D
Deleted member 1
Guest
This thread is to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of different beliefs on abortion. Please keep it polite. I will post my own views later.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I will go ahead and start talking by saying that according to my interpretation of my faith, held by the more Orthodox Filianya, we would hold, through our understanding of Werde, which may be rendered almost perfectly as Dharma, that abortion is a form of killing -- intentional abortion therefore being a form of murder. However, we understand that in certain circumstances -- of shameful poverty unalievated by an uncaring State, of famine and thirst gripping nations, of profound deformity that would only cause cruelty and ill to the souls of both the unborn and the parents -- that abortion may be the least worst of a set of worst options. In doing so, it must never be denied that abortion is murder and that murder is wrong; but as when there are four starving men on a lifeboat and no food and according to the ancient "custom of the sea" they draw straws for who shall die to feed the others, so it is that in certain circumstances abortion may be a forgivable crime that should correspond to no legal sanction. I compare it directly to the "Custom of the Sea" to emphasize how distasteful I find it.
Never forget that you are taking the life of an incarnate soul, a reflection of the Almighty, a person created with every potential in the world, a soul with the potential to achieve enlightenment who finds it denied to them by your act. When the greatest good is to help another to enlightenment, to be charitable and loving to others, the bar is high indeed to accrue upon yourself such a deed. In Buddhist culture in the east, therefore, when a woman finds herself in a hopeless position where she must have an abortion, it is acknowledged and permitted, but she must also perform atonement, and ideally provide prayers for the soul of her deceased child by monks and perhaps live as a nun herself for a time or longer, to acknowledge profoundly what an ill act it was, even if her heart and soul guided her to it as an act of cruel Necessity.
In the ideal society, Thealogically guided from my perspective, a systematic effort at providing every possible support for the upbringing of children regardless of the circumstance of their parentage or their medical condition would remove the ill and evil burdens which drive women to that stern and lamentable Necessity. The complete elimination of abortion should be a social objective which people should proudly declare their support for. The fact society does not undertake such measures, and tolerates situations in which abortion becomes "Necessity", is a profound moral indictment of society itself and a demonstration that it is ill, far from the Almighty, and ethically indefensible -- it has chosen to save money on taxes or enforce laws senselessly so as to leave the helpless unborn as the victims of the policy, choosing them because they cannot raise a hand in their own defence, they cannot protest their execution, they cannot even demand their murderers draw straws with them for an even chance for their lives. A true healthy society of the Golden Age would not have abortion, and its presence is a sign of the Kali Yuga.
I must add that nothing turned me more completely against abortion more than the horrible death-cultist statements of someone I regarded a friend, who told me that she thought she should be able to have an abortion simply if she didn't feel like carrying a "parasite" that day, for no reason at all -- a totally impulsive decision, like deciding to stop at the store for a box of chocolates. It shook me to the bones, and awakened me to the fact that the pro-abortionists were a nihilistic death cult. Before then, I wished to use the old medieval standard of "quickening" for the definition of life, broadly allowing abortion in the first trimester--after that conversation with that abortion supporter, and considering my own spouse's legacy as a child of the Catholic adoption services, I realised that my position might be tolerable, but it was not Just or Ideal. One may acknowledge the Necessity of abortion in our modern society in the Age of Iron--but one should never support it, never be happy with it, and never feel anything but a queasy sense of shame at the fact that we have permitted a society where we women may claim Necessity as a defence upon the lives of their own children. Is that truly a decision the Mother wants us to take? I think we all know the answer. Abortion is an eternal shame on the society which makes it "necessary", and can never be anything else.
Never forget that you are taking the life of an incarnate soul, a reflection of the Almighty, a person created with every potential in the world, a soul with the potential to achieve enlightenment who finds it denied to them by your act. When the greatest good is to help another to enlightenment, to be charitable and loving to others, the bar is high indeed to accrue upon yourself such a deed. In Buddhist culture in the east, therefore, when a woman finds herself in a hopeless position where she must have an abortion, it is acknowledged and permitted, but she must also perform atonement, and ideally provide prayers for the soul of her deceased child by monks and perhaps live as a nun herself for a time or longer, to acknowledge profoundly what an ill act it was, even if her heart and soul guided her to it as an act of cruel Necessity.
