The problem with the Abortion debate

[Paddy1989]

Seeing how Abortion has been legalized in many ex Catholic strongholds throughout the world most recently Ireland i feel we need to revisit how we debate this topic in the first place. In order to get each others points across both sides mainly focus on the issue of circumstance’s. For example if a woman is raped or her life is in danger while many Catholics focus on showing graphic photos on the results of an abortion. It’s why pro life groups calling pro choice groups murderers has no affect on them and leaves them feeling bewildered and pro choice supporters calling pro life groups anti woman which bewilders people who feel that one’s rights should not trump another’s right to live.

We need to start at the ROOT of our beliefs. We first must define what we are. Are we merely a collection of cells or are do we truly believe human value and dignity is objective. When we start at the root then we, pro life supporters need to then challenge pro choice groups from here first BEFORE we can even go to circumstances. We must ask them what they believe, is human value objective or subjective? If they say it’s objective then we must chastise them for being arrogant to redefine truth subjectively to their own desires. If it’s subjective then we need to challenge them why they limit abortion to a certain time period and why they have a right to limit ending anyone’s life at all? The state or society as a whole can dictate who lives and dies and why, whether it be best for society or even for arbitrary reasons it matters not as morality is subjective. It is debates like these that really get them thinking because then they start to see the horror of being consistent with moral relativism, they are forced to see it doesn’t make sense in their twisted understanding of rights, equality, human value etc. I have debated many this way successfully and unsuccessfully but what i feel we must do regardless is plant the seed. Until we even get by the Root of this debate there is never any point in going to circumstances as they are secondary. Circumstance’s can NEVER make a evil act good. Get them to define humanity, don’t let them move beyond that until they can do so as then we just end up debating from two differing worldviews using language that means nothing to the other. Ireland became problematic because so few people even voted in the first place. There wasn’t much debate in this area and both sides each tried to rely on the shock factor rather than on rational discussion.

 

[steve-b]

[snip] for space

We need to start at the ROOT of our beliefs. We first must define what we are. Are we merely a collection of cells or are do we truly believe human value and dignity is objective. When we start at the root then we, pro life supporters need to then challenge pro choice groups from here first BEFORE we can even go to circumstances. We must ask them what they believe, is human value objective or subjective? If they say it’s objective then we must chastise them for being arrogant to redefine truth subjectively to their own desires. If it’s subjective then we need to challenge them why they limit abortion to a certain time period and why they have a right to limit ending anyone’s life at all? The state or society as a whole can dictate who lives and dies and why, whether it be best for society or even for arbitrary reasons it matters not as morality is subjective. It is debates like these that really get them thinking because then they start to see the horror of being consistent with moral relativism, they are forced to see it doesn’t make sense in their twisted understanding of rights, equality, human value etc. I have debated many this way successfully and unsuccessfully but what i feel we must do regardless is plant the seed. Until we even get by the Root of this debate there is never any point in going to circumstances as they are secondary. Circumstance’s can NEVER make a evil act good. Get them to define humanity, don’t let them move beyond that until they can do so as then we just end up debating from two differing worldviews using language that means nothing to the other. Ireland became problematic because so few people even voted in the first place. There wasn’t much debate in this area and both sides each tried to rely on the shock factor rather than on rational discussion.

Jesus gave us the perfect example.

1. He gave the information they needed even though He knew in advance they disagreed with Him and would leave Him
2. Even God teaching people face to face in the flesh, won’t force people to agree
3. Jesus didn’t get mad when people disagreed with Him to His face, and left Him
4. Jesus didn’t follow them or go after them
5. He didn’t insist on giving them a different explanation
6. He gave them (those “called disciples” not the 12) the information they needed to know.
7. And He let them go. IMV that’s one of the scariest passages in scripture

Here is the story

Jesus gave us a great example when we engage in difficult subjects. We should then, Do what Jesus did

 

[Bradskii]

We are not simply bags of chemicals. Nobody believes that. And we all have a value - but that value is determined by others. In that sense it is relative. My daughter is more valuable go me than the guy sitting opposite me at the moment. He is more valuable to his father than he is to me. So we all have value.

