Atheist Abortion Debate

[Jennifer123]

I also meant to include info on Dr. Nathanson, founder of Naral, one of the most ardent supporters of abortion “rights” who helped conceive (sorry no pun intended) the campaign to legalize abortion.
His testimony should warn anyone about the cynical nature of the pro-death movement. His tale of the slick marketing campaign dreamt up to gain sympathy for the movement is chilling. Resist the agenda people, wake up and realize you are being used!!!

thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/01-17-2000/vo16no02_defectors.htm

priestsforlife.org/media/nathansoninterview.htm

catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0002.html

catholicfocus.com/miracle.htm

prolife.com/NATHAN.html

 

[mlchance]

atheos_sum:

Then for the sake of consistency you must feel the same about war’s intentional destruction of innocents as well.

Did I admit any exceptions?

Regarding the fiction that abortion rates have increased under President Bush:

atheos_sum:

Ok then, i would like to see a link.

Those links have been provided by other posters.

atheos_sum:

Does this mean that you have conceded that it is justified for the very few this happens to?

Did I admit it was an exception? Did I say I concede anything?

atheos_sum:

My point was just to list some instances as to when i think an abortion ought to be permissible, which is very rare. my treatment of this application has been mainly on Millian grounds.

There are no circumstances under which anyone is ever permitted to deliberately kill an innocent. Any grounds – Millian or otherwise – that assert the contrary are made of shifting sand.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[atheos_sum]

Jennifer123:

The claim that abortions have actually risen un der the Bush admin is based on faulty data. See here:

http://66.195.16.55/nat1143.html

and here:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat886.html

and here:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001323.htm

and here:

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2005/NRL02/AbortionIncreaseMyth.html

Thanks for trying to shore this up. Here’s an even better link I think, straight from the institution that did the counter-study.

http://www.agi-usa.org/media/nr/2005/05/19/index.html

So, what I said was wrong. Abortion rates haven’t gone up during Bush according to this. Thankfully, I am not too thick-headed to admit when I am wrong. This doesn’t mean, however, that changes in the economy do not affect the rate of abortions whatsoever. To a large degree I think Stassen’s framework for engagement (and processing variables) was correct, laying the groundwork for future studies of that nature. The only trouble was that his actual data was incorrect and not processed very well.

 

[atheos_sum]

mlchance:
Originally Posted by atheos_sum

Then for the sake of consistency you must feel the same about war’s intentional destruction of innocents as well.

Did I admit any exceptions?

Then you opposed using cluster bombs in Iraqi cities and things of that nature? In other words, to the extent that you are a pro-life activist, based on the same principles you ought to be a human-rights activist (think Amnesty Int’l) at least in principle.

I’m only asking because most of the pro-life people I’ve met have very individualist and Kantian views on domestic abortion rights, but have aggressive, confrontational and very un-Kantian views on foreign policy, which is partly why I mentioned Nigeria, an example of “foreign abortion rights.” I was curious as to your views on that particular combination.

If war can be justified on grounds that we will “better the lives of futures citizens” of another country, then couldn’t abortion also be justified on grounds that we will “better the lives of future citizens” in our own country? And what if it can be shown through a cost-benefit analysis to be more beneficial to have an abortion, like the cold and calculating analyses of war strategists?

mlchance:
Did I admit it was an exception? Did I say I concede anything?

…… Déjà vu.

Why should “such instances are so rare” count against them, as you imply? Instead of counting for them, as I imply?

mlchance:
There are no circumstances under which anyone is ever permitted to deliberately kill an innocent. Any grounds – Millian or otherwise – that assert the contrary are made of shifting sand.

Claims, Evidence and Warrant:

When a claim is in question, you need to provide evidence, and when your evidence is in question, you need to explain why your evidence warrants approval—and so on within reason.

Your claim that there are no circumstances which anyone is permitted to have an abortion is in question. I have given you scenarios to consider and you have simply dismissed them without warrant. You’re treating your own claims as if they were its own evidence, and treating your evidence as if it was its own warrant. “Made of shifting sand” does not explain anything, it just sounds cool.