In the ideal society, Thealogically guided from my perspective, a systematic effort at providing every possible support for the upbringing of children regardless of the circumstance of their parentage or their medical condition would remove the ill and evil burdens which drive women to that stern and lamentable Necessity. The complete elimination of abortion should be a social objective which people should proudly declare their support for. The fact society does not undertake such measures, and tolerates situations in which abortion becomes "Necessity", is a profound moral indictment of society itself and a demonstration that it is ill, far from the Almighty, and ethically indefensible -- it has chosen to save money on taxes or enforce laws senselessly so as to leave the helpless unborn as the victims of the policy, choosing them because they cannot raise a hand in their own defence, they cannot protest their execution, they cannot even demand their murderers draw straws with them for an even chance for their lives. A true healthy society of the Golden Age would not have abortion, and its presence is a sign of the Kali Yuga.
I must add that nothing turned me more completely against abortion more than the horrible death-cultist statements of someone I regarded a friend, who told me that she thought she should be able to have an abortion simply if she didn't feel like carrying a "parasite" that day, for no reason at all -- a totally impulsive decision, like deciding to stop at the store for a box of chocolates. It shook me to the bones, and awakened me to the fact that the pro-abortionists were a nihilistic death cult. Before then, I wished to use the old medieval standard of "quickening" for the definition of life, broadly allowing abortion in the first trimester--after that conversation with that abortion supporter, and considering my own spouse's legacy as a child of the Catholic adoption services, I realised that my position might be tolerable, but it was not Just or Ideal. One may acknowledge the Necessity of abortion in our modern society in the Age of Iron--but one should never support it, never be happy with it, and never feel anything but a queasy sense of shame at the fact that we have permitted a society where we women may claim Necessity as a defence upon the lives of their own children. Is that truly a decision the Mother wants us to take? I think we all know the answer. Abortion is an eternal shame on the society which makes it "necessary", and can never be anything else.
Last edited by a moderator:
I completely disagree. I think there are exceedingly few situations where you can say that living is worse than death, especially in the western world.
My stance on abortion has hardened further and further pro-life over the years, especially on learning of the political foundation of Planned Parenthood (what an atrocious joke of a name that is) in being explicitly eugenicist in its origin. Margaret Sanger makes Hitler look small time in her success. Roe v Wade and its follow ups are an utter atrocity of jurisprudence right up there with Dred Scott, worse by now because Dred Scott led to the Civil War to overturn it once and for all... while Roe is still in effect 40+ years later.
Abortion is morally wrong to me from conception, however I tend to take an old school approach to culpability in that it is less offensive to me before the baby is able to move in the womb.
Abortion is morally wrong to me from conception, however I tend to take an old school approach to culpability in that it is less offensive to me before the baby is able to move in the womb.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
First of all, I was not being clear. I am only referring to abortion before quickening. I don’t consider it acceptable afterwards except as triage. Secondly, I deeply respect your opinion, I think it comes down to whether or not you think life or dignity is more important. At least to me, human dignity exceeds even human life—the spiritual is more important than the physical. But for Christians this is not necessarily the case due to specific commandments. I suspect Lloyd and I’s positions are quite similar, as an aside.
There are few times where its needed as triage. Its a much easier and quicker procedure to induce birth than to have a late term abortion.
As I have stated in other places on the board, I am solidly pro-choise. I consider abortion to be an inalienable right, I do not consider the life of a first trimester (and possibly a bit later) fetus to be anything even approaching the worth of a real human's life (more closely an insect's perhaps), and I feel abortion - again, as long as the fetus is not yet sufficiently developed - should be freely available without the need for any sort of reasoning beyond a whim.
If you knew a cow in 9 months would be able to say "hey, goldranger, how are you doing today?" Would you still eat steak?
1) A fetus is not going to be saying anything in 9 months.
2) A cow is a completely different story from a fetus. Much more intelligent and developed. I still eat it.
3) Every single one of your sperms is a potential conversationalist just waiting to happen. I don't see anyone bemoaning their fate.
I've been having the same conversation with you guys multiple times already (starting in the PM actually), I won't budge, you won't budge, leave it at that.
Whats the value of an infant as compared to an adult?
Is it okay to eat a baby?
Its not. A sperm is not a unique human being. Its a sperm. Left alone it remains a sperm. If you decide not to deliberately kill a fetus and nothing tragic occurs it will eventually be able to talk to you.
You dont wanna debate dont enter the thread. I am curious though. You said its an inalienable right. I dont get that. To support abortion human rights must necessarily be alienable, given that youve essentially determined that depending on how old and developed a human being is they are alienated from their rights. My question would be how do you justify abortion as inalienable?
Again, already discussed all this, not getting into debate.
The inalienable thing is news to me. I just really want to get your idea for how its inalienable or what makes an inalienable right if you only get it once you hit a certain point in development and intelligence, because to me that would necessarily make it alienable.
