Abortion

Julia said:

Distress to whom, Sails?
Have you considered the distress to the pregnant woman if she does not want to have a child? And all the ramifications for about twenty years of her having to take responsibility for a child she may not be able to care for? She may not have parents of her own who are able to step into the breach and effectively mother the child.
Who takes responsibility for the child then?

Click to expand...

Julia, I have total sympathy for a pregnant woman faced with the dilema you suggest, but I did mean distress to the actual killing of the unborn child especially as the pregnancy progresses. Some of the reports I have read from people who have worked in abortion clinics don't paint a nice picture. It this cruelty to the helpless child and especially as the child enters into the second trimester with stronger bones. Maybe medico wallet could comment if he is around.

If abortion is necessary for whatever reason, I would like to see it done much earlier in the pregnancy than waiting for late term abortions when the unborn child is moving and is well formed and would clearly feel fear and pain. That is really the intent of my original post.

That's rather an odd analogy. To imply that having an unwanted child is similar to putting up with a pesky fly seems a bit unreasonable to me.

Click to expand...

I guess I am coming at this from the child's point of view rather than the mother's. If a child is considered of no value until it reaches a certain number of weeks (even though the child is clearly alive and well in the womb), it almost seems that a fly has as much value as the unwanted child - just get rid of it. Not sure if that explains it well, and it probably wasn't a good analogy if looking at it from the mother's view point instead of through the eyes of the child.

This is probably a topic about which some of us will never find common ground.
People who have, e.g. religious reasons for objecting to termination won't ever find it acceptable to change their views.

And people who strongly believe in a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body will not succumb to anyone else telling them what they may or may not do.

It's just like euthanasia. Religious people believe only their God may determine when they cease to exist. Those who don't accept religious beliefs can see no reason why the 'other side' are so determined that they must live out their days in often unbearable suffering.

Click to expand...

I think there will always be differing, and sometimes strongly differing, opinions on these issues. And not all religious people are so hardlined...

If one can stomach it, here are a couple of videos explaining how abortion is done. I watched a bit, but it is just as sickening to me as animals being skinned alive for their fur. Unborn babies of over 20 weeks are quite well formed and would feel pain and can often survive outside of the womb.

Sails, your point about late abortions is absolutely valid, and I agree.

In my vehemence about a woman's right to choose, I'd be assuming if she didn't want the child, she would be seeking a termination as soon as she knew she was pregnant.

And no, of course not all religious people are hard line. I don't think I said they were.
But some people's religious convictions are without any shades of grey and totally preclude abortion under any circumstances. That's all I was saying. I was using it as an example of where an attitude is implacable.

Thank you for so clearly explaining how you feel. I get it absolutely.

tothemax6 said:

Just copying this over from the other thread, the gist of it is "abortion is murder, religions are irrelevant".



As an additional rebuttal to the 'whats best for the mother' argument, e.g.

This applies to a born baby also. If a mother stabs her baby after it has left the womb, its a monstrous murder, but if she had a doctor stab it (youtube abortion to see how a third trimester abortion is performed) the day prior, some jurisdictions declare this perfectly legal. The world of 2011 is truly a "2+2=5,4,100 whatever" world.
The point is, tollbridge, that just because a person can declare themselves 'a mother', that does not suddenly make them entitled to commit violent crime. If we could kill anyone who we consider a stress to us, it would be a exciting world wouldn't it?

I am reminded of the hilarious (I think it was a 'chasers war') skit, in which a woman asks for a 'very late term abortion', and brings in her 20y/old stay at home son, on the grounds that he is a burden on her.

Click to expand...

To equate abortion with murder makes you religious. Who we are is a complex interaction between our environment and our genes through time. The logical conclusion is that even a baby who has just been born has not developed a sense of self due to lack of interaction with its environment through time. We all eat animals and we don't call killing animals murder because we don't perceive animals to have the intellectual capacity of humans, and as such animals are not considered alive as we are because their brains do not allow them to reach the stage of true self awareness. In the same vein even though a baby has the potential to reach true self awareness through interaction with its environment through time, due to not having had "time" is in effect not really self aware. Who they can become does not exist yet. You cannot murder someone who does not exist.

