Your Religious Views on Abortion

[yam]

And even though she may be pregnant her freedom does exist and has not been lost.

You are missing the point. I suspect that I may not have been clear at all -- too many long sentences.

With respect to the balance of freedom between the non-aborted-thing and the pregnant mother, the mother's freedom is being limited already. She is not free.

It is analogous to me tying a wounded man to your hip and telling you to drag him to the nearest hospital otherwise he will die. You are not free. To free yourself, you either have to cut him off and let him die or drag him to the hospital. Either way, there is an imposition upon you.

Interestingly in the case of the abortion, the mother is physiologically responsible for the creation of the imposition but it is not always wilfull.

First of all; id say that she is still free to make a choice (health care system allows that, or if illegal it often still is done).

You suggest that because she is pregnant she is not free. Id argue that she is pregnant full stop.

Her freedom is still available but her circumstances have changed.

She still has the faculty of choice. . . that is, if she is living in a rich democratic country. Otherwise we are speaking another ball game. This may lead into your example of the burdensome wounded man. But even then somebody could just cut him off. What you are speaking about more is the burden of morality. What religion, philosophy etc has to say about 'responsibility', rights and more. However, these are just abstractions in reality. But they are useful as security mechanisms for society. Freedom is 'dependent' upon the level of democracy practised. However, we could argue that because freedom is dependent on democratic practises it is therefore NOT free.

You say

"The neat thing about abortion is that it cuts to the very core of identifying human rights and the right to life. I think it forces adopting a "religious" (in other words, a subjective or blind-faith-based or illogical) stand point from both sides. Pro-abortionists ultimately take a religious but opposing view too. The issue of abortion makes it impossible to objectively determine exactly when and how a non-aborted-pregnancy-survived-thing acquires a right to life. It becomes a subjective choice".

As for the faetus and its 'right' to life, again 'rights' is a mental abstract phenomenon concerning what we think about it including the mother. However, the faetus does not know this and is simply feeding and growing. It does not feel or have knowledge of rights and itself cannot project into the future about its own life like we do. . . however, sucessfully or otherwise. Probabilities is not going to be that fetus's forte.

[Charles Anthony]

First of all; id say that she is still free to make a choice (health care system allows that, or if illegal it often still is done).

You suggest that because she is pregnant she is not free. Id argue that she is pregnant full stop.

I will simplify it for you: she has a burden that can not be ignored. I am not denying her freedom to deal with that burden as she chooses.

She has to DO SOMETHING to overcome this burden.

This may lead into your example of the burdensome wounded man. But even then somebody could just cut him off. What you are speaking about more is the burden of morality.

No. I am not talking about the burden of morality. I am talking about the burden of HAVING TO DO SOMETHING which she otherwise would not have to do if she was not pregnant.

As for the faetus and its 'right' to life, again 'rights' is a mental abstract phenomenon concerning what we think about it including the mother. However, the faetus does not know this and is simply feeding and growing.

Does it ever acquire a right to life? Do YOU have a right to life?

What I am getting at is that ultimately, whether you like abortion or not, you have to ARBITRARILY decide when you assign a responsibility or a right to life. The decision making or criteria for that arbitrary threshold is not objective and is equally valid as a religious opinion. Neither choice can be objectively deemed right or wrong.

[margrace]

