|
|
Post by Jo on Apr 17, 2012 19:23:50 GMT -5
That's terrible, though, Jo; so unwanted babies in dumpsters? Suicidal people? People with extremely severe mental disabilities? People in comas? I could argue that any one might lack either self-realization or will to live... but of course they all have the right to. What is self-realization, anyway? When does it start? And what would we count as a person? I can understand the argument that the mother/child's quality of life would drop drastically, or that the mother would often be in a truly terrible place under pressure, or even the perspective that the child is unable to survive without the mother and is therefore a parasite (though I wouldn't agree with either)... but "life only has value if someone values it" can just be so terribly misapplied. I'd like to start by saying that perhaps my use of the word self-realisation was incorrect. What I meant to express was that even if nobody cares about a person (something I find extremely unlikely) they still deserve to live because they want to live. Also a slight revision (or more a clarification) on my stance: even if nobody cares about a life, or it does not have 'self-actualisation', it doesn't deserve to die just because of that. I just think that in this case then other factors should be allowed to take dominance. It isn't as if a foetus exists in a vacuum with some people yelling "kill it!" and others yelling "save it!". It lives inside a person who will have to go through pregnancy and labour, and so I think that just it being a life (if you believe that) does not make abortion wrong. Now, to work through the list of examples: -suicidal people: I am assuming somebody cares about them. I think almost everyone has at least one person who would be sad if they died, even if it was only somebody they saw regularly yet never spoke to. Also suicidal feelings are often temporary, so the person should be kept from committing suicide because there is a chance they will not always feel this way. -severe mental disabilities: again, I find it likely there will be people who care for them. I don't really know too much about mental disabilities but I think that usually there is some sort of brain activity and although they may not be self-aware in the se way non-disabled people are their life can still be valued to them by themselves. -Coma patients: again, assuming somebody (family, hospital staff, etc) cares for them. But if not, there is also the possibility of them recovering. I personally am of the opinion that a coma patient should be allowed to die if there is no chance of a recovery and there is permission from the family or patient beforehand, but I think that is a different issue. -babies in dumpsters (I left this one until last because it's a more complicated one): I'm against unnecessary suffering. I think that unnecessary pain should never be inflicted on living things, and so the act of tossing a baby in a dumpster is wrong in itself. As to what should be done with the baby, I think that it should be taken care of. As I said above, just because it may not have anyone who cares for it at that moment or a will to live, does not mean it doesn't deserve to live. It isn't threatening anybody or causing pain to others, and so it should be taken care of. |
|
|
|
Post by Jo on Apr 17, 2012 19:31:30 GMT -5
My opinion regarding the abortion debate is this: life only has value if there is somebody to value it. Until a person has developed self-realisation and a will to live, then their life is only valuable if somebody loves/values them. Therefore I don't consider abortion to be wrong because if nobody values the foetus's life, it is just a ball of cells, and the wants/needs of the mother should come before it. I think it's similar to how many people get upset over kittens being killed, but have no problems with people eating meat- they value the life of the kitten, but not the life of the chicken. I don't entirely agree with that but that's not what I want to talk about. Here's a hypothetical question: according to you, is it wrong to have an abortion if the mother doesn't value the unborn baby's life but her own mother does? Or her father? Or the baby's father? Or anyone close to either parent? I'm just curious as to what you think of that. Hm, interesting point. I think the mother should take into account the opinions of the father and grandmother in this case, but I think it is her decision to make as she will be the one to go through the pregnancy and birth. I think just because the baby is valued by the father doesn't mean the father has the right to impose pregnancy on the mother. Like, say I got pregnant and halfway through discovered I could not give birth because of a complication. If there were some magical way to transfer the embryo to my best friends uterus instead, it wouldn't be right for me to do this without her permission. I might value my baby's life, but that doesn't mean I can impose pregnancy on somebody else. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 21:34:17 GMT -5
You make an interesting point, Jo, and I admit it's one I've actually never heard of or considered before. We got all the way from animals in heaven to abortion. xD
So I have a scenario/question. You said before that even if we assume the baby is a person fright from conception, the key point of self-realization prevents them from having the will to live (or something to that effect), but if you turn that on its head and say that the baby doesn't become self-aware until birth (the only other clear cut-off point apart from conception), would it still be okay to abort a baby right up until full term? It's got a functional brain and body and is, for all intents and purposes, a tiny person inside another person.