To think that you can murder a baby clearly makes you religious in that you believe that the person who that baby can become already exists. To believe that means you believe in the mythical thing called the "SOUL".

It is not abortionists who think 2+2=5. It is people like you who believe in the soul, even if you aren't religious and are unaware of your own belief of the soul.

lurker123 said:

To equate abortion with murder makes you religious. Who we are is a complex interaction between our environment and our genes through time. The logical conclusion is that even a baby who has just been born has not developed a sense of self due to lack of interaction with its environment through time. We all eat animals and we don't call killing animals murder because we don't perceive animals to have the intellectual capacity of humans, and as such animals are not considered alive as we are because their brains do not allow them to reach the stage of true self awareness. In the same vein even though a baby has the potential to reach true self awareness through interaction with its environment through time, due to not having had "time" is in effect not really self aware. Who they can become does not exist yet. You cannot murder someone who does not exist.

To think that you can murder a baby clearly makes you religious in that you believe that the person who that baby can become already exists. To believe that means you believe in the mythical thing called the "SOUL".

It is not abortionists who think 2+2=5. It is people like you who believe in the soul, even if you aren't religious and are unaware of your own belief of the soul.

Click to expand...

People don't like to kill kittens - is that also to do with a soul? Dogs are not considered alive because they are not as smart as us??? I don't think so.

You have to admit a late term abortion is pretty nasty.Your example with food, beef cattle- remember the protest when we all saw cattle killed in bad ways. There are standards! Naturally we feel the same with tiny humans. for example a 3 month old born baby is not yet self aware, so we can kill it if we feel like?? It doesn't matter? And if we think it does then we are one of those people that believe in souls? Would you kill a baby with no compunction because it is not self aware yet?

The doctors who perform this late term abortion procedure and they're associated nurses hate it. A hospital in Melbourne was complaining that they were the only in Victoria doing later term abortions and they wanted to spread the load around because the nurses and doctors feel revulsion and psychological effects while doing it.

My attitude is that if the baby could survive outside the womb, if born premature, then its too late to do it unless there is a very good reason such as rape or genetic problem involved. I don't want my tax payers money being spent on such a nasty task for healthy babies when there are many couples who would love to adopt the child.

I found voting on this poll difficult due to a lack of options. I think abortion is one of those issues that not only the general population will disagree about, often vehemently, but individuals can feel unsure or uneasy about. At least I'll admit to a certain amount of uncertainty. I am definately pro-choice, but I am a mother. I'll defend any woman's right to decide what happens to her own body, but having been pregnant and feeling the life inside me - I can't agree with late term abortions except in extreme circumstances. If I had a daughter I'd support her right to a termination, even if I'd prefer she carry the baby to term. If one of my sons got a girl pregnant who decided to abort against his wishes - I think I'd be very saddened but respectful of the fact that nobody has the right to force a pregnancy on an unwilling woman. I am not religious, but do consider the taking of "life" to be murder. The big question for me is when is an embryo considered to be a "life". At 6 - 12 weeks there is no chance of life outside the womb and I personally do not regard this as "life", but potential life. At 24 or 26 weeks many foetuses are considered viable outside the womb and I'd consider a termination at this late stage to be murder, or very near to it. Where is the tipping point between the two? I find myself very, very glad that I've never been in a position to have to make the decision on whether to abort or not. I have friends who have found themselves in this position and I don't think any of them reached their decision (some to abort, some not to) easily. I do know that most don't regret the decision that they made.

To me it comes down to a question of rights. If your personal religious beliefs are that abortion is murder, then by all means don't have one. Nobody is going to force an abortion on somebody who doesn't want one. I feel strongly that nobody has the right to enforce their personal beliefs or values on the population at large. Matters of legality should be separate to matters of personal morality/ethics. Nobody has the right to take away a woman's right to control over her own body - that's what it comes down to in the end for me.

Knobby22 said:

People don't like to kill kittens - is that also to do with a soul? Dogs are not considered alive because they are not as smart as us??? I don't think so.