 

[Jennifer123]

I don’t think the comparison between the Iraq War or any war for that matter and abortion is a good one. People can legitimately disagree about the war, its motives and outcomes, but the fact remains that war is sometimes justified. I’m not saying this particular war is or is not justified, I’m saying that war is sometimes legitimately just. Abortion can NEVER be justifiable.

Now, I may be wong, but it’s my understanding that in the very few cases where abortion may be used to save a woman’s life, that in most cases it’s a pregnancy that isn’t viable anyway, i.e. ectopic or some other situation where the baby will die before delivery, along with the mother. Doesn’t Church teaching say something about this? Again I could be wrong and I don’t want to necessarily start a tangent that will derail this discussion…

As for your point about pro-lifers being more involved with “human rights” organizations, personally I find most of these orgs have many of the same views on human life as do the pro-death agenda: overpopulation concerns, pro-euthanasia, pro-sterilization, etc. All of these things are against a pro-life outlook.

I have heard mixed messages about Amnesty Int’l and their view on pro-life issues…

Oh - thank you for the concession on the Bush item. Admirable.

 

[adstrinity]

Has probably already been stated here, but, isn’t an heartbeat detectible within the first month or month and one half?

 

[atheos_sum]

Jennifer123:

I don’t think the comparison between the Iraq War or any war for that matter and abortion is a good one. People can legitimately disagree about the war, its motives and outcomes, but the fact remains that war is sometimes justified.

I think it is a good comparison, because in both cases we’re examining whether it is legitimate to take the life of an innocent human being. That was, of course, the claim: that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being whatsoever.

And I very much admire consistency.

I think war can be justified, and I also think abortion can be justified. but in both cases innocent human beings die. both, however, require the strictest of all possible criteria.

You, on the other hand, believe that war can be justified but abortion cannot. Hence, I see a contradiction in your human rights calculus.

What grounds is war justifiable on, i ask you. Then we should compare them to the grounds that are usually made to justify abortions. I would think the similarities would be striking.

Jennifer123:

I’m not saying this particular war is or is not justified, I’m saying that war is sometimes legitimately just. Abortion can NEVER be justifiable.

vide supra

Jennifer123:

Now, I may be wong, but it’s my understanding that in the very few cases where abortion may be used to save a woman’s life, that in most cases it’s a pregnancy that isn’t viable anyway, i.e. ectopic or some other situation where the baby will die before delivery, along with the mother.

then would these be “exceptions”? or are you going to be stodgy and non-consequential like our friend mlchance who doesn’t adequately respond and keeps repeating his claims over and over without warrant?

Even if something doesn’t happen very often, you still have to ask whether it can be justified for that reason. late term abortions i read somewhere don’t happen very often at all, especially in certain states like Vermont. So does that mean it’s justified? how often it happens should not matter when discussing the moral significance of the act. If it happened a lot would it change the moral significance?

Jennifer123:

As for your point about pro-lifers being more involved with “human rights” organizations, personally I find most of these orgs have many of the same views on human life as do the pro-death agenda: overpopulation concerns, pro-euthanasia, pro-sterilization, etc. All of these things are against a pro-life outlook.

I have heard mixed messages about Amnesty Int’l and their view on pro-life issues…

Amnesty is in fact a very credible organization. They’re very nonpartisan. Reagan used their data to badger the soviet union in the 80s. Activists used their data on Rwanda to badger the UN and Clinton in the 90s. Now, of course, activists are using their data to badger Bush on Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Their main focus is on people, humans.

I’m not sure what their role in the abortion debates is, however.

Jennifer123:

Oh - thank you for the concession on the Bush item. Admirable.

What can i say, i was just being a stupid liberal who would accept any data that demonizes the bush administration.

 

[Jennifer123]

atheos_sum:

I think it is a good comparison, because in both cases we’re examining whether it is legitimate to take the life of an innocent human being. That was, of course, the claim: that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being whatsoever.