Let me know if I don't make sense. My mind is a jumble at the moment. xD
As for my actual opinion ... I'm sort of still working out how I feel and what reasons I can give to justify my viewpoint, but with that in mind, I think I sit in the middle of the spectrum between pro-life and pro-choice. I am a firm believer in freedom of choice for everyone, as I don't believe imposing any strict moral system on anyone without their consent. On the other hand, regardless of when a foetus becomes a life, I don't personally think I could do it and I certainly wouldn't encourage it.
In cases of rape, incest or medical issues endangering the life of either or both mother and baby, abortion can be the lesser of two evils, as it were. I would not under any circumstance force a woman who has already been through significant trauma to undergo even more, nor endanger her life. That doesn't mean I think it necessarily right or good, and I doubt very many people would say abortion is good in and of itself.
For everything else it's really situation-based, and since each situation is different, it's extremely difficult to judge. What people need to remember is that no form of contraception is 100% safe. Even with perfect use, the best forms of it are still only between 95-98% successful, which means 2-5 out of every 100 women who have sex and use contraception will still get pregnant. It's a low number, but it's still there.
If people want to be able to have sex, they need to be prepared to deal with the baggage that comes with it. And there is one sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy. xD If you are not prepared for the physical, emotional and potential maternal issues that come with it, simply do not have sex.
That said, it's worth noting that abortion is not simply a get out of pregnancy free card. It's an operation and causes physical pain as well as emotional trauma. You don't walk away from an abortion going "well I'm glad that's over", I've had to counsel several friends through the process (one of them twice) and it is not pretty or easy. I think if more people knew this, they may just be more careful and there wouldn't be such a high need for abortion.
I think for the simple reason that I wouldn't wish this to become law or force it on anyone, I am probably more pro-choice than I like to think I am. But that doesn't mean I don't have moral objections.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Apr 18, 2012 12:21:47 GMT -5
My view on the soul is that, essentially, the standard definition of it does not exist.
I don't think it's some corporeal spirit that possesses a biological body the way that a pilot might work a plane.
I do think there is a spirit like aspect to man that is tied to the biology. Something that cannot exist outside of the biology itself that sets apart from the rest of the animal kingdom (a way God designed us). Something
more like a spiritual spark, or fire, or key, or whatever that helps our brain operate the way it does and makes humans humans. This can't be proven, obviously, due to the nature of the belief and incapability of it in a strict science definition. But it's what I think.
As previously mentioned (at other times), I don't believe in the immortal soul doctrine either. No reincarnation, no heaven, no hell. I do believe in a resurrection from the dead, though. So when God receives our 'spirit' at death, it's essentially an unaware "backup" of the person. (Again, as I see and understand it) And that backup is what is restored at the resurrection.