If directly asked (and I will never raise it or discuss it unless spefically asked to) I would say from a spiritual perspective I don't feel comfortable at all with the concept of abortion if it is deliberately induced by a human. But that is simply my opinion. I also happen to believe what a woman does with her body is strictly her business, so ideally I would like her to know she has options other then an abortion, but what she does with her body is none of my friggin business unless of course she is my mate/wife and even if it is my sperm that created the child I believe my rights are limited to simply stating my preference but no more then that. Sorry boys, we don't have the responsibility that comes with carrying the child so we don't get the final word, and if you don't like it, then park that magic wand and stay out of trouble in the first place. My spiritual beliefs begin and end with me and most importantly I do not have a womb so its easy for me to say what I say, I do not have the responsibility to carry a child. Sure I do not like the idea of a deliberately induced abortion but what about a woman raped by her father or some sob on the street or what about a woman carrying a seriously deformed child or a child she knows will be born with down's syndrome or huntington's korea, etc. You think I would dare pontificate to a woman in suchs ituations that she must carry a product of incest etc., to full term? Nope. With medical ethics and medical care as advanced as it is today, its too complicated an issue for we people to start shoving religion in each other's face and imposing what we want on other peoples' bodies- rape is bad enough, please don't ask me to force my beliefs on them either-decisions as to the womb and what is in it rest with the woman, her doctor, and who-ever else she wants to confide in and trisy-if she asked me for advise I would definitelykeep my spiritual views to myself and remain strictly neutral and simply be non-judgemental and help them know what all the options are BUT THAT IS AS FAR AS I WOULD GO. Yes from a spiritual point of view I worry when life actually starts and so abortion makes me very nervous but on the other hand there is an issue as to the sanctity and control of a woman's body so for me, I feel I have to qualify and contain my opinions. I think am an example of many people who support a woman's right to control their body but still do not necessarily completely agree with abortion but see the two issues as distinct. I do not have a rigid belief that makes me feel I can impose it on others.

I agree with this post. If everyone would look at the abortion issue in this light and not as the religious nuts do then it would be a better world

[Renegade]

A person aquires the right to life when they are born.

That being said, I believe abortion should be available on demand up to and including the 3rd month of pregnancy. If a woman can't make the decision before then she should be stuck being pregnant.

Drea, there is somewhat of an inconsistancy in your statements above. If a fetus doesn't acquire a right to life until it is born, presumably it doesn't have the right to life in the 8th month of gestation. So, why would you preclude a woman from having an abortion anytime before birth including the last trimester.

BTW, personally I agree with you that the woman should make the abortion decision in the first trimester, I just don't agree that the rights only start at birth.

[yam]

First of all; id say that she is still free to make a choice (health care system allows that, or if illegal it often still is done).

You suggest that because she is pregnant she is not free. Id argue that she is pregnant full stop.

I will simplify it for you: she has a burden that can not be ignored. I am not denying her freedom to deal with that burden as she chooses.

She has to DO SOMETHING to overcome this burden.

This may lead into your example of the burdensome wounded man. But even then somebody could just cut him off. What you are speaking about more is the burden of morality.

No. I am not talking about the burden of morality. I am talking about the burden of HAVING TO DO SOMETHING which she otherwise would not have to do if she was not pregnant.

As for the faetus and its 'right' to life, again 'rights' is a mental abstract phenomenon concerning what we think about it including the mother. However, the faetus does not know this and is simply feeding and growing.

Does it ever acquire a right to life? Do YOU have a right to life?

What I am getting at is that ultimately, whether you like abortion or not, you have to ARBITRARILY decide when you assign a responsibility or a right to life. The decision making or criteria for that arbitrary threshold is not objective and is equally valid as a religious opinion. Neither choice can be objectively deemed right or wrong.

Having to do something is still not an unfreedom.

For example would you say that having to feed yourself to stay alive is a 'burden'?

Also having to do something one would otherwise not normally do runs into a myriad phenomenon in daily life . . . .

But getting back to your statement here " 'arbitrarily' 'deciding' 'when' you 'assign' a 'responsibility' 'or' a 'right' 'to' 'life'"

Each and every word used in this statement implies a decision and choice thereby freedom.

However you ask at what point in life does one have a 'right to life' or whether i have a right to life. Id say not so but im going to protect it and others lives regardless of rights. But then i can only think in these terms after a considerable lengthy period from my birth. Society speaks of rights and applies them.

If you were an isolated individual without society then you would never consider rights and freedom but just get on with life.

The notion of rights and the notion of freedom arise out of the collective. All (as in each person) are born into the collectives notion of rights/freedoms and choices and what and how they are derived.

Also these notions do become a reality - laws and appropriate codes of behaviour. We are born nto them and they then effect us.

[Drea]

In some cases genetic deficiencies (ie; conjoined twins, spina bifida) are not detectable within the first 3 months. If a fetus (beyond the first trimester) is discovered to have these or other life altering deficiencies then abortion should still be available.

[geoffrey]

In some cases genetic deficiencies (ie; conjoined twins, spina bifida) are not detectable within the first 3 months. If a fetus (beyond the first trimester) is discovered to have these or other life altering deficiencies then abortion should still be available.