It is always wrong to take the life of an innocent human being. But there are intentional and unintentional consequences. In a just war, the loss of innocent life is an unintentional consequence. Abortion is the intentional taking of a life. I found a thread that discusses this issue and you may find it interesting:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=60482&highlight=ectopic+pregnancy

It mentions the situations I was talking about, ectopic pregnancy etc. These aren’t “exceptions to the rule” but rather situations where the loss of the baby is an unintentional consequence of the course of treatment to save the mother’s life. Not all mothers choose a course of treatment that may end their lives in order to keep a viable pregnancy. St. Gianna is an example:
gianna.org/

No direct abortion is justifiable regardless of incidence, particularly the gruesome procedure called partial birth abortion (or more sanitized version, late-term abortion).

Amnesty is in fact a very credible organization. They’re very nonpartisan. Reagan used their data to badger the soviet union in the 80s. Activists used their data on Rwanda to badger the UN and Clinton in the 90s. Now, of course, activists are using their data to badger Bush on Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Their main focus is on people, humans.

I’m not sure what their role in the abortion debates is, however.

I was speaking on my behalf, personally, about Amnesty Int’l. I’m familiar with them and used to support what they do. I don’t know what the official opinion is on abortion and other issues that fall under the “pro-life” position, but from what I’ve gathered there is no official position or it’s inconsistant. IMHO most orgs. that fall left of center (and yes, AI is leftist) aren’t very pro-life, to say the least. We could start another thread on AI if you wish. Let’s just say on that point we disagree.

What can i say, i was just being a stupid liberal who would accept any data that demonizes the bush administration.

At least you admit it :clapping:

 

[m134e5]

HistoryTeacher:

What do I say to an Atheist who says that life doesn’t begin until brain development/cognition in the 5th month and has plenty of documentation about fetal brain development and beginnings of ability to learn in the 3rd trimester. He draws a line somewhere around the 5th month and says before it is ok because science proves that it’s just a “shell”

Nothing can come from nothing- it’s pure logic really. The cells are not the mother’s cells- they have a different chromosomal make-up. whose are they then? They’re not the same as the father’s either. They are unique. If people can accept as life the algae growing in the holy water mentioned in another thread, and life can generally be defined as cellular activity, then they must, to be logical, accept that life is there. There is certainly cellular activity- and other than the fact that the mother’s body is the environment, and without the environment it cannot survive, that life is independent (it can die and the mother live, the mother could also die and the baby be delivered safely if caught soon enough. They are neither cells of the mother of the father- they make up a unique organism. Anyone with any knowledge of Biology MUST accept this fact. Most true athiests are athiests because they believe in logic- so let logic be your advantage. (Unfortunately, economics and politics tend to be more persuasive than Biology- even to Biologists themselves).

 

[atheos_sum]

Jennifer123:

It is always wrong to take the life of an innocent human being. But there are intentional and unintentional consequences. In a just war, the loss of innocent life is an unintentional consequence. Abortion is the intentional taking of a life.

I like the intentional/unintentional distinction. but there are still some problems.

Consider that most people who have abortions didn’t intend to become pregnant in the first place. Thus, the pregnancy was viewed as an “unintentional consequence” of certain sexual acts. So having sex could be viewed by one who doesn’t intend on becoming pregnant as a “potential sacrifice of a human being.” (If only every sexually active person thought of sex in this way, we might have fewer pregnancies, ipso facto, abortions too.)

Ideally, war strategists (like prospective sex partners) would not intend to kill innocents, but it is obviously a sacrifice and a risk they are willing to take. The strategist is willing to sacrifice innocents for the sake of some kind of “good”. A certain sexually active person is also willing to sacrifice innocents for the sake of some kind of “good”. Both are willing to risk an evil for a good.

So might an unintentional pregnancy call for an intentional remedy? Just like an unintentional war in the Balkans (insofar as we did not want war to break out) might call for an intentional act of agression in order to return to normalcy?