So when it comes to matters of conception and the abortion debate, I believe that since even a zygote is a growing human life, dividing cells and developing, that aborting it is the same as ending any human life. The twin/chimera question isn't an issue with me, since it's basically inseparable from the biology and more of a catalytic component anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2012 15:34:14 GMT -5
In cases of rape, incest or medical issues endangering the life of either or both mother and baby, abortion can be the lesser of two evils, as it were. I would not under any circumstance force a woman who has already been through significant trauma to undergo even more, nor endanger her life. That doesn't mean I think it necessarily right or good, and I doubt very many people would say abortion is good in and of itself. Personally, I don't think rape and incest merits an abortion, because it's not the child's fault. A person born of such things may turn out to be the hero of the world, or a wonderful counselor, or just a person that brings light to the people around her/him. Your origin does not matter. Your character does. Now, since incest does complicate development of a baby, there is a possibility that said baby might not be able to make it to birth. In regards to the trauma situation, I would still have the baby if it was able to survive and give it up. Because my pain is no reason to destroy a life. For me, it's like going out and killing some little kitten because I had just been horribly wronged. That's my view. |
|
|
|
Post by Jo on Apr 18, 2012 16:15:25 GMT -5
[possible trigger warning: rape] In cases of rape, incest or medical issues endangering the life of either or both mother and baby, abortion can be the lesser of two evils, as it were. I would not under any circumstance force a woman who has already been through significant trauma to undergo even more, nor endanger her life. That doesn't mean I think it necessarily right or good, and I doubt very many people would say abortion is good in and of itself. Personally, I don't think rape and incest merits an abortion, because it's not the child's fault. A person born of such things may turn out to be the hero of the world, or a wonderful counselor, or just a person that brings light to the people around her/him. Your origin does not matter. Your character does. It's not the mother's fault either. Rape is a horrible, horrible thing to go through, and to be forced to carry an unwanted child and give birth to your rapist's baby only adds to that pain in an unimaginable way. In my mind, it would be unbelievably cruel to deny abortion to a person who had been raped. You make an interesting point, Jo, and I admit it's one I've actually never heard of or considered before. We got all the way from animals in heaven to abortion. xD So I have a scenario/question. You said before that even if we assume the baby is a person fright from conception, the key point of self-realization prevents them from having the will to live (or something to that effect), but if you turn that on its head and say that the baby doesn't become self-aware until birth (the only other clear cut-off point apart from conception), would it still be okay to abort a baby right up until full term? It's got a functional brain and body and is, for all intents and purposes, a tiny person inside another person. I'm of the opinion that in many cases, aborting a baby after the 20 week time (which is the earliest a baby can survive outside the womb) would be wrong. But I don't think that means that abortion should be illegal in these cases. It's be like if you woke up one day and found yourself strapped to a coma patient. The coma patient will wake up in 9 months, but only if it continues to be connected to you. You might argue that it would be wrong of you to not agree to be connected to the patient for that long, but I don't think that the government should be able to dictate people's choices in these matters. In my mind, after the 20-week time period, going through pregnancy/labour is like saving the life of that baby. Whether you think it is moral or not for a person to save a life, I don't think the government should make it law that people have to go through physical pain and difficulties in their life to save the lives of other people. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2012 16:48:14 GMT -5
Personally, I don't think rape and incest merits an abortion, because it's not the child's fault. A person born of such things may turn out to be the hero of the world, or a wonderful counselor, or just a person that brings light to the people around her/him. Your origin does not matter. Your character does. It's not the mother's fault either. Rape is a horrible, horrible thing to go through, and to be forced to carry an unwanted child and give birth to your rapist's baby only adds to that pain in an unimaginable way. In my mind, it would be unbelievably cruel to deny abortion to a person who had been raped. Jo, imagine...what if you or someone you really care about was a rape baby? Would you hate them because of that? Would you think they were nothing more than a burden to their mother? What if you fell in love with someone who was absolutely perfect in every way, but they were a rape baby? Would you want such a wonderful person to disappear since they only bring more pain, no matter how much good they have done? I'm not saying you should force birth on a rape victim by law. I'm just saying that to me, getting rid of a baby just because of that is kind of sick. |
|
|
|
Post by Jo on Apr 18, 2012 16:58:47 GMT -5