What about if the kid doesn't have desirable eye colour?

Where do you draw the line at an "acceptable" reason for saying the kid is genetically deficient?

[Drea]

In some cases genetic deficiencies (ie; conjoined twins, spina bifida) are not detectable within the first 3 months. If a fetus (beyond the first trimester) is discovered to have these or other life altering deficiencies then abortion should still be available.

What about if the kid doesn't have desirable eye colour?

Where do you draw the line at an "acceptable" reason for saying the kid is genetically deficient?

Gee I don't think one can see eye colour in an ultrasound...

by the way -- I said life altering deficiencies

As far as I know, eye colour doesn't affect your life, does it?

[Charles Anthony]

by the way -- I said life altering deficiencies

What do you think of people who abort their kid after they find out the sex is not what they want?

Does any part of you find that disgusting?

[geoffrey]

by the way -- I said life altering deficiencies

What do you think of people who abort their kid after they find out the sex is not what they want?

Does any part of you find that disgusting?

Well Drea, you should have no problem with someone (EDIT: added someone, no intention to make a personal statement) aborting a kid without a desirable eye colour though, that was my point. We certainly don't condone killing disabled people in our society, so the unborn disabled people in your mind obviously are rightless beings, or non-beings.

So then killing or disposing of one based on incorrect eye colour should be acceptable.

Breeding a perfect society is an interested idea, but I think the whole Brave New World eugenics concept is still not popularly accepted.

Your not going to draw support to your argument from the pro-life side because mothers need a longer term to decide if their child is genetically acceptable. It shouldn't make a difference, either the kid is alive and has rights, or is not alive and you shouldn't need any justification to kill/dispose of it.

And Charles, it should not be disgusting to pro-choices as the kid isn't alive or has any value in their books, or if the kid does have value and their gender isn't a valid reason for disposal... then their argument has a serious logic hole.

[Drea]

Charles -- gender is not a deficiency. So no, I do not agree with abortion for gender selection.

Abortion for any reason is undesirable. So is putting a live new born in the woods to die on its own (this was how it was done for millenia).

No one will ever agree on the abortion issue.

So why not just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Those who don't believe in abortion certainly do not have to have one -- ever. Simple innit?

[geoffrey]

Abortion for any reason is undesirable. So is putting a live new born in the woods to die on its own (this was how it was done for millenia).

Why is it undesirable?

[yam]

Perhaps Drea meant that a severely disabled fetus could be diagnosed with having terrible life opportunities, or even worse just a cruel and painful existence. Thus one is rather judging quality of life as opposed eye color, minor disabilities that would not make the potential formed person suffer etc.

[geoffrey]

Perhaps Drea meant that a severely disabled fetus could be diagnosed with having terrible life opportunities, or even worse just a cruel and painful existence. Thus one is rather judging quality of life as opposed eye color, minor disabilities that would not make the potential formed person suffer etc.

Is killing the severely disabled person after it's born acceptable though? What if they choose they want to live anyways?

[yam]

Id argue No.

Simply because a consciousness is there. But if they were in pain and wanted to die i think they should be able to have there decision respected.

Many severely disabled people have fulfilling lives. . . an they certainly would not choose to die.

[Drea]

Abortion for any reason is undesirable. So is putting a live new born in the woods to die on its own (this was how it was done for millenia).

Why is it undesirable?

Killing anything is undesirable (except mosquitoes -- I get pure pleasure out of killing those buggers!)

Some people seem to believe that having brown eyes is akin to having severe spinabifida or having a baby born with no brain.

Sad really. That people can't see the difference.

[Black Dog]

Reading the last couple of pages, I'm again struck by how little mention there is of the women who are, really, at the centre of this issue. The implication of the pro-life position here is that the mother forfeits whatever rights she has the instant she becomes pregnant. Now, given that "what ifs" such as "is it okay to abort a baby because you don't like the eye colour" are being tossed about, allow me to toss out a couple of my own.

Number one:

If abortion was to be made illegal, would any prolifers demand women who get abortions face criminal prosecutions?