But at any rate, there are some more obvious instances of unintentional pregnancies. for example,

–a pregnancy as a result of rape
–all sorts of ill-developed babies (i.e. things like down syndrome)

that last example raises an interesting question. You said that some pregnancies are obviously not viable, thus an early abortion is justified (is this correct?) But then, how viable does a pregnancy need to be before abortion can be a possibility? if the child will die before birth? upon birth? 3 months after birth? 3 years?

 

[cove]

atheos_sum:

I think you are touching on what is called “Consistent Life Ethic”.

Here is a Catholic point of view that may help you, an athiest, understand the Catholic’s point of view on this topic. I found this article interesting –

interx.net/~mbrumley/moreimportant.htm

 

[Jennifer123]

atheos_sum:

I like the intentional/unintentional distinction. but there are still some problems.

Consider that most people who have abortions didn’t intend to become pregnant in the first place. Thus, the pregnancy was viewed as an “unintentional consequence” of certain sexual acts.

Is that even possible? Pregnancy is THE consequence of sex, isn’t that what every 2nd grader is taught in public school? (Okay, being a little sarcastic)
I argue that seeing pregnancy as an unintentional consequence is very simplistic to say the least considering the only 100% effective “birth control” is abstinence.

So having sex could be viewed by one who doesn’t intend on becoming pregnant as a “potential sacrifice of a human being.” (If only every sexually active person thought of sex in this way, we might have fewer pregnancies, ipso facto, abortions too.)

Agreed somewhat. If we as a society had a proper understanding of the sexual act, the PROCREATIVE act, we would have fewer abortions.

Ideally, war strategists (like prospective sex partners) would not intend to kill innocents, but it is obviously a sacrifice and a risk they are willing to take. The strategist is willing to sacrifice innocents for the sake of some kind of “good”.
A certain sexually active person is also willing to sacrifice innocents for the sake of some kind of “good”. Both are willing to risk an evil for a good.

Again, not a good comparison IMHO. Sex used within the context of which it was created is good - sex between a man and woman united in marriage and always open to life. In that context there is no risk of unintended consequence and therefore no abortion.
Sex used outside the context of which it was created is bad - sex which has little or no room for the natural consequence of procreation OR is used in a purely selfish way as in homosexuality or masturbation. Sex used in this way, which is most likely the majority of sexual acts in our society leads to abortion as well as many other ills in society today.

In a just war, innocents are taken not because it is an acceptable risk but because the unjust who started war or provoked war put their lives in danger.

So might an unintentional pregnancy call for an intentional remedy?

No, the pregnancy has resulted in the creation of a human being that didn’t have any choice in the matter and doesn’t deserve a death sentence just because those having sex aren’t ready for the natural consequence of such actions. Sex should be given by two people able and ready to handle the consequences. If they aren’t able to handle that, they shouldn’t have sex period. We are not animals, we can control our impulses, we make conscious decisions, and if we do make mistakes we shouln’t take them out on others. There are other options.

But at any rate, there are some more obvious instances of unintentional pregnancies. for example,

–a pregnancy as a result of rape
–all sorts of ill-developed babies (i.e. things like down syndrome)

Unfortunate and tragic circumstances, but again there is another human being involved. In the instance of rape, it is tragic and I wouldn’t want to be in that position. But it is not that baby’s fault and has just as much dignity as any other human being regardless of how he/she was conceived.
As for those with physical/mental handicaps, again they too have human dignity. We can’t be subjective and besides, have you ever interacted with these types of people (DS,etc?) They are most deserving of our care. I hope you aren’t arguing for their destruction. I don’t even want to get into that unless you do want to debate their dignity or “worth”.

that last example raises an interesting question. You said that some pregnancies are obviously not viable, thus an early abortion is justified (is this correct?)

No, no justification. It’s that the course of treatment to save the mother’s life leads to the death of the baby in cases of ectopic pregnancy, etc. There’s no intentional abortion, it’s an unintended consequence of a situation that will ultimately end the baby’s life and kill the mother. Did you read the link provided? That sums up that point pretty well, I’m just trying sum up the position we hold as Catholics but I think the posters on that link did it better than me.