[trigger warning: rape] It's not the mother's fault either. Rape is a horrible, horrible thing to go through, and to be forced to carry an unwanted child and give birth to your rapist's baby only adds to that pain in an unimaginable way. In my mind, it would be unbelievably cruel to deny abortion to a person who had been raped. Jo, imagine...what if you or someone you really care about was a rape baby? Would you hate them because of that? Would you think they were nothing more than a burden to their mother? What if you fell in love with someone who was absolutely perfect in every way, but they were a rape baby? Would you want such a wonderful person to disappear since they only bring more pain, no matter how much good they have done? I'm not saying you should force birth on a rape victim by law. I'm just saying that to me, getting rid of a baby just because of that is kind of sick. Of course I wouldn't hate somebody if they were a rape baby. That is not what my post is saying at all. I think it's very judgemental of you to say that getting rid of a baby 'just' because you were raped is sick. Rape is extremely traumatic and horrible, and usually will have lasting effects on the victim. I think it is completely understandable that in this situation many women would find the process of being made to carry and give birth to a baby, which would bring them a reminder daily in the months after the incident of the rape, unbearable. It's very scarring psychologically and I don't think anyone should be thought less of for choosing to abort a baby in this circumstance. |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Apr 18, 2012 17:24:27 GMT -5
In my mind, after the 20-week time period, going through pregnancy/labour is like saving the life of that baby. Whether you think it is moral or not for a person to save a life, I don't think the government should make it law that people have to go through physical pain and difficulties in their life to save the lives of other people. I don't know; I think if you've carried a baby for five months, deciding not to follow through with the pregnancy seems more like ending a life than delivery saving it. And if you think of it like that, I think the government could make it a law to stop someone from being killed. |
|
|
|
Post by wabbitplatypodes on Apr 18, 2012 17:27:37 GMT -5
It's not the mother's fault either. Rape is a horrible, horrible thing to go through, and to be forced to carry an unwanted child and give birth to your rapist's baby only adds to that pain in an unimaginable way. In my mind, it would be unbelievably cruel to deny abortion to a person who had been raped. Jo, imagine...what if you or someone you really care about was a rape baby? Would you hate them because of that? Would you think they were nothing more than a burden to their mother? What if you fell in love with someone who was absolutely perfect in every way, but they were a rape baby? Would you want such a wonderful person to disappear since they only bring more pain, no matter how much good they have done? I'm not saying you should force birth on a rape victim by law. I'm just saying that to me, getting rid of a baby just because of that is kind of sick. abortion isn't a punishment to the unborn child for existing. no one's saying that children from that particular scenario should have been aborted, but that it's not unreasonable for them to have been aborted. i have no qualms with abortion, moral or otherwise. i don't think the fetus being "alive" and thus making abortion murder is a valid argument. i don't see how whether or not it is self-aware or alive holds any relevance, actually. i think the more important question to be asked is: what loss does the world experience as a result of abortion? i see none. you can argue that the child could have grown to be a fantastic human being that would change mankind as we know it for good, and that's very well possible. but that's just it: it's only a possibility. it's not something that had ever happened outside the realm of speculation. as such, the only thing you could argue the world lost from this unborn child being aborted is the potential for something great, which is really not something substantial at all. is the world any worse off because of abortion? no. and i don't see fetuses as any kind of exception to the rule, either. i think that goes for fully developed human beings and other animals as well. the thing is though, it's very rare for a born human not to have brought anything into the world that would be taken away by murder. and the value of a human life is extremely subjective. the significant difference between abortion and murder though, is that abortion prevents a life from being brought into the world. nothing is gained, so nothing is lost. murder is taking away a life that has been brought into the world, which, setting morality aside entirely, is in every technical way a loss. |
|
|
|
Post by Jo on Apr 18, 2012 17:53:43 GMT -5
In my mind, after the 20-week time period, going through pregnancy/labour is like saving the life of that baby. Whether you think it is moral or not for a person to save a life, I don't think the government should make it law that people have to go through physical pain and difficulties in their life to save the lives of other people. I don't know; I think if you've carried a baby for five months, deciding not to follow through with the pregnancy seems more like ending a life than delivery saving it. And if you think of it like that, I think the government could make it a law to stop someone from being killed. The way I see it, abortion would not be ending a life so much as choosing not to sustain it because without the mother, the baby could not live. After 20 weeks, the mother needs to give birth and possibly continue the pregnancy for the baby to live, if not the baby will die. In my opinion, the government should be able to tell people not to end the lives of others if they would live without them interfering, but it should be each persons decision whether they want to sustain the life of another at a personal cost. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Apr 18, 2012 18:43:05 GMT -5