Number two:

If the fetus's right to life supercedes the mother's right to self-determination, would anyone favour of banning or curtailing abortion also favour legal measures targetting other unsafe behaviours (ie. smoking/dringking while pregnant)?

Unlike some of the other "what if" scenarios floated, these are practical considerations and I'd be interested to see if anyone wants to take a crack.

Meanwhile:

Well Drea, you should have no problem with someone (EDIT: added someone, no intention to make a personal statement) aborting a kid without a desirable eye colour though, that was my point. We certainly don't condone killing disabled people in our society, so the unborn disabled people in your mind obviously are rightless beings, or non-beings.

So then killing or disposing of one based on incorrect eye colour should be acceptable

I understand these kinds of things are more thought exercises intended to establish the logical parameters of a position. But I've got a problem with this one (and its cousin "would you be okay with a woman deciding on an abortion when she's all set to deliver the baby?") and that is they don't have any real world application. You can't tell eye colour on a baby (most are born with blue eyes anyway, remember?) and 90 per cent of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Now, if we were talking about sex selection, we'd have something to talk about. But I realaly think it would be more helpful if we stuck to real world scenarios. I'm just saying.

[Charles Anthony]

I understand these kinds of things are more thought exercises intended to establish the logical parameters of a position. But I've got a problem with this one (and its cousin "would you be okay with a woman deciding on an abortion when she's all set to deliver the baby?") and that is they don't have any real world application.

Actually, the thought excersises do have real world application because abortion proves that our "right to life" is fictitious or of "religious" origin.

[Renegade]

it should not be disgusting to pro-choices as the kid isn't alive or has any value in their books, or if the kid does have value and their gender isn't a valid reason for disposal... then their argument has a serious logic hole.

geoffery, first, you can't generalize about the pro-choice community. Different people have different reasons for being pro-choice. Second, there is no logical inconsistancy if you belive that both the fetus and the mother have rights, however they may be in conflict. I'm pro-choice because I believe the mothers rights outweigh the fetus's rights, at least initially in the pregnancy.

[Riverwind]

Actually, the thought excersises do have real world application because abortion proves that our "right to life" is fictitious or of "religious" origin.

Sometimes I wish you would simply make your point instead of beating around the bush.

I agree with you here - there are no 'inalienable' rights - all rights are simply guidelines created by society that reflect the values that society decides are important. There will always be cases where 'rights' come into conflict so society has to make a decision about which right is more important. Individuals will use their own religious convictions to decide what kinds of rights should take priority in any given situation.

[geoffrey]

it should not be disgusting to pro-choices as the kid isn't alive or has any value in their books, or if the kid does have value and their gender isn't a valid reason for disposal... then their argument has a serious logic hole.

geoffery, first, you can't generalize about the pro-choice community. Different people have different reasons for being pro-choice. Second, there is no logical inconsistancy if you belive that both the fetus and the mother have rights, however they may be in conflict. I'm pro-choice because I believe the mothers rights outweigh the fetus's rights, at least initially in the pregnancy.

How can you not see the logical inconsistancy with believing that some people have more of a right to convience than others have a right to life? That's actually unbelievable.

Those pro-choicers that say that fetuses (feti?) aren't alive, they have some logic behind their argument, if it ain't live, who cares. But to say that a fetus has rights but it's right to life is outweighed by a woman's right to convenience is just beyond any comprehension. What other types of people's right to life is outweighed by convenience?

[Black Dog]

How can you not see the logical inconsistancy with believing that some people have more of a right to convience than others have a right to life? That's actually unbelievable.

Those pro-choicers that say that fetuses (feti?) aren't alive, they have some logic behind their argument, if it ain't live, who cares. But to say that a fetus has rights but it's right to life is outweighed by a woman's right to convenience is just beyond any comprehension. What other types of people's right to life is outweighed by convenience?

So you're basically implying that the right to life trumps all other rights. Am I reading that right? Here's another question in addition to the one's I asked above. When you say someone has a right to life, I assume you mean mere corporeal existence. Suppose you were offered a choice: would you rather be thrown jail without trial, charge or explanation, stripped of all possessions, cut off from family and friends and left naked in a locked room to rot for the rest of your natural life (you would continue to receive whatever you need to stay alive), or would you rather be executed by firing squad. Which would you choose?