There are the rights of two potential humans here at stake. One of them is, at some point, an insect, not human. Determining the exact point at which it is no longer an insect but a human with rights equal to its mother is a matter of your particular ethical flavor rather than science.
But in short, to me, before a certain point in its development neither its sentience or future "potentiality" is sufficient to contest with the mother. It would be like evicting a human being from a house in order to entertain a pest that entered it, rather than the other way around.
Forcing a woman to suffer physically and psychologically with consequences that will never go away throughout her life in order to entertain the supposed rights of a tiny blob is a tragedy and a travesty.
Whats yours though? What makes rights inalienable? And its never an insect, always a human. That is not something you can dispute ethically, its a scientific fact that it is a unique human being.
Why are one rights supposed but the other inalienable?
It's not an insect morphologically or genetically, but it's pretty much an insect in terms of autonomous thinking (and therefore moral value), except dumber. It's not a unique human being since at that point it's not any more a human being than a random collection of cells from your body are a "unique human being".
Because one is a human being and one isn't, obviously.
A random collection of cells has the exact same genetic makeup as I do and no potential for autonomous thinking in the future if left to its own devices. It absolutely is unique and seperate. Mothers dont have two hearts, two hands, two brains, four hands and four feet. Not the same.
Whats the moral value of an infant? It obviously doesnt have the autonomous thinking. How do you have inalienable rights? When do you gain those?
But both are obviously human beings. Its not arguable that it isnt human. You dont go from not human to human. You are and always have been a human being.
You have a bit of a problem with understanding the words "not entering a circular debate over this", do you?
Well you cant just drop posts directly arguing with me and then expect me not to talk about it. Even still I really want to hone in on the inalienable rights bit because you really havent explained that framework at all and I just want to get down to the meat of what you believe inalienable rights to be, how abortion relates to that and what actually gives you inalienable rights. If you dont want a circular debate then dont quote me and argue with me, or better yet dont turn it in circles. Progress and explain inalienable.
My beliefs (I am a Christian, but not of one of the main denominations) are closer to @PunchCardGirl but not the same.
With my fate in mind, I see abortions as a rule, as something distasteful and wrong, as it is not given to us to end a human life, but knowing that in certain cases, it could be accepted as necessary (e.g. to save the life of the mother).
But I also accept that things are more complex than that and that people should have the right to, in very specifically cases, have an abortion (in this I would put, for example, if the pregnancy is the result of a rape), but I can't support the idea of anyone being free to end a life if the moods hits them to.
At the same time, I know that my beliefs are my own, so I wouldn't support the idea, but would try not to punish the mother more than she has punished herself.
With my fate in mind, I see abortions as a rule, as something distasteful and wrong, as it is not given to us to end a human life, but knowing that in certain cases, it could be accepted as necessary (e.g. to save the life of the mother).
But I also accept that things are more complex than that and that people should have the right to, in very specifically cases, have an abortion (in this I would put, for example, if the pregnancy is the result of a rape), but I can't support the idea of anyone being free to end a life if the moods hits them to.
At the same time, I know that my beliefs are my own, so I wouldn't support the idea, but would try not to punish the mother more than she has punished herself.
I'm not going to jump deep into debate here, just don't have the energy for this one.
I'll drop my opinion though.
I get and understand the pro life stance. I see where people are coming from and why they believe the way they do.
I am pro choice. I think abortion is disgusting though, and that other options should be explored first.
I support first trimester abortions, I am not opposed to making that window smaller. I'm not opposed to giving counselling to women considering it, and informing them of other options. I'm not opposed to heartbeat bills.
The pro choice crowd will call me anti abortion for my stances. The pro life crowd will call me pro choice for my stances. *Shrug*
I'm somewhere in the middle. I want less abortions, I don't want to ban them, and I don't mind measures that will encourage women to make other choices.
The argument that it's better than giving the kid a crappy life infuriates me. I don't think anyone is in the position to choose if that kid's life is going to be crappy or not.
I'll drop my opinion though.
I get and understand the pro life stance. I see where people are coming from and why they believe the way they do.
I am pro choice. I think abortion is disgusting though, and that other options should be explored first.
I support first trimester abortions, I am not opposed to making that window smaller. I'm not opposed to giving counselling to women considering it, and informing them of other options. I'm not opposed to heartbeat bills.
The pro choice crowd will call me anti abortion for my stances. The pro life crowd will call me pro choice for my stances. *Shrug*
I'm somewhere in the middle. I want less abortions, I don't want to ban them, and I don't mind measures that will encourage women to make other choices.
The argument that it's better than giving the kid a crappy life infuriates me. I don't think anyone is in the position to choose if that kid's life is going to be crappy or not.