There are any number of married and stable couples that would be ecstatic to love and parent an unplanned child. I reject your artificial choice and choose option C. Please note option C does not preclude the 2nd half of option B.

Amen

If you're forced to choose though, option A. You cannot commit homicide no matter how much it hurts you.

Or, ideally, option D and wait until you get married to get pregnant. Total victory

 

[Farm Boy]

Then how come there are so many children waiting for adoption?

You have to define what sort of children are waiting. Per the abortion debate we are discussing primarily infant adoption. Generally if you are considering whether or not to abort your pregnancy you are also in the timeframe where a corresponding adoption plan would be made before delivery and the prosepective adoptive parents would be involved in the pregnancy to whatever extent the woman is comfortable. At least in the states the are far more waiting couples than available infants.

Practically all children waiting here are waiting for foster-to-adopt parents. These are almost always children who are wards of the state due to forced termination of parental rights. They're older, generally 2 - 16 years old. We could certainly discuss them here if you like, but I don't think they're on-topic to this thread as abortion really isn't an issue.

 

[Farm Boy]

EDIT: Apparently there are too few people wanting to adopt a child, looking at Ziggy's post above me.
(Still, if you don't believe a foetus is a full human being, then the pain of the pregnancy and giving birth isn't worth it, but you indeed made a point)

I believe Ziggy is mistaken. But yes, the pain of pregnancy is indeed significant. That is why I quite sincerely list birth mothers as having undertaken one of the most selfless actions I can think of. Even ignoring the resultant child, they certainly are doing something wonderful for the adoptive parents.

 

[LucyDuke]

Theoretically anything is possible, but it won't necessarily be practical, depending on who participates.

Practical? What is this?

Definitely reducing the stigma of giving birth. I think sex outside marriage is immoral, but after its done, at the end of the day, the woman should be applauded for actually making the right decision to carry the woman to term. I wish everyone in the conservative religious community felt the same way about that.

How do you propose doing that?

Is that really all you can think of?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

personally, I don’t think your hypothetical hits the mark regarding a collective moral obligation, in that the decision to request the help of others/another in itself, does not require any assistance....

That is a very strange point of view.
Asking a girl "Hey, I think we have a moral obligation to create as much life as possible. Wanne hook up?" does also not require assistance. While just as pulling the fat guy up, sex is a collective effort. I am amazed with what grandeur you just missed the point

However, here is a twist, if you had a gun or another sure fire way to force others to assist you, would you morally justify this use of force to save the fat man?

Hm... as long as you only bluffed - I think so. Based on the reasoning, that your moral obligation to save the mans life outweighs the immorality of threatening someone to kill him or her. And this again is based on the reasoning that death - as the ultimate end of all joy - means a greater harm than a trauma for having being threatened by a gun. Choosing the lesser of two evils.

by extension of this thought process, i would ask to those more religious on the forum, isn't God pro-choice?....i mean, free will and all that? isn't the decision to be "pro-choice" or pro-life" a personal one, between you and your god to judge you when the time comes? sure, you can express your opinion, you can educate others on your opinion, you can warn others about how god will punish them, but to force "god's law" on man sounds like taliban stuff to me.....

That strikes me as not very reasonable. Why can I support a law for whatever reason I like except religion? After all, a religious person is in the end also only concerned with what is "right". There are really worse reasons. Like being selfish.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I believe Ziggy is mistaken.

There are around 100.000 in the US alone. edit: Most recent I could find 120.000 for 2010.

 

[Farm Boy]

There are around 100.000 in the US alone. edit: Most recent I could find 120.000 for 2010.

Read the post above the one you quoted plox!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I did.

Does your argument shorten the waitinglist?

 

[Farm Boy]

If we are discussing abortion, which I believe we are, we are talking about infant adoption rather than wards of the state whose parents have had their rights forcibly terminated. These are two separate samples of children who will be represented on your waiting list. There are not enough prospective parents who are brave/willing/generous enough to dive into the foster system. It breaks my heart, but I was not/am not brave enough or secure enough financially at this point to take in an 8 year old who is waiting for foster-to-adopt parents. These are the children on your waiting list. The amount of infants put up for adoption(the ones we are concerned with in the case of the abortion debate) is much smaller than the pool of couples looking for an infant direct-adoption. So yes, in a way, my argument shortens the waiting list to barely existent.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ah, I see your point with regard to immediately giving up the baby. And since you suggested that I didn't have a point.

I was arguing about unwanted children who are ending up in foster care at a later age.

 

[History_Buff]

I think it would be a valid argument to a point. However, I'm well aware that pro-choice people THINK that its not mass murder. In any case, sperm just has the same DNA as the male. When combined with the woman's egg, the fetus has its own DNA. That's the difference.

So your definition of a person is based on just having a different DNA code than it's parents? Because I'd think it very easy to construct such a thing in the lab, and yet it clearly would not be a person.

 

[sophie]

Or, ideally, option D and wait until you get married to get pregnant. Total victory

Ah, to be naïve and a virgin...

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, my best answer is because they have eternal souls, while animals do not.

Why would that be morally significant?

In addition, they are the children of a species intelligent enough to actually realize the morality of what they do. They will eventually grow up to be their own unique moral individual who can do the same. They have distinct DNA that will grow into an adult person. And they have functioning organs. They are very much human beings. And killing human beings is wrong.

That doesn't actually answer my question, it's just a reiteration of your previous assertion. You've made it clear that you think it's immoral to kill any specimen of H. sapiens, but you're not actually explaining why this is the case.

For the same reasons its wrong to kill the mentally ********, its wrong to kill a fetus.

Mentally disabled people are not non-sentient, so the analogy doesn't make much sense. (And it's not polite to call them "********".)

I wouldn't argue that sentience is completely out of the picture, I think animal cruelty is wrong, but I don't think killing becomes murder because of sentience.

Do you think that it would be murder to kill a sentient AI of human-level intelligence?

 

[Farm Boy]

Ah, I see your point with regard to immediately giving up the baby. And since you suggested that I didn't have a point.

I was arguing about unwanted children who are ending up in foster care at a later age.

Oh, I think you have a point and it's a good one. I'm just not sure it's directly applicable here.

As earlier mentioned I would be more than happy to discuss if anyone is interested.