[geoffrey]

How can you not see the logical inconsistancy with believing that some people have more of a right to convience than others have a right to life? That's actually unbelievable.

Those pro-choicers that say that fetuses (feti?) aren't alive, they have some logic behind their argument, if it ain't live, who cares. But to say that a fetus has rights but it's right to life is outweighed by a woman's right to convenience is just beyond any comprehension. What other types of people's right to life is outweighed by convenience?

So you're basically implying that the right to life trumps all other rights. Am I reading that right? Here's another question in addition to the one's I asked above. When you say someone has a right to life, I assume you mean mere corporeal existence. Suppose you were offered a choice: would you rather be thrown jail without trial, charge or explanation, stripped of all possessions, cut off from family and friends and left naked in a locked room to rot for the rest of your natural life (you would continue to receive whatever you need to stay alive), or would you rather be executed by firing squad. Which would you choose?

Probably the first, but that's just me. The difference is that it's my choice to make. I am saying that all people have the right to decide when they are going to die, and society should not allow others to prematurely kill them. That's my position on how a right to life trumps all other rights. It's the same reason why I don't support capital punishment, no one has a right to kill anyone else unless it's in their own defense (or defense of others, ie. a war or a police officer).

[Charles Anthony]

I will take a crack at them. It is only fair.

The implication of the pro-life position here is that the mother forfeits whatever rights she has the instant she becomes pregnant. Now, given that "what ifs" such as "is it okay to abort a baby because you don't like the eye colour" are being tossed about, allow me to toss out a couple of my own.

First, the "what ifs" and eye color discussions make a point of forcing the abortionist to admit that abortion is wrong in some level which is natural but not logical. In that regard, I am comfortable saying that the abortionists must concede defeat and accept that there is some aspect which is "morally wrong" with abortion.

If abortion was to be made illegal, would any prolifers demand women who get abortions face criminal prosecutions?

Hunh?!?!? Forgive me but when you say "illegal" are you not saying that it is criminal anyway? Do you mean that there is a law on the books but the police do not follow through?

If the fetus's right to life supercedes the mother's right to self-determination, would anyone favour of banning or curtailing abortion also favour legal measures targetting other unsafe behaviours (ie. smoking/dringking while pregnant)?

My answer is easy: no because I do not favor any "legal" measures.

Actually, the thought excersises do have real world application because abortion proves that our "right to life" is fictitious or of "religious" origin.

Sometimes I wish you would simply make your point instead of beating around the bush.

I understand.

However, if I started off saying "I believe your right to abortion is the same right that a murderer has to kill you." everybody would just label me a pro-life nut.

The whole thread (other abortion discussions do too) started off with what comes across as: Pro-lifers (religious zealots) versus Pro-choicers (progressive liberators) or something like that. I find that very disingenuous because both stances involve an arbitrary choice of a winner and loser.

Anti-abortionists are always shouted down and categorically labelled as religious nuts. Nobody listens to them.

I agree with you here - there are no 'inalienable' rights - all rights are simply guidelines created by society that reflect the values that society decides are important.

Actually, to be more precise: I do believe we have inalienable human rights -- but I can not justify them logically. I believe it in a holier-than-thou manner. I do not care what my peers say, I believe everybody has the right to life and control over your body. For me, it is easy to say that because your right to life does not demand much responsibility on the part of anybody else.

Between the right to life and the right to control one's body, inherently abortion presents a conflict which makes the unborn the natural loser. It is unfortunate, but it is natural and I accept that. The way that I reconcile accepting abortion is by revering the sacrifice of motherhood that much more. That is all that I can do.

Individuals will use their own religious convictions to decide what kinds of rights should take priority in any given situation.

-- and I qualify endorsing abortion as a type of "religious" zealotry equal to anti-abortion. I adamantly object to the anti-abortion-ergo-religious label. They are both religious beliefs.

Now, continuing with some more of "Your Religious Views on Abortion" I will take your advice and I will (again, shamelessly making more vehement enemies and) simply make an other point without beating around the bush. More of my opinions are:

I see no difference between a religious anti-abortionist shooting abortion doctors and many other types of warfare. Our military soldiers sacrifice their lives to defend causes they believe are just and so do the religious anti-abortion shooters. We justify killing out of convenience and so do they.