And note that what I said does not mean I do not value him at all. I do because we each have an ability to feel empathy. So if he was in pain, I would try to help him. As I would if he were in danger.

When it comes to abortion, I have no problem in a woman deciding to terminate her pregnancy when all that is present is a few cells. I would have a problem in her terminating in the last week of her pregnancy.

If you say that there must be a point between the two when one can say it’s ok one side but not the other then I would disagree. There is no one point. It just becomes more or less acceptable.

I’m not drawing a direct comparison here - it’s only used as an example…but you probably don’t feel any problem in swatting a mosquito. But you would in killing a dog. At what point in the line of organisms between the two woukd you say it’s OK to kill this creature but not that one.

And it might be worth pointing out that almost all women have natural abortions just after the egg has been implanted. The body says - something’s wrong here - and it terminates. Nothing wrong with that. But if we are to treat all fertilised eggs as human, then where is the anguish if a woman realises that her pregnancy ilhas stopped at that initial stage.

She doesn’t treat it as if she had lost a baby two weeks before birth. She treats it differently. And so should we all.

 

[lilypadrees]

Life begins at conception.
Abortion destroys life.
Abortion is wrong.
We are the voice of the unborn.

 

[Bradskii]

You’re equating the emotional difference between miscarrying at a late stage and miscarrying in the early days when you might not even be aware of pregnancy with an imagined moral difference between human beings at different stages of development. I’m not sure that works.

It doesn’t work because…?

I am pointing out that a woman who has just become pregnant and a woman who is just about to give birth treats each condition entirely differently.

 

[Anrakyr]

I like you, but you missed the point oh so slight.

Poverty is the problem, education is the key. People have abortions out of fear. Fear of not being able to take care, of being judged, of not knowing what to do.

You help end to poverty you rip the roots clean out.

 

[Bradskii]

It doesn’t work because you can’t decide morality based on emotional responses.

If 10 people are killed who live on the other side of the world and do not know you, you are going to be much less upset than you would be if someone close to you was killed. That doesn’t make the former somehow morally fine.

If we were talking about people we know verus people we don’t then you’d have a point. But we’re not so you don’t.

I am discussing the argument that a few cells are not to be treated any differently from a fully formed baby. If the woman treats them differently then why should we?

The argument is fallacious.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

But if we are to treat all fertilised eggs as human, then where is the anguish if a woman realises that her pregnancy ilhas stopped at that initial stage.

*jaw drops

How are you so sure a woman who only found out recently she was pregnant feels no anguish if she loses the pregnancy?
How many early miscarriages have you had?
Just because she didn’t work up enough tears to satisfy you means nothing.

I. Just. Can’t. Even.

 

[Pattylt]

I agree that many women suffer real anguish and sorrow if they miscarry. These are almost always desired pregnancies. I’m sure you realize that many women feel relief at a miscarriage for an unplanned pregnancy as well. I’m assuming @Bradskii was referring to unplanned or unwanted pregnancies.

From my point of view, it is ALL about the value we place on pregbancy and children. I’m anti abortion because I value them but I understand that so many don’t. How do we change the value people place on children? Until children become scarce, I’m not sure we can so I am anti abortion but am not in favor of overturning Roe v Wade until abortion becomes a moot point. Legal abortions assure safe abortions. The value of babies must change first and that is what I work on.

 

[blackforest]

I am pointing out that a woman who has just become pregnant and a woman who is just about to give birth treats each condition entirely differently.

I need to dig up the citations, so for now take this with a grain of salt. In grad school, I did a fair amount of research on women’s responses to perinatal loss, (both elective and non-elective), and most of the research showed no difference of emotional impact based on the phase of pregnancy during which the loss occurred. Levels of grief and depression were overall the same with early-term losses as they were with late-term and even stillbirths.

How much we value others is psychologically complex. But be thankful that - for the most part, at least - our society finds it morally indefensible to kill others based solely on our emotional feelings toward them. Can you imagine the bloodbath that such a mentality would incur?

You yourself mentioned that you care more emotionally about your daughter than the guy who is more distant from you. That’s perfectly understandable. But neither of us could morally defend you making the choice to slaughter the poor man just because you aren’t emotionally invested in him.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But if we are to treat all fertilised eggs as human, then where is the anguish if a woman realises that her pregnancy ilhas stopped at that initial stage.

