Abortion

124 posts / 0 new
Last post
RedleT's picture
How about when people get

How about when people get heart surgery? I assume their heart stops beating but they are still alive. The heart beat is an arbitrary standard. Do you really think the growing fetus is not living before it has a heart beat? What about a heartbeat gives rights to a human?

SunDog's picture
How does cloning fit into

How does cloning fit into this discussion?

Nyarlathotep's picture
SHAM - How does cloning fit

SHAM - How does cloning fit into this discussion?

That is a good question. If life begins at conception; when does life begin when you inject your DNA into the nucleolus of a zygote.

Randomhero1982's picture
How about brain death? Surely

How about brain death? Surely the arguement could be once a heartbeat and a brain has developed that is when we should consider life, No?!

I would have to say though, it's an awful subject to discuss and a heated topic.
Having known of someone who was raped I couldn't imagine how she would feel if she got pregnant via that, and was forced to keep it.

This is just one of many arguements, I would also say we can't define it as 'wrong' persay, but perhaps better worded as 'morally' or 'ethically' wrong.

But either way it should be judged on a case by case basis and treated with compassion and care, no one has the right to make decisions like that in my estimation and tell another human what they can and cannot do just because of their beliefs.

But that's just my opinion for what it's worth.

Harry33Truman's picture
It's always better to have

It's always better to have general rules than to appoint some discretionary abortion board to decide who gets an abortion and who doesn't. But if we define life as being 3 weeks after conception, that would give plenty of time to rape victims to get one.

Harry33Truman's picture
It's always better to have

It's always better to have general rules than to appoint some discretionary abortion board to decide who gets an abortion and who doesn't. But if we define life as being 3 weeks after conception, that would give plenty of time to rape victims to get one.

Randomhero1982's picture
Sure if you want to live in a

Sure if you want to live in a dictatorship that denies human rights, dignity, free will etc...

You can't even really test for pregnancy at the time period, and have you considered the ordeal they would have to go through after being raped let alone an abortion? It's not like being sprinkled with pixie dust and thinking happy thoughts.

Three weeks? Lol are you mad?!
Ok a thought experiment for you, you have a 13yr old daughter, she is experimenting with a boyfriend and during which the condom suffers a small tear not noticed.
Now she is pregnant, and the likely hood is she will not notice for between 4 to 8 weeks.. if you have kids you'll know this.

Should she have to go through with it?

This should be her choice and no one elses.

Harry33Truman's picture
You can take that to absurd

You can take that to absurd lengths. If not in the first term, then when? When the baby is born? When its weened? What if a mom decides she doesn't want her middle schooler anymore? You have to draw the line somewhere, logically between conception and birth. If you have an alternative time please produce it.

RedleT's picture
Not if it's killing a human

Not if it's killing a human person.

CyberLN's picture
So no one so far in this

So no one so far in this debate has been in a position to decide to have an abortion? If not, then everything I ever read so far is just arm-chair-quarterbacking IMO.

Someone said something to the effect that it's a very difficult and emotional decision. Really? Don't think so. Not for everyone.

Until that mass of cells is viable outside of my womb, it's not a human. It's up to me if I want to remove it from my body. It's not even a tough decision when I stop to consider that my role in life is not just to be an axlotl tank.

Randomhero1982's picture
I very much agree sir.

I very much agree sir.

CyberLN's picture
That would be 'madam'. :-)

That would be 'madam'. :-)

Flamenca's picture
You are completely right. I

You are completely right. I got emotional because I remember personal cases I know in which they did it for compelling reasons, other than rapist, BTW... But the truth it's up to us to decide that, no matter what's the reason behind it.

To some men, we're considered as cattle, for what I see.

RedleT's picture
1. If you have to make a hard

1. If you have to make a hard moral choice, unless you are very virtuous, you are likely to make an immoral one even if you know what's right. Everyone knows stealing is wrong yet people still do it. So, actually if you have to make a choice to abort or not, you are more likely to go based off feelings and selfish desires than what is right or wrong.

