for those against abortion

[Usehername]

Because you think you're killing potential.

Whether or not it's actual human life is inconsequential. However, when you're destroying it, it was something so close to having its own life, an independent mind, and even the possibility to do something good. And by destroying it you're destroying all of that along with it.

Then again, Hitler's mom wanted to abort him and her doctor talked her out of it, so I guess it goes both ways.

I think this is consequential in many worldviews that oppose abortion. In fact, it's possibly the only thing of consequence in religious people's opposition.

 

[Haphazard]

I think this is consequential in many worldviews that oppose abortion. In fact, it's possibly the only thing of consequence in religious people's opposition.

The OP was asking why they feel like abortion is murder. I mean someone could say that it's because fetuses are alive and a gift from God and human life shouldn't be prevented (i.e. contraceptives, morning after pill, etc) or I could give an answer that doesn't require any of that, because it doesn't seem like that's what they believe, because if they did, they would have said it already.

 

[Ivy]

From an interview with Sarah Weddington, the attorney for the Roe side of the case:

After the case was decided, she talked publicly about a rape that turned into a gang rape. Subsequently, she told Carl Rowan, a Washington columnist, that her rape story was a lie. That, too, has no effect on the case, as there is no mention anywhere in any aspect of the case about how she got pregnant. Texas had no exception for rape. It was after the decision that she talked about such things, primarily in giving press interviews.

 

[Usehername]

Hmm. That's why I asked for the clarification after the original post, but it seems people took it differently... it sounded like you wanted another pro-lifer to answer.

I really hate abortion, it really bothers me; and the only reason I accept it at all is because I'm also a realist... I'm capable of seeing that in some situations, there are competing goods -- it's not "good" vs "bad" -- and so it makes sense to permit something that personally offends me because it's the only fair thing to do in the situation, there are other evils at play that I consider very bad as well.

So, in the end, I have to rationally call myself "pro-choice"... but I'm definitely at the end that believes abortion should be rare and avoided if at all possible. I don't like it on a personal level... and I mean, I really -don't- like it.

As far as attaching personal values to people who might abort or might support abortion rights, I tend to make personal judgments of others based on their motivations (as best I can determine them) and not necessarily their decision.

If someone willfully got abortions and seemed to not care in the least, I'd probably feel like they were "evil."

If someone got abortions out of ignorance and immaturity, I would feel like they were immature and grieve over the decision but not that they were necessarily "evil."

If someone agonized over an abortion and got one after a long-thought-out decision process, there would be little stigma I would automatically attach to them even if I would grieve over their decision while thinking it makes sense and I would be extremely supportive of them.

That's just me; while intellectually there's a lot of ambiguity over "beginning of life" and a lot of the distinctions were make seems irrational, there's also just the emotional part that sees abortion as a violating process, an abrupt break in the natural unfolding of life that could have often been handled in other ways; and since the unborn baby is recognizably human, emotionally I read it as human as a born child even if a case can be made for that status being ambiguous; and having three children of my own, I've watched that whole process unfold and see and love the results and thus see the great loss of potential life and value.

I guess the difference here is that I do not attach hatred to people who get abortions or support abortion rights if I see that their position is based on trying to do the overall "best thing" in the situation and it's merely a difference of opinion, NOT that they're trying to be evil and selfish and destructive.

Great post, as per usual.

I'm of very similar thinking. I'm very pro-choice for intellectualized reasons, though the only time I would consider abortion myself would be if I were to be pregnant by rape--though even then, now that I'm 23 and feel less like a child and more like an adult who can deal with a broken world, my standard for myself would be to carry and then put the baby up for adoption.

To expand on something you mentioned, people with different worldviews and notions of what a fetus is are going to approach the abortion issue through a different lens. I'd have far less trouble supporting someone's choice if they were not at all religious and had a legitimate reason to abort through their lens of life and so long as they don't, you know, make a habit out of it.

I think my worldview includes the belief that there is one true right way with regard to moral decisions, but yet this is impossible to impose upon others (not to mention a bad idea all around) so I have these categories for morals:

(1) my search after the one true moral way (which I will of course never find and properly delineate, but that does not remove the importance the search); this is what I uphold for myself

(2) moral violations that I (quietly) judge in others, because not abiding by them distinctly violates my belief of the one true right moral way--but "violations" that I intellectually affirm others choosing because they do not share my worldview

(3) stuff that I believe every human should be upheld to (treating people with dignity, not killing unless in a legal war as a solider or as consequence of a fair murder trial, etc.)