*jaw drops

How are you so sure a woman who only found out recently she was pregnant feels no anguish if she loses the pregnancy?.

My apologies. I did not mean to infer that there is no pain involved in losing a pregnancy at any stage. And I have personal experience of it.

But the point remains that losing a pregnancy in the first few days after conception is not comparable to losing one a few days before birth.

 

[Bradskii]

You yourself mentioned that you care more emotionally about your daughter than the guy who is more distant from you. That’s perfectly understandable. But neither of us could morally defend you making the choice to slaughter the poor man just because you aren’t emotionally invested in him.

I used that example to show that we value people even if we don’t know them. But I do not value a few cells that represent the beginning of a pregnancy.

 

[TheMortenBay]

But I do not value a few cells that represent the beginning of a pregnancy.

But God does and the Church does. That should be enough for all of us.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But I do not value a few cells that represent the beginning of a pregnancy.

But God does and the Church does. That should be enough for all of us.

No. It’s not good enough for me. It should be good enough for all the Catholic women who decide to have abortions. But it’s not good enough for them either.

So any further suggestions?

 

[TheMortenBay]

I always say we should make better alternatives. Good adoption agencies, clinics/ homes where the mother can stay and be cared for until they reach their date. If there were enough good, moral alternatives we wouldn’t see so many abortions. We must create the moral society we’re always talking about.

 

[blackforest]

Those may be your own personal feelings. But A) elective induced abortion normally begins at 5 weeks, when there are a lot more than just “a few cells” at the beginning of pregnancy, and which point the embryo is receiving oxygen and nutrients as a separate organism and B) from the standpoint of non-discrimination, people shouldn’t be vulnerable to death-by-choice simply because you personally don’t feel they’re valuable enough.

 

[openmind77]

But God does and the Church does. That should be enough for all of us.

The Church’s position is clear enough. But do we really know what God’s position is? Maybe God believes that in certain cases an unwanted baby is better off not being born and that God can take care him better somewhere else? Can we ever claim to know what is in God’s mind? (Meant to reply to TheMortenBay)

 

[Bradskii]

Those may be your own personal feelings. But A) elective induced abortion normally begins at 5 weeks, when there are a lot more than just “a few cells” at the beginning of pregnancy, and which point the embryo is receiving oxygen and nutrients as a separate organism and B) from the standpoint of non-discrimination, people shouldn’t be vulnerable to death-by-choice simply because you personally don’t feel they’re valuable enough.

You are again missing the point. I thought I had made it quite clear.

You may feel that what results at the very moment of conception should be treated EXACTLY the same as a fully formed baby the day before it is born.

Let’s say that a woman is in a car accident. She wakes up in the hospital and the doctor says that she will be fine. Tests show that she became pregnant two days before (which she knew) but that is not now the case.

Another woman was on the way to hospital to give birth when the accident occurs. When she wakes up, the doctor says that they couldn’t save the baby.

Which woman do you think will feel the greater loss? I mean, seriously.

 

[Inquisitor85]

I’m in the UK where we have free healthcare, easily accessible welfare and generous child benefits for single parents, not to mention free contraception and a nine year adoption waiting list,

I’m an adoptive parent in the UK, and I have close links to many adoptive families and social workers in the field and I’ve never heard of a nine year waiting list. The complete process takes about twelve months from initial enquiry to placement on foster to adopt, add three to six months for a standard adoption. So I’d like you to cite your sources please.

 

[Bradskii]

TheMortenBay:

But God does and the Church does. That should be enough for all of us.

The Church’s position is clear enough. But do we really know what God’s position is? Maybe God believes that in certain cases an unwanted baby is better off not being born and that God can take care him better somewhere else? Can we ever claim to know what is in God’s mind? (Meant to reply to TheMortenBay)

I was discussing the problem of evil with @IWantGod a week or so back. His opinion was that acts that we consider to be evil, that God obviously could have prevented, must result in a greater good which we cannot fathom - we not being omniscient. Otherwise it opened up the claim that God was indifferent.