You have to admit a late term abortion is pretty nasty.Your example with food, beef cattle- remember the protest when we all saw cattle killed in bad ways. There are standards! Naturally we feel the same with tiny humans. for example a 3 month old born baby is not yet self aware, so we can kill it if we feel like?? It doesn't matter? And if we think it does then we are one of those people that believe in souls? Would you kill a baby with no compunction because it is not self aware yet?

The doctors who perform this late term abortion procedure and they're associated nurses hate it. A hospital in Melbourne was complaining that they were the only in Victoria doing later term abortions and they wanted to spread the load around because the nurses and doctors feel revulsion and psychological effects while doing it.

My attitude is that if the baby could survive outside the womb, if born premature, then its too late to do it unless there is a very good reason such as rape or genetic problem involved. I don't want my tax payers money being spent on such a nasty task for healthy babies when there are many couples who would love to adopt the child.

Click to expand...

Your reference to dogs and cats is laughable and shows your failure to use logic. There are plenty of places where they will kill dogs for food expecially if there are no other sources of food available. As a simplification there is no difference between a dog/cat to a cow or chicken. The only difference is that our ancestors found cows/chickens easy to farm, while dogs were predators which makes them hard to farm. Not withstanding the fact that our ancestors learned that they could use dogs to help us farm.

Your comparison with the cattle killed in bad ways shows your own hypocrisy. If you were to compare the cattle killed in bad ways to abortion then you would compare it to a baby being tortured to death. If you understood your own hypocrisy you would take the view that I don't support killing babies hence I will no longer eat meat and will become a vegetarian. The fact that you don't take this view means that you see humans as being above animals which supports my case entirely. We kill animals and don't call it murder because animals are inferior to humans because they lack the brain capacity to develop true self awareness.

You mention doctors and nurses at a hospital in Melbourne hating to do late term abortions. In my view if the doctors and nurses don't want to do late term abortions then they shouldn't be forced to.

To answer your question as to whether I would kill a baby, no I wouldn't. Would I kill a cow, I wouldn't kill a cow either. On the otherhand if I was paid well to work at a abattoir or kill a baby then I would. In the interest of full disclosure, if you asked me if I would murder someone provided I was paid well and wouldn't go to gaol such as when joining the army, I would. Doubtless those who are against my view and fail at using logic would use this as a avenue of attack. I am just a immoral piece of **** so anything I say is crap.

Obviously it is much harder to kill a baby than a cow. Unlike sharks, evolution has taken humans down the road where we don't readily kill either our own or other peoples babies. This has been achieved in various ways, from the way babies look, they are extremely cute to possibly the pheromones they give off. Because I am not a scientist who studies this field I am unable to expand further.

Lurker, much as I acknowledge your right to express your view, reading your post makes me feel quite sick.

Animals are sentient creatures. They experience pain and fear in the same way human beings do.

lurker123 said:

To equate abortion with murder makes you religious. Who we are is a complex interaction between our environment and our genes through time. The logical conclusion is that even a baby who has just been born has not developed a sense of self due to lack of interaction with its environment through time. We all eat animals and we don't call killing animals murder because we don't perceive animals to have the intellectual capacity of humans, and as such animals are not considered alive as we are because their brains do not allow them to reach the stage of true self awareness. In the same vein even though a baby has the potential to reach true self awareness through interaction with its environment through time, due to not having had "time" is in effect not really self aware. Who they can become does not exist yet. You cannot murder someone who does not exist.

To think that you can murder a baby clearly makes you religious in that you believe that the person who that baby can become already exists. To believe that means you believe in the mythical thing called the "SOUL".

It is not abortionists who think 2+2=5. It is people like you who believe in the soul, even if you aren't religious and are unaware of your own belief of the soul.

Click to expand...

So basically, your position is 'killing a baby, even if it is born, is not immoral, to think otherwise is religious'. Well if that's the definition mate, I am damn religious. And you sir are a schizophrenic.

We don't live in a perfect cocooned and regulated world. I'm staunchly pro-choice.

Logique said:

We don't live in a perfect cocooned and regulated world. I'm staunchly pro-choice.

Click to expand...

Agree. Most situations in life require compromise. Often between two unattractive options.