But then, how viable does a pregnancy need to be before abortion can be a possibility? if the child will die before birth? upon birth? 3 months after birth? 3 years?

Not quite sure what you are getting at here, but we can’t be subjective about human life and whether we determine its worth. Life starts at conception and regardless of life circumstance it has dignity in and of itself, it should be protected.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

The best thing to do is work with them on their turf

fnsa.org/fall98/reed.html#A
This is an essay by an atheist against abortion.
godlessprolifers.org/home.html
They have plenty of information there in a non-Religious context:thumbsup:
atheistsforlife.com/
This is just an interesting picutre they have:ehh:
There are even pagans for life!
geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/8383/

 

[atheos_sum]

Jennifer123:

Is that even possible? Pregnancy is THE consequence of sex, isn’t that what every 2nd grader is taught in public school?

Pregnancy isn’t a necessary consequence of sex, with all the modern forms of birth control, although it is the most natural consequence when left to its own devices.

Jennifer123:

Agreed somewhat. If we as a society had a proper understanding of the sexual act, the PROCREATIVE act, we would have fewer abortions.

But sex is a very pleasurable act, which is why the prospect of a pregnancy is not always likely to deter all the outrageously horny people in this world. It would be interesting to know how many Americans say they would want have an abortion if they or their partner became pregnant, everything else being equal.

I disagree that sex should only be viewed as a procreative act. Do you think that a married couple should only view sex as a procreative act? Or can married couples view sex in a pleasurable sense when they please, without any intention to procreate?

Jennifer123:

Sex used outside the context of which it was created is bad - sex which has little or no room for the natural consequence of procreation OR is used in a purely selfish way as in homosexuality or masturbation.

Homosexuals do not procreate. So if for the moment our concern is with abortions, there is no legitimate ground for haranguing them. And if more people masturbated, there would be fewer horny people, thus less sex, thus fewer abortions. I’m not saying people cannot control themselves otherwise, but I am advocating a sort of deterministic view. If you have more alcohol in the bloodstream, you are more likely to crash on the highway. Likewise, if you have more hormones in your bloodstream, you are more likely to act on sexual desires. So, on cost-benefit analysis, what I am advocating is more likely to result in fewer abortions, which is what both you and I want believe it or not.

There is nothing wrong with having one’s cake and eating it too, but ask yourself which is more important: fewer abortions or fewer masturbations?

Jennifer123:

Sex used in this way, [homosexuality and masturabation] which is most likely the majority of sexual acts in our society leads to abortion as well as many other ills in society today.

How on earth do they lead to more abortions?

Jennifer123:

In the instance of rape, it is tragic and I wouldn’t want to be in that position. But it is not that baby’s fault and has just as much dignity as any other human being regardless of how he/she was conceived.

One possible critique is that this will give rise to more destructive lifestyles in the future. By mandating that all children should be born whatsoever, you are forcing the pregnant women to have children whether they are prepared to or not. Thus there will be more children with single parents, in group homes, and in foster homes etc. These children are less likely to receive proper care, proper nutrition, proper education, and may often suffer abuse. This will statistically give rise to more social problems, more unprotected and/or premarital sex, thus more unplanned pregnancies, and ultimately more children who have these same problems. These children will in turn reach the age of puberty and may have more children.

Jennifer123:

As for those with physical/mental handicaps, again they too have human dignity. We can’t be subjective and besides, have you ever interacted with these types of people (DS,etc?) They are most deserving of our care. I hope you aren’t arguing for their destruction. I don’t even want to get into that unless you do want to debate their dignity or “worth”.

Well, for example, some children never develop a brain, a conditional called anencephaly. Should the mother simply go through labor, give birth the child, name it, and take it home anyway? This is just unthinkable. I admit that I am guilty of deeming this pregnancy as an unworthy pursuit. Maybe you think my position is “subjective,” but at some point you have to ask, “How far am I willing to take my inflexible pro-life convictions?”