2. Babies are never viable outside the womb unless you take care of them on a practically 24 hour bases, so that's a stupid objection.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dumb Ox - Everyone knows

Dumb Ox - Everyone knows stealing is wrong yet people still do it.

Just about everyone is 7500 Kcals away from being a criminal. I'm about 2500 Kcals away.

Harry33Truman's picture
It can be a human whilst

It can be a human whilst still not being able to live outside your body. Dependency doesn't diminish humanity, otherwise abortions should be legal until 18 years after birth.

Randomhero1982's picture
I've done it again, sincere

I've done it again, sincere apologies!

chimp3's picture
Abortion is a private

Abortion is a private property issue. A woman's body is her property. If she chooses to not be a reproductive slave that is her business. It is amusing to me that some will argue that immigration needs to be controlled based on arbitrary lines drawn on a map but the real space of a woman's own belly is off limits for her to control.

Harry33Truman's picture
The problem is the existance

The problem is the existance of a separate human who is affected by her actions, I.e. her kid. Clearly we cannot allow a woman to terminate a pregnancy up until birth because this would encroach on her babies right to live. We have to draw a line somewhere. The only debate is where- I say somewhere in the first trimester, what say you?

Flamenca's picture
I said it before. 23-24 weeks

I said it before. 23-24 weeks, because that's when the organs are more or less formed, and most congenital problems are detected up to than week.

Also, that's the limit we have to cross in order to have a fetus (even though there are few odds, 12% according to the medical study I read when I wrote the post, to live) with any possibility of survival. Before 23 weeks, there's practically none.

Harry33Truman's picture
I took that stance before,

I took that stance before, but it turns put that babies hat old can live outside the womb. Also, I don't think that when something has a right to live should be determined by its dependence on its mother, otherwise we would have to declare anyone under 18 still a fetus. I might go for 16 weeks if the correct information is so, but given what I know for sure, I wouldn't go past 13 weeks.

Flamenca's picture
Also, I explain it before.

Also, I explain it before. The limit is when you are able to LIVE, Harry, meaning when you have more or less functional organs, and you can breath and feel. Anyone who has a shot of being alive, therefore becoming a living human being.

For example, before 16-20th week, it doesn't have an assignated sex or doesn't move at all.

And please, has it the same consideration that when you stop being a load for your parents (or a 30-year-old sponger)???... Come on, Harry, please! You're a smart boy! I expect more from you.

Harry33Truman's picture
I could go for 16 weeks

I could go for 16 weeks schmoe, but no further

Flamenca's picture
Some serious congenital

Some serious congenital issues are not detected up to 23-24th week. There was a debate in my country (in which 20 is the limit), because doctors argue that it's necessary to wait until that time. It's doctors' talking, not morality in this case.

RedleT's picture
@Angiebot but that's pretty

@Angiebot but that's pretty arbitrary. The fetus is just more developed. It not a new individual or thing. The only non arbitrary line to draw is when the fetus first comes into existence as a separate individual from the father and mother i.e conception.

Flamenca's picture
I think I've already made my

I think I've already made my point in several posts, Dumb Ox, and you made yours... We are going in circles and circles...

chimp3's picture
HT: "The problem is the

HT: "The problem is the existance of a separate human who is affected by her actions, I.e. her kid. Clearly we cannot allow a woman to terminate a pregnancy up until birth because this would encroach on her babies right to live. We have to draw a line somewhere. The only debate is where- I say somewhere in the first trimester, what say you?"

I have a problem with your "We have to..." It is her body , not yours or ours. Man.

Harry33Truman's picture
A woman had the right to do

A woman had the right to do whatever she wants with her own body, that's not what we are talking about, we are talking about the baby (someone else's body.) A little logic goes a long way chimp man.

chimp3's picture
Deciding whether another

Deciding whether another human body lives inside your own is certainly what we are talking about.

Flamenca's picture
Thanks for that, Chimp and to

Thanks for that, Chimp and to all the men who are compassionate and respectful, and are able to put on our shoes.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.