Couldn't any action be justified by saying "it's freedom"? That's not really a valid argument. Abortion affects the life of the child, not just the woman. Besides, all laws enforce morality. "Moral coercion" is not evil. Laws against stealing, theft, murder, rape, etc, all enforce morality.
I hope you'll share your story about what made you pro-life here Sam. =) Only one other lifer has so far, although it was very short.
I never really had an epiphany where I changed from pro-choice to pro-life, or vice versa. I always had pro-life beliefs. And I never had any personal experience with abortion. Fortunately I never had to deal with the situation of an unwanted pregnancy. Even if I never had my faith in God and my beliefs in abstinence before marriage, I still know that engaging in irresponsible and reckless behavior is wrong and selfish. Teenagers who have abortions should know that abortion is wrong. The baby shouldn't be punished for their stupid decisions. Also, people keep referring to abortion as a "woman's choice", but honestly, any morally twisted action could be justified by saying that it's "just a choice". The reason why I am pro-life is simple. What kind of parent would ever abort their own child just because having a child is too stressful or inconvenient for them? Certainly not a good or responsible or caring parent would ever do that. No matter what excuses people say to justify abortion-that still doesn't change the fact that women who have abortions aren't good parents.
I would never wish this upon anyone, either men or women. When the condom broke with my ex-boyfriend back when I was a teen he was just as mortified as I was. He was so scared that he actually threw up over it. He helped me to get the morning after pill and believe you me we were both an anxious wreck. I really hope you never, ever, ever experience this, ever. It is horrible. I also hope that if for any reason it ever did happen to you and your partner that she at least shares the same beliefs as you. =)
Firstly I want to say that I appreciate this post. I know we've had our major contentions in the past, but I've come to realize those contentions are merely on this one issue. There may be many issues to which we'll agree on(though I haven't seen you post on other threads). And I appreciate the sincerity behind your reasons and I can empathize with them. Now, I'll give mine. A little background story: I'm 21 years old, I was born with CP and my mother was a teenage mom who banged pretty much anyone she could. Luckily, I've grown up with my grandmother and became an earnest intellectual who eventually worked his way to college when people didn't know if I could talk. As an intellectual, I first pondered the abortion question by relating it to myself. What if my mom chose abortion? Would I be alive? Would I have enjoyed any of the things life had to offer me? The answer to all of this is no. And it made me realize the basic correlation to my own vulnerability. That in essence, whether I lived or died was up to another person. This type of vulnerability *should not happen*. Unlike the animal kingdom where there are various other elements, we humans have little to compete with(aside from miscarriages). The Womb should naturally be the safest place for life to develop. Especially in hospitals that are fairly well equipped for pregnancies. In a first world developed country, we should have a better live birth rate than we do. Add to that the abortion rate, and we have a massive loss of life here in America. I don't want my child's life to be a "chance". I want my child to feel as though his parents consciously made the decision to bring him/her into the world. That we made that decision without a second thought, that the pregnancy was welcomed, not questioned. It's a horrible thing to think of your own life as expendable. It's equally cruel to think of other people's lives as expendable. But also, the idea that a father simply doesn't have the right or the privilege to discuss the matter, or have some kind of form of recourse is a double whammy of a lack of morality. Abortion, intellectually to me has a very slim margin and that margin isn't enough for me. If we *must* have Abortion rights, then we simply have to strengthen abortion morally. Up until now, there hasn't been a law with no moral fiber. Abortion comes pretty damn close. And I need to add the disclaimer that a woman's recourse to recover from the effects of sexual rape and abuse, while admirable(and I've always believed in protecting those rights) is not enough of a moral fiber for its overall standing. Mental distress<Life. For abortion as a whole to stand as a moral part of society and as a law on morals, it has to have much better standing. There has to be a way for men to benefit or to at least be able to find some way to cope with this "biological inequality". Otherwise, it's not moral. Everything is based on morality. Morality isn't subjective. Equal rights, freedom for all, no discrimination, etc. None of those things are subjective. They're not subjective biologically, economically or socially. Morals are absolute. With one exception, and that's when those morals are no longer sufficient or serve the times. In that sense, I'm a moral relativist. I believe in the strength of morals, but I also believe sometimes moral isn't enough but the reasoning of humanity should also play a crucial factor.