 

[Jennifer123]

Pregnancy isn’t a necessary consequence of sex, with all the modern forms of birth control, although it is the most natural consequence when left to its own devices.

Pregnancy is the natural consequence if it is sex between a man and a woman both of child-bearing age. That is why the act is contracepted, to prevent pregnancy. There is no 100% effective birth control except for abstinence. To have sex without considering the consequence, that a child can be created, is disingenuous. A mature decision, to have sex, should require a mature consequence and action. It’s called personal responsibility and the modern contraceptive mentality seems to be removing it.

But sex is a very pleasurable act, which is why the prospect of a pregnancy is not always likely to deter all the outrageously horny people in this world. It would be interesting to know how many Americans say they would want have an abortion if they or their partner became pregnant, everything else being equal.

I disagree that sex should only be viewed as a procreative act. Do you think that a married couple should only view sex as a procreative act? Or can married couples view sex in a pleasurable sense when they please, without any intention to procreate?

Of course it is pleasurable. Look, we Catholics do not hate sex nor find it disgusting, all those stereotypes that people who don’t understand our POV like to label us with. (Not saying you are doing this) But it is an act that carries responsibility, not only physically, with the capacity to create another human being, but emotionally and spiritually. Sex without love, committment and responsibility is not intimate, it’s selfish. This selfishness can be seen in all parts of society where once we thought of the common good, now we think about good 'ol #1, me me me me me.

Yes, married couples if they are able to have children, should think of the “marital act” as procreative and as a bonding experience. Married couples who use sex in this way achieve the greatest sex since it is a complete giving of each other with total acceptance. Marriage using contraception is not a complete giving up of each other since using contraception places a barrier between them. There is not the complete acceptance since, especially with the women, their fertility is not accepted. That is why the Church teaches about the use of NFP (natural family planning). There are many threads about NFP on these boards. Also you should read Humanae Vitae:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Here’s some other links about this that might help you understand our POV:
theologyofthebody.net/
catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.html

I hope you read these.

 

[Jennifer123]

CONTINUED

Homosexuals do not procreate. So if for the moment our concern is with abortions, there is no legitimate ground for haranguing them. And if more people masturbated, there would be fewer horny people, thus less sex, thus fewer abortions. I’m not saying people cannot control themselves otherwise, but I am advocating a sort of deterministic view. If you have more alcohol in the bloodstream, you are more likely to crash on the highway. Likewise, if you have more hormones in your bloodstream, you are more likely to act on sexual desires. So, on cost-benefit analysis, what I am advocating is more likely to result in fewer abortions, which is what both you and I want believe it or not.

There is nothing wrong with having one’s cake and eating it too, but ask yourself which is more important: fewer abortions or fewer masturbations?

It is the selfishness I mentioned earlier that is breeding the want for abortion. Homosexuality is one of the many sexual sins that leads to this selfish attitude that permeates society today. We are all interconnected and one individual’s sins do affect us all.

Now, in case you don’t know the Church doesn’t condemn homosexuals, but it does condemn the act. That is an important distinction and I hope you understand that. Having homosexual tendencies and urges is not a sin, acting upon those temptations is a sin. The Church wants what is best for us, wants us to know and live in Turth, and homosexuality is an objective disorder that removes oneself from knowing that Truth.

That being said, I would like to see objective data that says masturbation decreases the need for sex because I don’t believe that at all. I believe the opposite to be true. Masturbation removes the primary objective of making love - union and procreation. Instead of giving oneself completely to another, masturbation only gratifies oneself. It’s about “me” and my own desires, and the immediate gratification of those desires. It doesn’t supress those desires, instead it makes them grow by causing lustful thoughts which can be easily gratified by the act. It teaches you to expect immediate sexual gratification and causes you to lose self-control.
It is this self-control and personal responsibility that makes us accountable, able to accept the consequences of sex regardless of whether we are ready for them or not.