 

[Phantonym]

I may also make a comment on the statement that its about survival of the fittest. Look, how are we to know if such a fetus was the fittest if we went and there and killed it? Even the 'fittest' fetus wont survive. I mean, any person can kill. Doesn't make them the fittest. It's defenseless. So of coarse if you try to get ride of it, you'll more than likely succeed. It doesn't have to do with whether or not it was the weakest or fittest.

What I meant with my statement is that the woman is in power of making the choice, thus she is the "fittest to survive". It doesn't make it any right or fair but life is not fair.

 

[Randomnity]

Great post, as per usual.

I'm of very similar thinking. I'm very pro-choice for intellectualized reasons, though the only time I would consider abortion myself would be if I were to be pregnant by rape--though even then, now that I'm 23 and feel less like a child and more like an adult who can deal with a broken world, my standard for myself would be to carry and then put the baby up for adoption.

I find this interesting because I'm your age but I'm reluctant to consider adoption as an option due mainly to the horrifying things you so often see in foster care....and even if it doesn't get to the abuse levels, you can't really know how the adoptive parents will treat the child...or even that it'd be adopted at all. And then you have the adopted child later in life wondering why you "threw him away" and didn't want him etc etc. Not to say there aren't amazing foster parents (there are), you just can't know for sure without an open adoption.

I would kinda rather prevent the child from being born rather than subject it (and me) to that uncertainty for our whole lives. So the choice for me would be between abortion and keeping it...and I'm not even sure now what choice I would make, because abortion's not something I would be comfortable with (but neither is raising a child at this point in my life..)

sorry I'll stop talking since I'm a potential baby-killer. I just wanted to comment on that.

 

[Nocapszy]

The last line is a little confusing. You mean you're looking for people to explain why they believe abortion might be okay in some circumstances? (Just clarifying.)

i don't think he has any idea what he's saying.
probably just a rough night and a bad experience with a bottle of pills.

 

[run]

That's not exactly how it works. Moral relativism just suggests that morals come from and depend on variables such as culture, society, history, and individual preferences. That's reality.

Moral absolutism, the belief in absolute or God-determined right and wrong devoid of context, can be more dangerous.

Oh really? You think absolutism is dangerous? Try pure relativism. It's called being a sociopath.

Morality is relative. Partly. Killing in a just war is ok; Killing someone while they're sleeping in their house for no reason is not ok. Context and circumstances matter. But murder, the innocent taking of human life is not ok. Ever. Columbine was absolutely wrong. I don't need an ethics degree to know that.

No society has ever survived without some sort of absolute. Ours is the first who has no absolute morality. To call 99/100 people who ever walked this planet a bunch of loons is nothing but snobbery.

Absolutism can be more dangerous? Perhaps absolutists went on crusades and mudered people. Perhaps they make kooky laws that deny gays jobs. Perhaps they extermianted the jews. Perhaps all these people have nothing in common but the fact that they're all moral absolutists. Correlation doesn't mean causation.

Besides, you're one of them. You say absolutism is wrong. Is that your morality? Is the claim that "relativism is better" true? If its not absolute, it's not a morality. It's "I think relativism is better, I feel relativism is better, Relativism is more pragmatic, more efficient" not "relativism is right." You can't support your view that absolutism is wrong without that claim being absolute.

So, in the end, I have to rationally call myself "pro-choice"... but I'm definitely at the end that believes abortion should be rare and avoided if at all possible. I don't like it on a personal level... and I mean, I really -don't- like it.

As far as attaching personal values to people who might abort or might support abortion rights, I tend to make personal judgments of others based on their motivations (as best I can determine them) and not necessarily their decision.

If someone willfully got abortions and seemed to not care in the least, I'd probably feel like they were "evil."

If someone got abortions out of ignorance and immaturity, I would feel like they were immature and grieve over the decision but not that they were necessarily "evil."

I guess the difference here is that I do not attach hatred to people who get abortions or support abortion rights if I see that their position is based on trying to do the overall "best thing" in the situation and it's merely a difference of opinion, NOT that they're trying to be evil and selfish and destructive.

Thanks

 

[ajblaise]

No society has ever survived without some sort of absolute. Ours is the first who has no absolute morality. To call 99/100 people who ever walked this planet a bunch of loons is nothing but snobbery.

They weren't necessarily loons. Just like the people who used to believe the earth was flat weren't loony. They just didn't know any better.

 

[run]

They weren't necessarily loons. Just like the people who used to believe the earth was flat weren't loony. They just didn't know any better.

ok, to say every society is mistaken before ours

is that all you got?