I honestly do not get surprised when I hear about local youth gangs swarming and kicking people to death on the street. I am dreadfully afraid but I am not surprised. We justify killing out of convenience and why should they not too? Youth gangs are convinced that they can get away with it and so they do it.

I truly see abortion on par with the above: an horrifying disrespect for life.

Here is a question:

If you heard of an anti-abortion campaign specifically targetted at abortion based on sex of the child, would you lend them any little bit of support?

[Let us say that they were strctly non-violent but mounting peaceful demonstrations or education campaigns comparable to what the Falun Dafa (dare I bring them up!!!) do to bring awareness of their abuse in (dare I keep going!!!) China.]

[Drea]

First, the "what ifs" and eye color discussions make a point of forcing the abortionist to admit that abortion is wrong in some level which is natural but not logical. In that regard, I am comfortable saying that the abortionists must concede defeat and accept that there is some aspect which is "morally wrong" with abortion.

IMO, the woman's life is more important than the fetus'. Period.

It is like this in nature as well. In a pride of lions, if food is scarce, the females will eat before the cubs. Why? Because the female can go on and have more cubs, while the lives of the current starving cubs is precarious at best.

Hunh?!?!? Forgive me but when you say "illegal" are you not saying that it is criminal anyway? Do you mean that there is a law on the books but the police do not follow through?

No, BD is saying that if the lawmakers decided that abortion was a crime (illegal) then would women who have abortions be subject to criminal prosecution?

My answer is easy: no because I do not favor any "legal" measures.

Glad to hear it.

Yet in the same post you state: I see no difference between a religious anti-abortionist shooting abortion doctors and many other types of warfare. Our military soldiers sacrifice their lives to defend causes they believe are just and so do the religious anti-abortion shooters. We justify killing out of convenience and so do they.

So it's ok to commit a crime (murder) a doctor to forward your cause?

Actually, to be more precise: I do believe we have inalienable human rights -- but I can not justify them logically. I believe it in a holier-than-thou manner. I do not care what my peers say, I believe everybody has the right to life and control over your body. For me, it is easy to say that because your right to life does not demand much responsibility on the part of anybody else.

Aha! "...everybody has the right to life and control over their body." Then we agree.

A woman has control over every aspect of her physical being. Including pregnancy.

Between the right to life and the right to control one's body, inherently abortion presents a conflict which makes the unborn the natural loser. It is unfortunate, but it is natural and I accept that. The way that I reconcile accepting abortion is by revering the sacrifice of motherhood that much more. That is all that I can do.

I am glad that you can accept that others may have different ideas as to "right" and "wrong" and respect that view by not imposing your values on society.

Now, continuing with some more of "Your Religious Views on Abortion" I will take your advice and I will (again, shamelessly making more vehement enemies and) simply make an other point without beating around the bush. More of my opinions are:

I see no difference between a religious anti-abortionist shooting abortion doctors and many other types of warfare. Our military soldiers sacrifice their lives to defend causes they believe are just and so do the religious anti-abortion shooters. We justify killing out of convenience and so do they.

I honestly do not get surprised when I hear about local youth gangs swarming and kicking people to death on the street. I am dreadfully afraid but I am not surprised. We justify killing out of convenience and why should they not too? Youth gangs are convinced that they can get away with it and so they do it.

I truly see abortion on par with the above: an horrifying disrespect for life.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Here is a question:

If you heard of an anti-abortion campaign specifically targetted at abortion based on sex of the child, would you lend them any little bit of support?

[Let us say that they were strctly non-violent but mounting peaceful demonstrations or education campaigns comparable to what the Falun Dafa (dare I bring them up!!!) do to bring awareness of their abuse in (dare I keep going!!!) China.]

Of course not, just because a person believes a woman should have a choice as to what to do with her body, does not mean they condone or support abortion based on gender or other frivilous human characteristics.

If you will notice, women in the countries mentioned have been forced to have abortions based on gender or limits on numbers of children per family. These women do not have a choice.

As a woman in our society, I demand (and get, thankfully) the respect to do with my body what I see fit.