How do abortion supporters reconcile their support for abortion . .

[Magster]

I’ve wondered for a while - just how do those who support abortion reconcile their support with the idea that human life is sacred? I guess if someone who supports abortion does not believe in God, then there is nothing to reconcile. But many abortion supporters claim to be religious.

Furthermore, even if the abortion supporter attempts to reconcile such support as consistent with the idea that human life is sacred by refusing to believe the baby is human life before birth, such explanation still is inconsistent with the idea that the human soul is present before birth.

And even if the abortion supporter does not believe the human soul is present before birth, because the human soul is not tangible, neither its presence nor absence before birth can be scientifically proved. As such, wouldn’t the mere possibility that the preborn child has a human soul require that nothing be done to harm, let alonde destroy, the child so as to uphold the sanctity of human life?

I just don’t understand the thought process that would allow anyone who believes human life is sacred to support abortion (or euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research).

 

[Thoughtful]

I just don’t understand the thought process that would allow anyone who believes human life is sacred to support abortion (or euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research).

I have wondered similar thoughts.

As well, how can a medical doctor, who is taught in Embryology that the scientific beginning of life is conception, counsel a woman to end this life?

How can a person not recognize that they began as an embryo, that they are human,and that every human life has to being at some point (conception).

I think that the “thought processes” of many people are muddled in denial. Instead of reading and understanding information to form an opinion, they begin with an opinion and *ignore * information that condradicts it no matter how strong that information is. This form of denial prohibits any type of reasoning to occur. You cannot weigh the pros and cons if you are unwilling to look at all the propositions.

Also, a person can convince himself/herself that certain information is not important, that abortion must be okay because others say it’s okay, and it’s the law. Its really being lazy.

The more I think about it, the more I think that these people also lack the skill of critical thinking. Many pro-abortion sentiments are based on emotionalism.

So, to sum it up… I think that denial, avoidance, ignorance, laziness, emotionalism, mob mentality, and lack of critical thinking skills keep someone attached to the the pro-abortion position.

 

[Durendin]

So, to sum it up… I think that denial, avoidance, ignorance, laziness, emotionalism, mob mentality, and lack of critical thinking skills keep someone attached to the the pro-abortion position.

You left out apathy.

In the world we live in not caring is perhaps the best way of dealing with most of the issues we face but have no power or control over.

 

[Thoughtful]

You left out apathy.

In the world we live in not caring is perhaps the best way of dealing with most of the issues we face but have no power or control over.

Good point!

What do you think is the root of this apathy?

I also think that apathy is a subconscious thing…“if I don’t care then I don’t have to work at developing my conscience, I’ll let others do that for me.”

 

[JimG]

I think that maybe for abortion supporters, the supreme good is personal autonomy: I do what I want. This extreme view of autonomy was amplified during the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and 70’s and beyond. In matters of sex, everything is permitted. (Hugh Hefner, in beginning his magazine, spent numerous words expounding editorially on this very idea.)

Sex can only be truly autonomous when the individual is free to do what he or she wants, with whomever they want, without consequenes or inconvenience or commitment. “Having control of one’s own body,” for the pro-abortion person, includes the right to abortion, even for those recognize that the unborn child is a separate individual.

Actually, this thinking is only one step beyond the contraceptive mentality, in which control of one’s own body and personal autonomy means being able to engage in sexual activity while blocking its natural results.

 

[Thoughtful]

I think that maybe for abortion supporters, the supreme good is personal autonomy: I do what I want. This extreme view of autonomy was amplified during the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and 70’s and beyond. In matters of sex, everything is permitted. (Hugh Hefner, in beginning his magazine, spent numerous words expounding editorially on this very idea.)

Sex can only be truly autonomous when the individual is free to do what he or she wants, with whomever they want, without consequenes or inconvenience or commitment. .

Isn’t it interesting that this type of “freedom” carries with it the most burdens - STI’s, abortion, divorce, loneliness, guilt, and the list goes on…

 

[JimG]

Isn’t it interesting that this type of “freedom” carries with it the most burdens - STI’s, abortion, divorce, loneliness, guilt, and the list goes on…

Yes, sexual “freedom” has created a lot of dead babies and a lot of lonely, sad people.