Really Sam? Much the same way as the Revolutionary war was one of self defense? There is hardly a need for you to re-demonstrate the wast knowledge and reasoned thinking you bring to these discussions. We already know what your posts bring to the debate.
You took the wrong approach whether out of selfishness, conscious or sub, or out of error. One can not compare in hind sight what one has experienced with the absence of those experiences because one did not exist. What or where would you be now if your mom instead of living the life she did, became a celibate nun? All that you appreciate, like or dislike are owed to your consciousness and in the total absence of it nothing can be compared to anything the exists. The world would be the same with our any one of us absent from it. In many ways it still is and will be so in the future. Without any perceptible negative.consequences. On the other hand, considering the unemployment rate being so high, what do you think that the additional several million people would do to the well being of our society? No rational person does. Everyone should feel the same way, but what if some things are missing? That means it was planed. What of the scores on the unplanned variety? We all are, it only depends on the severity of the situation. Ever think about the sodier ordered to take the proverbial hill? Like the lives of the people of Hiroshima? There is nothing to strengthen morally about abortion, but I am curious, how would YOU do it? Is it? ON who's morality and who made that decision? Of course it is, has always been and will always be. But they are, they are. Says who? What is the source of such absolute? Who made that exception and who decides the WHEN?
The world would be the same with any of us absent from it, you're right. But our world would be nonexistent. Life is meant to be experienced, without experiencing life life loses its purpose. I mean think about it, why do we have prisons as a form of punishment? Because nothing could devastate a human being more than a lack of human emotions, experiences, etc. Even those crazy sociopaths will literally go crazy at the thought of, and the realization of staying in a prison(See: Jodi Arias). Simply because the world would move forward, doesn't invalidate our experiences, or invalidate the very real and sad thought of what would it be like if we didn't experience our relative situations. I will admit to an extent this is true. I could be murdered by another human being(though that's a crime and not supposed to happen), when/if I get sick I'll have to go to the hospital and doctors will have to take the best measures possible in order to ensure my survival and even then it might not be enough. Accidents also happen, etc. But for all of these things, there's still a self-determination process. If I stay out of shady groups, and engage society ethically I have a higher chance than others of avoiding a fatal confrontation. If I eat right, exercise, etc. There's still a good chance that I may remain relatively healthy. Abortion takes away the self-determination process for a fetus and places it directly in the hands of human life. If that's not nepotism, then what is? I don't see how a pro-choicer can simply look the other way at the lack of morality. Even if a fetus no longer has self-determining rights, it needs at least someone else to advocate for its right to exist(namely the Father) or for someone to sanctify that decision. Since the woman is self-interested, she can't sanctify anything. The wolf guarding the hen house is not someone we listen to. Interesting question, and we can look at it in one of two ways. We can look at it in the terms of 'an additional several million people" clogging up the unemployment rate. But consider, the hypothetically born would be children or teenagers. We tend not to count them in the employment rate. When I look at economics and birth rate, I tend to have an opposite correlation. Hint: When was the last real American boom? Not a bubble, but a real sustainable boom? Wasn't it the roaring 50's and 60's? People say that it was because of he New Deal, not so. Something far more tangible than government programs: Private production. Namely, the citizenry. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-record-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/ The market is driven by necessity. A single person(be it male or female) simply doesn't have as much necessity for wealth and propserity. But if you had a family, you're now morally driven to provide for your children. (Well, not only morally but economically driven). This is basic supply and demand at work. When our infrastructure, etc all lagged it's because of the revolution against the concept and importance of family. With the breakdown of nuclear family units, came the breakdown of society at large. And until we restore that necessity, we may never be a world power again. That's slightly off topic(but it espouses the economic reasons why I'm pro-life, which I hadn't gotten into). If the Single Family unit had been sufficient, perhaps it would be well but from what we hear from Feminism/Leftism, it would increase the rate of inflation. I generally don't want to follow Europe's high prices to maintain that kind of system. Then you can see that my opposition to abortion has nothing to do with hatred or sexism, but everything