What if you're pro-choice, but still think abortion is a very bad thing?

[.Shane.]

But the OP seemed to be talking more about believing it to be immoral, whilst still being pro-choice. Clearly there are many pro-choice people who view it to be moral, but it would be interesting to know if there are those who don't.

Well said and a nice clarification.

Personally speaking, my wife and I had 3 chances to abort and never opted for it. I don't think we could do it. But, then again, all 3 were "normal", healthy pregnancies.

I can think of a lot of things I find objectionable that are legal.

I dunno, do you remember the hullabaloo awhile back after PP started handing out "I had an abortion!" t-shirts? I believe the point was to send the message that "challenge the taboo that cloaks abortion in silence. The t-shirt is an affirmation that abortion is not shameful." Do a simple google search, "abortion is good" and you find all sorts of blogs out there saying that abortion is good, for women and for society. I think you're underestimating the disgusting levels human beings can sink to.

These are pretty much extremists along the lines of those who scream at women going into PP clinics, etc... They're all idiots.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

I'm not being absurd, I'm just assuming that people have more knowledge than they do.

NFP tries to ensure that there's no pregnancy. It does this by timing sex so that (hopefully) the sperm does not meet the egg. That's all well and good. However, a side consequence is that NFP also ensures that if the sperm does meet and egg (and a fusion occurs, making an embryo) then the woman's body is not properly timed to be receptive to the embryo and rejects it.

This results in the embryo being flushed away instead of being implanted.

This is intentionally engaging in activity which might create human life (with the intention of not creating human life), but then exposing this human life to hostile conditions. Merely for the convenience of wanting unprotected sex without pregnany.

Please note that this is completely different that the 'acceptable loses' of trying to get pregnant with a 50% miscarriage rate. The goal is no pregnancy, with some accidental embryo deaths as a result.

I already addressed the in the other thread you brought this up in. That article you quoted made up a lot of unverified assumptions and seemed to be proven wrong by the study I linked. According to that study the chance of miscarriage was not increased by having intercourse during a less fertile period. Now what am I missing if that doesn't mean your article was wrong. I assume failure to implant is counted as a miscarriage correct? Otherwise if they couldn't count them how would they have the estimates in your article.

 

[Elrohir]

The problem is that if there is an exception to a maxim, then by definition that maxim cannot be justified. The idea that "I should not lie under any circumstance" for example, is worthless as there are circumstances in which lying is acceptable - thus it needs to be made more specific.

There are usually exceptions to most definitions.

As well, there is at least one circumstance in which we already do kill innocents who are inconvienent - the lack of a public health care system neccesitates this, because a fatal disease can be genetic and the health of someone with that disease not dependent on how well he takes care of himself.

What are you talking about? Euthanasia is illegal in the United States. (With the exception of Oregon, and then only on adults under stringent guidelines)

Of course it wouldn't justified simply for convinience or economic concerns, as it would be more complex, and would be a matter of utilitarianism. However, the question "Does the woman’s bodily rights justify abortion even if the fetus has a right to life?" is not necessarily yes, either!

What's your take on this?

How should I know? I'm not a philosopher, and am not knowledgable on the subject to decide.

Nope - either you aren't knowledgeable enough to comment and talk about this issue (In which case you should stop posting in this thread immediately) or you are, in which case you should share your opinion.

However, the idea "the killing of a human being" is immoral is false for the simple fact that there are some types of killings which are considered acceptable.

Killing is not inherently wrong, very few things are inherently wrong in any circumstance. Killing unborn babies out of a desire for convenience is always wrong.

My own opinion on the matter is irrelevant, and will bring nothing productive to this debate as it will most likely result in an ad hominem attack. However, in that same paragraph, Warren gives a justification for the immorality of infanticide without resorting to the fact that it is a person.

I disagree - I think your personal view is very relevant, and your desire to not share it is very telling.

I'm not being absurd, I'm just assuming that people have more knowledge than they do.

NFP tries to ensure that there's no pregnancy. It does this by timing sex so that (hopefully) the sperm does not meet the egg. That's all well and good. However, a side consequence is that NFP also ensures that if the sperm does meet and egg (and a fusion occurs, making an embryo) then the woman's body is not properly timed to be receptive to the embryo and rejects it.

This results in the embryo being flushed away instead of being implanted.

This is intentionally engaging in activity which might create human life (with the intention of not creating human life), but then exposing this human life to hostile conditions. Merely for the convenience of wanting unprotected sex without pregnany.

Please note that this is completely different that the 'acceptable loses' of trying to get pregnant with a 50% miscarriage rate. The goal is no pregnancy, with some accidental embryo deaths as a result.

There's no actual medical proof of this. The only person who has suggested this is a guy who works with philosophy and economics - but is not an actual doctor.

These are pretty much extremists along the lines of those who scream at women going into PP clinics, etc... They're all idiots.

You said "is there anyone, pro-choice or pro-life who thinks abortions are cool, fun or good?" Are you acknowledging that there are?

 

[.Shane.]

You said "is there anyone, pro-choice or pro-life who thinks abortions are cool, fun or good?" Are you acknowledging that there are?

Yes, sorry for not pointing out the obvious caveat that there are exceptions to every rule. Congrats.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

They aren't comparable. It's one thing to believe something is inadvisable, or not something you want for yourself - it's another to believe it is morally wrong.

A good point, and your 'Tattoo' comparision is a good one also.