and i don't see fetuses as any kind of exception to the rule, either. i think that goes for fully developed human beings and other animals as well. the thing is though, it's very rare for a born human not to have brought anything into the world that would be taken away by murder. and the value of a human life is extremely subjective. the significant difference between abortion and murder though, is that abortion prevents a life from being brought into the world. nothing is gained, so nothing is lost. murder is taking away a life that has been brought into the world, which, setting morality aside entirely, is in every technical way a loss. That brings up an interesting point. Given your stated views on abortion, then, what do you feel about the death sentence? Is the death of, for instance, a known murderer and rapist a gain to the world, and as such they should be put to death? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2012 22:23:13 GMT -5
Trigger warning: rape. It's not the mother's fault either. Rape is a horrible, horrible thing to go through, and to be forced to carry an unwanted child and give birth to your rapist's baby only adds to that pain in an unimaginable way. In my mind, it would be unbelievably cruel to deny abortion to a person who had been raped. Jo, imagine...what if you or someone you really care about was a rape baby? Would you hate them because of that? Would you think they were nothing more than a burden to their mother? What if you fell in love with someone who was absolutely perfect in every way, but they were a rape baby? Would you want such a wonderful person to disappear since they only bring more pain, no matter how much good they have done? I'm not saying you should force birth on a rape victim by law. I'm just saying that to me, getting rid of a baby just because of that is kind of sick. No. Just ... no. This is not about the child, this is not about how good a person they could turn out to be or how they might save the world. This is about the woman who has to carry that child as a reminder of what is probably the worst experience of her life 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 9 months, and then has to raise a child for the rest of her life (because you never stop being a parent). Yes, under almost any other circumstance I would say the rights of the unborn child are to at least be considered strongly. But I'm sorry, there's just no contest here. Imagine your body being brutalized and forcibly invaded in painful, personal and humiliating ways, imagine the feeling of extreme sickness, guilt, hatred, fear, torment ... you won't be able to, but just try. And then you get out of that situation and you spend the next few months or years trying to pick up the shattered pieces of your life, trying to stave of PTSD or anxiety or depression or all three of them. Then imagine finding out that the worst experience of your life is about to get a million times worse because now you're pregnant, the child of the person who so invaded and destroyed your very being, and you're saying rape victims should just ... what ... get over it? Learn to live with that? I'm sorry, Sae. I think you are being extremely closed minded, un-accepting and just downright cruel to people who have already experienced enough cruelty. I'll stop now because I'm getting angry and I don't want to. I'll read replies when I've calmed down. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Apr 18, 2012 23:27:09 GMT -5
Given that abortion is already a heated topic to begin with, and rape is a bit of a trigger for some people here to begin with, maybe it would be best to move away from this line of discussion before it descends a bit more. Might be for the best. I'll even forego stating my opinions on the discussion, as I think the more constructive thing would be to move forward here...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2012 7:34:50 GMT -5
Trigger warning: rape. Jo, imagine...what if you or someone you really care about was a rape baby? Would you hate them because of that? Would you think they were nothing more than a burden to their mother? What if you fell in love with someone who was absolutely perfect in every way, but they were a rape baby? Would you want such a wonderful person to disappear since they only bring more pain, no matter how much good they have done? I'm not saying you should force birth on a rape victim by law. I'm just saying that to me, getting rid of a baby just because of that is kind of sick. No. Just ... no. This is not about the child, this is not about how good a person they could turn out to be or how they might save the world. This is about the woman who has to carry that child as a reminder of what is probably the worst experience of her life 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 9 months, and then has to raise a child for the rest of her life (because you never stop being a parent). Yes, under almost any other circumstance I would say the rights of the unborn child are to at least be considered strongly. But I'm sorry, there's just no contest here. Imagine your body being brutalized and forcibly invaded in painful, personal and humiliating ways, imagine the feeling of extreme sickness, guilt, hatred, fear, torment ... you won't be able to, but just try. And then you get out of that situation and you spend the next few months or years trying to pick up the shattered pieces of your life, trying to stave of PTSD or anxiety or depression or all three of them. Then imagine finding out that the worst experience of your life is about to get a million times worse because now you're pregnant, the child of the person who so invaded and destroyed your very being, and you're saying rape victims should just ... what ... get over it? Learn to live with that? I'm sorry, Sae. I think you are being extremely closed minded, un-accepting and just downright cruel to people who have already experienced enough cruelty. I'll stop now because I'm getting angry and I don't want to. I'll read replies when I've calmed down. Sarn, I think you misunderstood me. I thought what was being discussed is whether rape babies deserve to die just for existing. Or, alternatively, deserve to be hated. I'm just asking if they were born, would they be worthy of love? |
|