 

[Jennifer123]

CONTINUED

One possible critique is that this will give rise to more destructive lifestyles in the future. By mandating that all children should be born whatsoever, you are forcing the pregnant women to have children whether they are prepared to or not. Thus there will be more children with single parents, in group homes, and in foster homes etc. These children are less likely to receive proper care, proper nutrition, proper education, and may often suffer abuse. This will statistically give rise to more social problems, more unprotected and/or premarital sex, thus more unplanned pregnancies, and ultimately more children who have these same problems. These children will in turn reach the age of puberty and may have more children.

There are plenty of childless couples in America and around the world that would love to adopt these children. I don’t necessarily see the consequences that you are arguing and your arguments taken further point to some pretty frightening possibilities.
You say these children essentially are better off being aborted than living these possibilities. But how does not living benefit these children? How can we ever know as that life will never be lived by these human beings? Life is worth living regardless of supposed quality of life, through life we can always be redeemed. These children could grow up to be very important members of society, doctors, scientists, etc. But again, each and every human being has an inherent dignity and uniqueness regardless of “quality of life” issues.
This argument is also selfish because we are the only ones who benefit from this option. Taken further, this logic will allow us to remove all sorts of people that we deem to be “unworthy” in order to alleviate “suffering”. Even further, allowing abortion to ease the burden of unwanted children frankly just isn’t convenient for us as we would have to show even more care and compassion for them.

Well, for example, some children never develop a brain, a conditional called anencephaly. Should the mother simply go through labor, give birth the child, name it, and take it home anyway? This is just unthinkable. I admit that I am guilty of deeming this pregnancy as an unworthy pursuit. Maybe you think my position is “subjective,” but at some point you have to ask, “How far am I willing to take my inflexible pro-life convictions?”

It is still a human being, whether it is born with deformities or not. The question is whether handicapped human life is worth protecting. It’s pretty presumptuous to say that certain people should or should not be born according to your own subjective criteria, don’t you think? I’m beginning to wonder if as a society we really care! The supposition is that those with disabilities do not have meaningful and happy lives, and that is a false assumption.
The instance you cite is a tragedy to be sure and I don’t mean to minimize that but if the unborn is a fully formed human, which I believe it is, infantcide can not be justified simply because that human is burdened. Correct moral reasoning determines that it is better to suffer evil than to inflict it. If that isn’t true, then we would have the right to inflict suffering on others to relieve our own. Is that a world we want to live in? I argue that the selfishness of our modern society is taking us to that position and we are all suffering because of it.

How far am I willing to take my “inflexible” pro-life convictions? As far as I need to as long as I help to stop this evil and save some lives!

 

[atheos_sum]

Jennifer123:

Well, for example, some children never develop a brain, a conditional called anencephaly. Should the mother simply go through labor, give birth the child, name it, and take it home anyway? This is just unthinkable. I admit that I am guilty of deeming this pregnancy as an unworthy pursuit. Maybe you think my position is “subjective,” but at some point you have to ask, “How far am I willing to take my inflexible pro-life convictions?”

It is still a human being, whether it is born with deformities or not. The question is whether handicapped human life is worth protecting. It’s pretty presumptuous to say that certain people should or should not be born according to your own subjective criteria, don’t you think? I’m beginning to wonder if as a society we really care! The supposition is that those with disabilities do not have meaningful and happy lives, and that is a false assumption.
The instance you cite is a tragedy to be sure and I don’t mean to minimize that but if the unborn is a fully formed human, which I believe it is, infantcide can not be justified simply because that human is burdened. Correct moral reasoning determines that it is better to suffer evil than to inflict it. If that isn’t true, then we would have the right to inflict suffering on others to relieve our own. Is that a world we want to live in? I argue that the selfishness of our modern society is taking us to that position and we are all suffering because of it.

How far am I willing to take my “inflexible” pro-life convictions? As far as I need to as long as I help to stop this evil and save some lives!