To re-phrase my sentiment, if we are keeping to this being a moral rather than personal objection, I believe it is morally wrong for a Government Official to dictate what a woman decides to do with her own body. In which case I guess I would fall into Mdwhs:

Clearly there are many pro-choice people who view it to be moral, but it would be interesting to know if there are those who don't.

category of people who don't view abortion as 'moral'. I imagine, given the obvious distress that some mothers have in aborting their child, they don't consider the process to be completely moral either.

The problem with my own argument however is as you say below:

The only issue in the abortion debate is "When does this 'fetus' become a baby, a human being with all the rights a normal human would have?" Any other argument is frivolous and irrelevant.

I may disagree with you as to what protection a fetus should have, but yours was a good post regardless

 

[Jawz II]

What if youre pro abortion, but not pro choice?

 

[plarq]

What if youre pro abortion, but not pro choice?

Forced abortion by prostitute owners?

 

[El_Machinae]

I already addressed the in the other thread you brought this up in. That article you quoted made up a lot of unverified assumptions and seemed to be proven wrong by the study I linked. According to that study the chance of miscarriage was not increased by having intercourse during a less fertile period. Now what am I missing if that doesn't mean your article was wrong. I assume failure to implant is counted as a miscarriage correct? Otherwise if they couldn't count them how would they have the estimates in your article.

Your article measures the miscarriages reported by the women (i.e., they bleed after they confirmed that they were pregnant). I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the embryo that's flushed with a woman's period before she's pregnant.

There's no actual medical proof of this. The only person who has suggested this is a guy who works with philosophy and economics - but is not an actual doctor.

The theory is solid, Elrohir. It's well known that the egg is ammenable to fertilisation even if the woman is not ammenable to impregnation. These fertilisations will happen, even if the couple doesn't realise it. We know that the fertilisations happen, because sometimes the women get pregnant (accidentally). To discount his position, you'd have to show that all fertilisations end in pregnancies under NFP(this is absurd, because even with optimised conditions about 1/3 of embryos don't 'take'), or that eggs cease being ammendable to fertilisation before a woman's body becomes non-receptive .

If they don't want to accidentally make embyros that don't take, they shouldn't have sex. Keep in mind that they're trying to NOT get pregnant, and so their intention is vastly different than trying to get pregnant (where we seem to accept attrition). They're being entirely callous towards the embryos that are created and then being flushed.

Keep in mind that a hidden embryo death in NFP is considered a success of the technique; the practitions are mentally agreeing to "we're trying to not make an embryo, but the technique is still considered a success if the embryo dies ... then we can try to 'not make a baby' again next month!"

Anyway, for you two, here are some good abstracts on the topic
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=10362823&query_hl=13&itool=pubmed_docsum

It's not a stretch to say that NFP makes embryo death more likely than abstinence

 

[Elrohir]

A good point, and your 'Tattoo' comparision is a good one also.

I may disagree with you as to what protection a fetus should have, but yours was a good post regardless

Thank you.

Your article measures the miscarriages reported by the women (i.e., they bleed after they confirmed that they were pregnant). I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the embryo that's flushed with a woman's period before she's pregnant.

The theory is solid, Elrohir. It's well known that the egg is ammenable to fertilisation even if the woman is not ammenable to impregnation. These fertilisations will happen, even if the couple doesn't realise it. We know that the fertilisations happen, because sometimes the women get pregnant (accidentally). To discount his position, you'd have to show that all fertilisations end in pregnancies under NFP(this is absurd, because even with optimised conditions about 1/3 of embryos don't 'take'), or that eggs cease being ammendable to fertilisation before a woman's body becomes non-receptive .

If they don't want to accidentally make embyros that don't take, they shouldn't have sex. Keep in mind that they're trying to NOT get pregnant, and so their intention is vastly different than trying to get pregnant (where we seem to accept attrition). They're being entirely callous towards the embryos that are created and then being flushed.

Keep in mind that a hidden embryo death in NFP is considered a success of the technique; the practitions are mentally agreeing to "we're trying to not make an embryo, but the technique is still considered a success if the embryo dies ... then we can try to 'not make a baby' again next month!"

Anyway, for you two, here are some good abstracts on the topic
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=10362823&query_hl=13&itool=pubmed_docsum

As far as I can tell, NFP only affects if the egg is implanted, which is made less likely depending on the time of the month. What evidence do you have that it makes it so a fertilized egg is less likely to survive?

Anyway, this is all Academic. I'm not Catholic.

It's not a stretch to say that NFP makes embryo death more likely than abstinence

Obviously. You can't have the death of a fertilized embryo without having sex. The issue is whether NFP making embryo death more likely than regular sex would. Your first link doesn't address this at all, and your second is broken, by the way.

 

[FredLC]

I know, it's tough to wrap your head around. Basically, the alternative is forced slavery, which is something we don't allow

edit: where's Fred LC's "kidney machine and forced organ donation" argument? That was a good summary.

Well, these are the links to the main posts i've made in this forum on the subject of abortion:

The fourteenth amendment--the federal government's "loophole" through the tenth?

When does human life deserve human rights?

Abortion: Here We Go Again

I believe the 3rd link is the one you are referring to.

Regards .

 

[Xanikk999]

Is there anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing? It should always be the last choice.

Prevention and common sense being the first.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Is there anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing? It should always be the last choice.

Prevention and common sense being the first.

Correction: Abstinence should be the first, prevention the second, common sense should be an overarching principle.