 

[Durendin]

Good point!

What do you think is the root of this apathy?

I’m not sure, but I know that I suffer from it although I’m trying to push against it.

Part of me thinks it’s a reaction to the world we’ve created. Like abortion I see it as a symptom, not a means in itself. A much wiser man than me called it “plastic fork syndrome” as a way of describing the knock-on effect of consumerism where everything is a comodity to be exploited, with humans ourselves being the final expression and like a plastic fork; use it, break it and chuck it away, to paraphrase.

Everything in the age of consumerism and convienience is now disposable, including people.

 

[ribozyme]

The answer is indeed simple; people do not acknowledge a fetus as a “person”. However, no one can be intellectually honest when they deny the fact that a fetus is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Peter Singer, of course, accepts that a fetus is a human, but he says that there is no intrinsic characteristics that a fetus possesses that would render the act of abortion morally wrong in a utilitarian ethical system.

 

[Thoughtful]

I’m not sure, but I know that I suffer from it although I’m trying to push against it.

Part of me thinks it’s a reaction to the world we’ve created. Like abortion I see it as a symptom, not a means in itself. A much wiser man than me called it “plastic fork syndrome” as a way of describing the knock-on effect of consumerism where everything is a comodity to be exploited, with humans ourselves being the final expression and like a plastic fork; use it, break it and chuck it away, to paraphrase.

Everything in the age of consumerism and convienience is now disposable, including people.

I think this is so true! When immersed in a society of consumerism where everything and everybody is a comodity, life can seem pointless, or even hopeless.

One of the strongest underlining points in regards to most pro-life arguments is that all life has meaning.

 

[Thoughtful]

The answer is indeed simple; people do not acknowledge a fetus as a “person”. However, no one can be intellectually honest when they deny the fact that a fetus is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Peter Singer, of course, accepts that a fetus is a human, but he says that there is no intrinsic characteristics that a fetus possesses that would render the act of abortion morally wrong in a utilitarian ethical system.

Characteristics of personhood, now there is a minefield! I haven’t read/heard many pro-abortion arguments that adequately support the “fetus-is-not-a-person” argument. What do you think is their strongest argument? I’m of the opinion that many pro-abortion people also have a hard time accepting the fact that the fetus is “human” (or of the homo sapien species), as most state that it is just a bunch of cells and don’t make the connection. I think that they lump in “human” with “person.” Thoughts?

 

[JimG]

“Person” can have both a legal meaning and a philosophical meaning. Both are subject to variable definitions. Personhood can be defined away from any particular individual or group. That’s why I prefer to stick with the biological definitions. Each individual of the human species has a beginning and an end. Biologically, we begin at conception as distinct individuals of the human species.

 

[Thoughtful]

" Biologically, we begin at conception as distinct individuals of the human species.

This is the approach I like to use first too, however, sometimes it just doesn’t carry any weight with the person. How do you deal with people who deny science?

 

[adam_in_ohio]

Sefishness.
It’s not a matter of how they get what they want. It’s a matter that they get it, and they get it now. Pleasure with no reprocussions, ex. STD’s, children… Oh my goodness if one must rearange there life’s plans for sucess or fun. They want to treat life as a disease. “Take this pill and you won’t have a kid”
It bothers me that there are people that look at there children as a burden. Kids are not EZ to raise by any meens, but nothing beets comming home to a smiling face and having someone who just want some of your time. The good days beat the bad days hands down.

Oh how the devil has manuplated so many people.

 

[ribozyme]

Sefishness.
It’s not a matter of how they get what they want. It’s a matter that they get it, and they get it now. Pleasure with no reprocussions, ex. STD’s, children… Oh my goodness if one must rearange there life’s plans for sucess or fun. They want to treat life as a disease. “Take this pill and you won’t have a kid”
It bothers me that there are people that look at there children as a burden. Kids are not EZ to raise by any meens, but nothing beets comming home to a smiling face and having someone who just want some of your time. The good days beat the bad days hands down.

Oh how the devil has manuplated so many people.

I think you argument explains why people have abortions. Feminists base their arguments that it is a women’s body, so it is their choice.