to do with Naturalism, Morality and the advancement of Human Civilization. If we must have Abortion, it has to concur with all of these things on some level. At best, some have argued that those who abort go on to later have a kid when they're more stable. That's not an argument for Abortion per say, that's an argument for common sense. They shouldn't have had the child to begin with, engaged in intercourse, etc. If they didn't feel they could raise it well. If it's a benefit from Abortion, it's one we can gain without the practice of Abortion. I still believe that finding a way to incorporate fatherhood into the decision, in a manner that can be socially acceptable to women would be an apt answer to Abortion and would legalize the practice of Abortion far greater than the Supreme Court could. Right now, the words of the court uphold it as "legal", in the mind of many Americans it's still controversial. And as long as it remains controversial, the court can always reverse course(see: Slavery, etc). So even if Women think the current state of affairs is right, it would be more prudent for them to move to the center and secure Abortion's place in North American culture. But hey, just as I can't make women believe in pro-life, neither can I make them recognize the political strength of moving to the center. That's something they'll have to find on their own. And there are indeed those cases, economically women are still "held back"(though, to a great degree by their career choices. The Market is bisexual. It could care less if you were a monkey. The way you participate affects how much you earn.) In fact. http://www.epi.org/publication/lost-decade-poverty-income-trends-continue-2/ http://rwer.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/in-the-usa-the-real-earnings-of-the-median-male-have-actually-declined-by-19-percent-since-1970/ Our incomes have significantly declined(which of course worsens the situation). Again, if there's a war on women we're not fighting it very well. That decline comes at the economy's expense, and women have enjoyed a slight uptick. In fact, the number of affluent women continues to skyrocket. There's a problem for the Middle Class as a whole, but that's not a war on women. It's a corporate war against men, women and children. It's a war brought on mostly by corporations shipping jobs overseas or even worse, foreign corporate monguls actually owning stakes inside of America. http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/ForeignOwnershipofUSAssets.pdf But I do agree that we need to do something about that verbatim 25% of men who are scumbags.(Though I acknowledge the family courts hasn't/isn't so kind to us. It's a pyramid scheme for women, by women in their best interests. The child is used as an excuse to make such lobsided decisions). Instead of child support, how about imprisonment? Leaving a mother by non-legal means should be seen as akin to child abuse and reckless endangerment. Once more, we'll uphold the idea that having a child is a contract between a man and a woman. Child support doesn't do anything for the child, and it's not really long-term income for the mother, as opposed to the stability of a man bringing in a much more hefty and stable form of income. Also, I don't think child support should be pursued in a domestically difficult relationship(ie: Abuse) that's just asking for trouble and I don't know why States do it. Just let the mother and father go on their separate ways and hopefully the mother finds a far more suitable partner. But I will acknowledge that it takes a long time for ideology to settle in. But the way we're doing things can be improved. Some of you may have better suggestions than I. But at least, I want to give suggestions. Nothing's truly unplanned. The couple might not have said "We want a child this year or next", but when they engaged in intercourse and if they truly had sincere feelings for each other that would lead to a long term commitment, sooner or later they'd have a child. I think they should meet their obligation to that child. If however they can't and they feel as though they want their children to be in an economically stable position they should do so. I'm not in favor of the welfare moms, especially of the minority types. That's been a big burden on our economy and it's one of the largest reasons for abortion's necessity. I only grow weary that mainstream, upper class Americans have also been victims of this eugenic program and it's weakening our own stability while failing miserably to curtail the growth of the "worthless". If we can maintain our stability, and if we can curb the minorities/despotic poor that'll lead to a new economic renaissance. A soldier gives his life for the good of the mission. And even then, not willingly but when the situation calls for it. Ideally, there would be no such sacrifices in warfare. We're not the Taliban, we don't use human shields. But in civilian life especially, the concept of sacrificing life for another person is something that ideally, we'd like to avoid at all costs. Such a society could only be clarified as a low class society. We didn't know how devastating the nuclear bombs would be, but I argue the second nuclear strike was a war crime by President Truman. It was indiscriminate killing and bombing the likes of which the war had few comparisons.