If a child does not have a brain–*a brain!–*i would hardly label this “subjective” in any way, shape, or form. A child cannot live without a brain, in case you didn’t know.

If this is subjective, then every medical decision is subjective. When someone i knew died in a car accident, their heart was still beating, but his brain had long ceased to function. in fact, he was dead. It was “pointless” or “an unworthy pursuit” to keep him in the hospital, hooked up to life-support. If you or the pope were standing there and telling us that taking him off life support was a “subjective” decision, someone would have probably laughed in your face.

 

[atheos_sum]

Jennifer123:

CONTINUED

That being said, I would like to see objective data that says masturbation decreases the need for sex because I don’t believe that at all. I believe the opposite to be true. Masturbation removes the primary objective of making love - union and procreation. Instead of giving oneself completely to another, masturbation only gratifies oneself. It’s about “me” and my own desires, and the immediate gratification of those desires. It doesn’t supress those desires, instead it makes them grow by causing lustful thoughts which can be easily gratified by the act. It teaches you to expect immediate sexual gratification and causes you to lose self-control.
It is this self-control and personal responsibility that makes us accountable, able to accept the consequences of sex regardless of whether we are ready for them or not.

:nope:
since were talking about masturbation, this could seem a little profane. but…

Isn’t it obvious that men (and women i suppose) cannot have an unlimited number of orgasms? Even a married couple does not have the desire to have an unlimited number of orgasms in one night. it would cease to be pleasurable for both. the body needs time to muster up the desire for more orgasms. after a man has spilled his seed, it will take time before he has the desire to spill his seed again. so the man who masturbates before a date ( like on “Something About Mary”) is not going to have the same intense desire to spill his seed as the man who did not masturbate before the date.

So, much like our appetite for food, we have an appetite for sex. We cannot eat an infinite food supply no more than we can have infinite orgasms.

 

[atheos_sum]

Jennifer123:

CONTINUED

One possible critique is that this will give rise to more destructive lifestyles in the future. By mandating that all children should be born whatsoever, you are forcing the pregnant women to have children whether they are prepared to or not. Thus there will be more children with single parents, in group homes, and in foster homes etc. These children are less likely to receive proper care, proper nutrition, proper education, and may often suffer abuse. This will statistically give rise to more social problems, more unprotected and/or premarital sex, thus more unplanned pregnancies, and ultimately more children who have these same problems. These children will in turn reach the age of puberty and may have more children.

There are plenty of childless couples in America and around the world that would love to adopt these children. I don’t necessarily see the consequences that you are arguing and your arguments taken further point to some pretty frightening possibilities.
You say these children essentially are better off being aborted than living these possibilities. But how does not living benefit these children? How can we ever know as that life will never be lived by these human beings? Life is worth living regardless of supposed quality of life, through life we can always be redeemed. These children could grow up to be very important members of society, doctors, scientists, etc. But again, each and every human being has an inherent dignity and uniqueness regardless of “quality of life” issues.
This argument is also selfish because we are the only ones who benefit from this option. Taken further, this logic will allow us to remove all sorts of people that we deem to be “unworthy” in order to alleviate “suffering”. Even further, allowing abortion to ease the burden of unwanted children frankly just isn’t convenient for us as we would have to show even more care and compassion for them.

So it would seem you’d rather have more abortions in the future, if that’s what it takes to save children from current abortions. thus you are advocating more abortions and i’m advocating fewer. seems like the utilitarian holds the true prolife position.

Also, i’ve grown up in foster homes etc. so i know what it is like for these children. but obviously, since abortion is legal, our parents decided they would rather have a baby under the time and circumstances of our birth. And that’s what really counts: is the mother prepared or does she feel she’s prepared to have a child?

if you force unprepared mothers, raped mothers etc to have children, then there will be an enormous wave of children entering group homes, foster care etc. unfortunately, most children are not as fortunate as i am to have discovered their will to power, learned to take control of their lives, discovered that they don’t have to become a statistic and that they can make something of themselves.