 

[ajblaise]

ok, to say every society is mistaken before ours

is that all you got?

No, our society isn't quite there yet. People like you still exist.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

I'm all for voluntary, government run sterilization programs for men and women who are born into poor families. Abortions should be only used for people who can't afford children.

 

[Lateralus]

People have been killing children for population control and related issues since the dawn of human kind. The fact they do it in a “medical procedure” now shows how “civilized” we have become. Sure its arbitrary and its killing but its not illegal under the U.S. Constitution. In other words the states don't even have the right to make it illegal.

This is incorrect. The Constitution doesn't make public nudity illegal, but states and local municipalities have laws against that. Should the Supreme Court strike down those laws as well?

I probably agree with you on the issue of abortion, but your logic here is fucking terrible. You should be ashamed to call yourself an INTP.

 

[Not_Me]

This issue has been debated by the best minds for ages. The bottom line is there is no way to prove that one position is morally superior to other. Therefore, like religion, it's a matter of personal choice.

I am pro choice because I think it is consistent with placing a high value on individual freedoms. A woman should not be forced to incubate a fetus if she do not wish to do so.

This is analogous to the case of liver transplants. If some random guy needs a liver transplant to survive, should society have the right to force another random guy to donate?

 

[Winds of Thor]

I think you believe this because you're ignorant of the distinction between a fetus and a child.

You believe that fetus = child, which is really an unreasonable perspective if you've researched the matter thoroughly. Please do more research.

Sorry.

You're the perfect candidate for enlightenment here. Please provide the research.

 

[Lateralus]

The only way to stop the demand for abortions is to turn children into economic assets instead of liabilities. So if you want to reduce demand for abortions, reinstitute child labor.

 

[Winds of Thor]

This has the whole "What would you do behind closed doors?" feel.

Ya know?

 

[Risen]

She was being facetious. She was illustrating the slippery slope of the negligence of human life.

I'm... not so sure... I really don't see the context for that. :/

This is incorrect. The Constitution doesn't make public nudity illegal, but states and local municipalities have laws against that. Should the Supreme Court strike down those laws as well?

I probably agree with you on the issue of abortion, but your logic here is fucking terrible. You should be ashamed to call yourself an INTP.

The Constitution grants the right to free speech/expression. Nudity may fall into that category of protected constitutional rights. But it's not quite the same as doing something to your own body, something extremely central to the individual and generally not effecting anyone else directly (such as the sight of nudity in public). I think the strongest logical basis is in focusing on that aspect. And like I said, I don't think gov can make anything you do to your own body (without substances) illegal, but rather institute other laws that can reprimand people for self destructive actions, or that seek to correct the behavior.

 

[Lateralus]

The Constitution grants the right to free speech/expression. Nudity may fall into that category of protected constitutional rights. But it's not quite the same as doing something to your own body, something extremely central to the individual and generally not effecting anyone else directly (such as the sight of nudity in public). I think the strongest logical basis is in focusing on that aspect. And like I said, I don't think gov can make anything you do to your own body (without substances) illegal, but rather institute other laws that can reprimand people for self destructive actions, or that seek to correct the behavior.

His line of logic was:

The Constitution doesn't criminalize the act, therefore, the states can't either.

That's obviously not true. I could have used a thousand different examples. If he elaborated on that point, I didn't read it. His first post was so stupid, I couldn't help myself.

 

[Spamtar]

This is incorrect. The Constitution doesn't make public nudity illegal, but states and local municipalities have laws against that. Should the Supreme Court strike down those laws as well?

I probably agree with you on the issue of abortion, but your logic here is fucking terrible. You should be ashamed to call yourself an INTP.

No, you are showing your ignorance again Lateralus.

First consider at least reading Roe v. Wade and get some basic understanding of U.S. Constitutional law (I have and I know you have not based on the above post [either that or you were too dumb to understand it). The states can't deny federal fundamental rights of its people when those rights are selected to be applicable to the states via the 14th amendment. The majority of the Court deemed that the 1st amendment's implicit "right of privacy" is applicable to the states via the 14th amendment in Roe v. Wade and similar subsequent cases. By virtue of being a fundamental right and applicable via the 14th amendment any law within the jurisdiction of the U.S. , state or federal, sufficiently infringing upon the fundamental right makes it illegal.

Public nudity is not a fundamental right and thus the states may outlaw it. What a horible example.

It is not so bad that you are ignorant but when you accuse other people on being ignorant who know what they are taking about in an area you totally ignorant in then this shows you sir, have low character. Really after this everything you say is suspect. The shame is yours.