The abortion issue

[jgh7]

This is my first time adding a poll, so hopefully it works

I notice that the issue of gay marriage is a hot topic on these forums, but people tend to skirt around abortion... Gee, I wonder why? Here's a poll, please choose one of the options even if you feel that you're "special" to the point of where none of these options describes you. Please keep in mind, This has to do only with pregnancies that are not the result of rape, are not a danger to the mother's life, and with fetuses that will not have grossly severe deformities or disabilities. I have opinions about each of these special circumstances, but I would like this topic to be about the overwhelming majority of pregnancies which don't have these problems.

Obviously you can voice your stance as well, and feel free to talk about your opinions of how religion relates to all of this... or how it shouldn't. Here's mine:

For me, my strong views about abortion coincide highly with my religious views, but I developed them before I became religious. I view life as sacred from the moment of conception. I don't care if the zef (zygote/embryo/fetus) can think, I don't care how he looks, I don't care if the mother-to-be is a teenager or not, and I don't care about the impact on society. All I care about is the zef's life, and how I define life is not based off of cognitive abilities, development of vital organs, or ability to survive outside the womb. Life is about having a future on this earth. Many people say it's no big deal because there are so many early miscarriages that we don't even realize happen, but that is an awful reason to justify the purposeful destruction of life.

The main pro-choice argument is that the mother has a right to choose since it's her body. I strongly disagree. In the cases of voluntary sex, people know the risks; even when they use protection they know there's still a risk. Even if they don't know the risks, that still does not justify killing the zef because of their ignorance. Even in the worst case scenario, where the mother is a teenager and dirt poor, I strongly believe that abortion is wrong. Life is sacred to the point of where both parents ought to be willing to sacrifice their monetary well-being as well as their personal lives/time/aspirations for the sake of letting their child live.

My faith strengthens my stance, and I'm not ashamed to admit that the only way I could feel so strongly is through my faith. After all, with a non-theistic view it's pretty easy to view life as insignificant if it's a tiny spec that doesn't think and doesn't look anything like a baby. I understand many will be offended by this, but I've seen that this is the case for many non-theists.

The final argument that usually arises is: "Isn't using protection the same as abortion, since you're preventing sperm from entering the egg?" I believe we have the right to choose when we want to create life, but we don't have the right to choose to destroy that life once it has been created. I may not know the precise time down to the second, but somewhere during the moment of conception, life is created. A sperm will not grow into a baby, and neither will an egg; only a fertilized egg. All that is left after conception is less than a year of growing until the life is born. Using protection is no more abortion than is choosing not to have sex for a certain night. Both cases mean that sperm that could have fertilized an egg was prevented from doing so. But destroying a fertilized egg is abortion, because it is killing off a human life that is growing.

These are my views. I know there are many points where people can disagree, but abortion is one thing where I have a very strong stance on, since I believe it is killing. When people are lax on their stances and say things like, "It's only for mothers to decide," it usually means that they don't view the zef as a life.

[jgh7]

you're against children suffering but pro choice? hmm. seems kinda weird to me but that's fine if that's what you're for

A 'zef' is not a 'child'.

Stop trying to blur issues by using emotional language.

Next you'll be calling abortion murder.

I don't know about murder, but I'll call it killing.

[jgh7]

This is my first time adding a poll, so hopefully it works

I notice that the issue of gay marriage is a hot topic on these forums, but people tend to skirt around abortion... Gee, I wonder why? Here's a poll, please choose one of the options even if you feel that you're "special" to the point of where none of these options describes you. Please keep in mind, This has to do only with pregnancies that are not the result of rape, are not a danger to the mother's life, and with fetuses that will not have grossly severe deformities or disabilities. I have opinions about each of these special circumstances, but I would like this topic to be about the overwhelming majority of pregnancies which don't have these problems.

How about 'none of the above'....

I'm pro-life, pro-choice and a non-theist.

cheers

Until you can give a better explanation of your nonsensical stance, I'll just assume that you mean pro-choice. It's most likely the case I'm sure.

You are assuming that 'pro-choice' is not promoting life too. That is an error based. Someone who is 'pro-choice' is not 'pro-abortion'.

Where do you get off assuming what I know? Pro-choice promotes a right to choose over the right to life. Pro-choice is the belief that people have the right to choose if they want an abortion for the sake of woman's bodily autonomy. Pro-life is the belief that they don't have this right, and what they are doing is killing life, and this killing of life takes precedence over bodily autonomy.

[jgh7]

Here is the main problem with the claim that life BEGINS at conception. Sperm cells are already 'living' when they fertilize an egg. So how can life BEGIN at conception?

I'm talking about life that we take to be of value, a human life. A human being is living, but the cells on his big toe are living as well. Do you consider the individual cells to be of the same value as the human being, do you consider the killing of those cells to be of equal gravity to the killing of the human? Obviously not.

At conception, we are no longer talking about individual cells that make up a human, we are now talking about the human itself. A fertilized egg is a human life.

[Beto]

My position is the same as Bernee's and I don't think it's nonsensical at all. What I think is nonsensical is the false "pro-life / pro-choice" dichotomy, which is a very fundamentalist way of thinking. People should learn to make a distinction between a human being, a creature already imbued with the characteristics that distinguish humans from other animals, and a potential human. I am "pro-life" when a human being is concerned. I am "pro-choice" because only women are entitled to decide if what's inside their own bodies is already human, or potentially human. I'm not in the least bit shocked if people don't consider a cell conglomerate indistinguishable from a guinea pig of the same age, as simply potentially human. And so is every ovary or spermatozoid.