If one relegates the status of a fetus by denying them personhood, they are no longer morally significant creatures. This is the critical assumption made in most arguments that justify the morality of abortion. As I stated above, this is Peter Singer’s approach when he assails the sanctity of life. However, it seems Peter Singer’s arguments can be used to justify policies such as eugenics. But I wonder if Peter Singer believes that all “persons” are equal, or to quote from* Animal Farm* some people are “more equal than others”.

 

[dkoinzan]

I believe our culture has neutralized life. Even our language has become empty when it comes to life. ie: I lost a child, miscarriage, stillbirth,

We need to look for ways in our daily lives that life has been trivialized. We need to begin to celebrate life in every way.

For example this year my family has buried two children. Theresa died 31 weeks after conception. Joseph died 14 weeks after conception. I tell people I have five children. Three of them I am blessed to be raising and two of them I am blessed to have as Saints in heaven.

Now I could just tell people that I had one stillbirth and one miscarriage. I could then tell people that I one have three children. Kind of looses it’s meaning doesn’t it.

How in even little ways can we bring meaning to life. With out life there is no death, there is mearly a procedure.

 

[mary_bobo]

I believe our culture has neutralized life. Even our language has become empty when it comes to life. ie: I lost a child, miscarriage, stillbirth,

We need to look for ways in our daily lives that life has been trivialized. We need to begin to celebrate life in every way.

For example this year my family has buried two children. Theresa died 31 weeks after conception. Joseph died 14 weeks after conception. I tell people I have five children. Three of them I am blessed to be raising and two of them I am blessed to have as Saints in heaven.

Now I could just tell people that I had one stillbirth and one miscarriage. I could then tell people that I one have three children. Kind of looses it’s meaning doesn’t it.

How in even little ways can we bring meaning to life. With out life there is no death, there is mearly a procedure.

What a beautiful way to explain a very tragic situation. I will pray for your family and your two little saints. God bless you all.

 

[hasikelee]

I’ve wondered for a while - just how do those who support abortion reconcile their support with the idea that human life is sacred? I guess if someone who supports abortion does not believe in God, then there is nothing to reconcile. But many abortion supporters claim to be religious.

Furthermore, even if the abortion supporter attempts to reconcile such support as consistent with the idea that human life is sacred by refusing to believe the baby is human life before birth, such explanation still is inconsistent with the idea that the human soul is present before birth.

And even if the abortion supporter does not believe the human soul is present before birth, because the human soul is not tangible, neither its presence nor absence before birth can be scientifically proved. As such, wouldn’t the mere possibility that the preborn child has a human soul require that nothing be done to harm, let alonde destroy, the child so as to uphold the sanctity of human life?

I just don’t understand the thought process that would allow anyone who believes human life is sacred to support abortion (or euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research).

By ignoring things, stuffing it down, hiding it.

By calling yourself Pro-choice and vaguely talking about saving women’s lives, reproductive choice, the pill, etc.

Pretty soon your conscious can forget and block out what the whole argument was about in the first place.

Euphemisms worked for Hitler and they work for those who support abortion as well.

 

[Magster]

It seems to me people have just plain lost sight of the concept that human life is sacred - and we do not destroy that which is sacred. It does not get any more basic that that. I think we have to remind people of that fact to shock them out of their apathy, selfishness, laziness, etc. Call them out, especially those who profess to be religious, and have them explain how to reconcile their support for abortion with the fact that human life is sacred - according to not only the Church, but the Bible, Chirst, etc. I’d love to get an explanation from some of the pro-abort politicians, especially those claiming to be Catholic. The adjectives used in this thread to describe proaborts certainly aren’t ones I’d like to see used to describe some of the people leading this country. Unfortunately, I think the adjectives are very appropriate.

 

[Sixtus]

A lapsed Catholic once told me ‘it is not a baby, it is just a lump of jelly’!

I told him it looked like a baby to me. He replied ‘that’s because that is what you want to see’. ‘The Church has brainwashed you to see that’. ‘All I see is a lump of jelly’!

I found that answer very traumatic. He was my line manager. I was less than charitable in reply!! Good job he did not report me, else I would have been in serious trouble