[jgh7]

My position is the same as Bernee's and I don't think it's nonsensical at all. What I think is nonsensical is the false "pro-life / pro-choice" dichotomy, which is a very fundamentalist way of thinking. People should learn to make a distinction between a human being, a creature already imbued with the characteristics that distinguish humans from other animals, and a potential human. I am "pro-life" when a human being is concerned. I am "pro-choice" because only women are entitled to decide if what's inside their own bodies is already human, or potentially human. I'm not in the least bit shocked if people don't consider a cell conglomerate indistinguishable from a guinea pig of the same age, as simply potentially human. And so is every ovary or spermatozoid.

For the record, you are PRO-CHOICE. Please stop associating yourself with the pro-life stance; it's insulting. Your views are exactly the same as the majority of people with pro-choice views, and they go against the views of people on the pro-life side. When judging the value of life, you rely on appearances: if it doesn't look like a baby, then it's life is not of significant value. I guess there's a magic point where it starts looking enough like a baby that you deem its life to be of significance. This is completely arbitrary, almost as arbitrary as your statement that only women have the moral capacity to decide on the value of the unborn child's life. Your misconceptions and shallow views of human life are common with the rest of pro-choicers, and they are common among non-theists.

[Beto]

For the record, you are PRO-CHOICE.

For the record, I am what I say I am. What you think I am is another issue entirely. It's your problem if you see life as black and white. Others will not hold to such a simplistic mindset, and do not associate themselves with either expression by itself, as you understand it.

Please stop associating yourself with the pro-life stance; it's insulting.

I'm sorry you feel insulted by the way I categorize myself, but I also feel insulted by your simplistic labelling of my position as simply "pro-choice". The difference here is that I'm not telling you what you are, but you presume to tell me what I am.

Your views are exactly the same as the majority of people with pro-choice views, and they go against the views of people on the pro-life side.

Fact of the matter is, the "pro-life" side is not always "pro-life". They are always "pro-choice" when they refrain their sexual urges. Children, each of them unique, are denied existence every time one doesn't indulge that most primal of instincts. You made the rather arbitrary choice to begin being "pro-life" at the moment of conception.

When judging the value of life, you rely on appearances: if it doesn't look like a baby, then it's life is not of significant value.

I rely on what separates man from beast. I made a distinction between something distinguishably human, and something with the set of instructions necessary to become distinguishably human. I grant you the right to decide that subtle transition for yourself, where you would deny me the same.

I guess there's a magic point where it starts looking enough like a baby that you deem its life to be of significance.

I have my opinion. I just don't presume to impinge it on others because it's, as you so eloquently put next, completely arbitrary where others are concerned.

This is completely arbitrary, almost as arbitrary as your statement that only women have the moral capacity to decide on the value of the unborn child's life.

The woman carrying the foetus, in my mind, should be the sole arbiter of its fate. I may not agree with every decision every woman makes, but that is beside the point. I don't agree with a lot of people, on a lot of things.

Your misconceptions and shallow views of human life are common with the rest of pro-choicers, and they are common among non-theists.

If that was meant as an insult, it didn't connect.

[rblight]

It is nonsensical to label yourself as pro-life and pro-choice, and to give no further explanation of what you mean in that post. After reading this post, your stances is pro-choice. You believe people have a right to choose.

Conservative Evangelicals are masters of rhetoric. Many people are anti-abortion AND pro-choice. I believe that abortion on demand is wrong, but I also believe that the government has no right to tell people what to do with their bodies. This is a medical issue that should be decided by a woman and her doctor, not by the government and conservative Christians trying to force their values on everyone else.

[guy fawkes]

you're against children suffering but pro choice? hmm. seems kinda weird to me but that's fine if that's what you're for

A 'zef' is not a 'child'.

Stop trying to blur issues by using emotional language.

Next you'll be calling abortion murder.

I don't know about murder, but I'll call it killing.

Tell me, it seems that all people who are against abortion wanting to limit peoples freedom (woman in this case) to do what they want with there body, are usually pro war...

Do you consider the hundreds of thousands of innocent men woman and children killed by Christian soldiers in Iraq, to be murder?


Just so I see your mindset here....

[rblight]

Here is the main problem with the claim that life BEGINS at conception. Sperm cells are already 'living' when they fertilize an egg. So how can life BEGIN at conception?

I'm talking about life that we take to be of value, a human life. A human being is living, but the cells on his big toe are living as well. Do you consider the individual cells to be of the same value as the human being, do you consider the killing of those cells to be of equal gravity to the killing of the human? Obviously not.

At conception, we are no longer talking about individual cells that make up a human, we are now talking about the human itself. A fertilized egg is a human life.

You are making a scientific claim without any empirical evidence. A fertilized egg is not a human life; it is a potential human life. But so is a sperm cell. Christians should get their facts from science instead of their Sunday school teachers. Life does not begin at conception because your pastor says so.

[rblight]

Tell me, it seems that all people who are against abortion wanting to limit peoples freedom (woman in this case) to do what they want with there body, are usually pro war...

They are also strongly pro-death penalty, which I find to be utterly hypocritical. How can you claim to be pro-life and be for execution? When you execute someone, you are actually killing a REAL human being, not a blob of cells.

The US is one of the only non-third world countries that continues to execute people and that is the fault of conservative Christians. Doesn't the bible preach forgiveness?

Are there any evangelicals who think for themselves? Or do they all blindly follow what their pastor says?