(Such as the Russian/British bombing of Germany). But obviously, a nuke far surpassed that kind of damage. And just think, nuclear technology has vastly evolved since that time. That's why I'm a big proponent of non-proliferation, our stance after WWII and that's why I still hold Madam Clinton to her Iran comments when she ran in '08. That's sheer irresponsibility from someone who would be Head of State. That technology is ideally never to be used again, those who know of our capabilities are few in number and philosophically I hope we can make it so that those who do know would take that knowledge to their graves. Read page one. I can't think of anything else really at the moment. I'm neither a doctor nor do I have extensive experience. But I think this proposal is fair. Unfortunately, if the views here are to be believed, women probably wouldn't see this as fair. Nevertheless I hope to propose it in government and to see what the consensus is among the left/right about this idea and possibly other ideas like it or better than it. Strengthening abortion morally is the greatest thing we can do for the pro-choice crowd. I just wish Cady could see that. Mankind's morality. [video=youtube;Yb-wM_SAX30]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb-wM_SAX30[/video] And that decision was made by all of us collectively as a species. That's why we've survived to this day and why we'll continue to survive. Some might point at this video against my beliefs. But I think it's support of them, how can anyone legitimately say a life that's developing is someone else's life? Because it's inside the womb? That's fallacious and it's the slavery argument all over again. So when it escaped its prison(the womb) it became a free person? Sorry, I don't concur to that mindset. What about those who murder a pregnant woman? Many Pro-lifers and now I'll raise the question, as to why is that so much severe than an abortion itself. After all, isn't only the woman a person?(according to the pro-choice crowd) You seem to have morality confused with religious values. Morality is the basis of law, religion is the subjective opinion of man reading a book portraying that its from a "god". While the Christian theology was supported among the Western Civilizations as a base for that law. The greater base came from the virtues of these values. In other words, without theology we can still uphold a moral society. But without morals, we can't uphold a society. Not according to the Declaration of Independence, the Civil Rights Act and the Supreme Court. And I have the consensus of mankind at my side. To declare that morality, and specifically that freedom is subjective is laughable. Freedom is only subjective in terms of what one identifies as "freedom". But not the concept itself. You asked this a few quotes above and I gave you the answer. Humanity. Or to elaborate more specifically, the survival of humanity. Every human tragedy has occurred and every tragedy that would theoretically occur comes from a lack of morality. A lack of self-dignity, self-respect and a willingness to violate other human beings. We cannot bend morality(or well, we can, it just doesn't end very well). Your argument is an argument that has generally led mankind down the wrong path over the decades and centuries, costing an untold amount of lies. For better or worse, the same people who established the base to begin with. Humankind. Philosophers and scientists and the conscious will of our species has led us to unfortunately accept some immorally based concepts, but also to reject them and replace them with morally sound principles. To be a Humanist, is to acknowledge all of these factors.
Sorry for the delayed reply and thanks for yours. Thanks. It seems that we agree on some things. I do not think that is the case. Abortions have been around forever yet we do exist. Indeed and for that one needs the capacity to experience. Does a single cell have that? And again, a capacity for it is necessary. Because the right of the woman making the life of the fetus possible, has a higher priority in self determination. I see it as immoral to take away the self determination of the woman for the sake of a fetus. The Roe decision clearly made an allowance for that. yes, as you called it, self determination. Failed analogy. Yes and when abortion is chosen it means that it is later. Even if they are not ready for that obligation? Why subject a child to an undesirable situation? In other words his or her life is expandable for the sake or gain of that mission. Yes, ooops, is so much better. Not ALL but some costs. Of course we did, there was testing before. Fire bombing Dresden? I assure you that is not the case at all. No, common good, public safety, peace and freedom are the real basis in a self determined society. yes we can. But we are and coincidences are just that. That one is irrelevant. Until that changes and there goes the absolute... You can laugh all you want, but you are laughing at reality. Exactly. And that is what one identifies as freedom, subjectively I might add. Not absolute at all. That has also changed and is changing continuously. Tell me you are not including natural disasters and plagues in this. Other than that as any victor in war. I do not recall a period in human history when that was not so and there is no end to the list of reasons. You are right,it does not bend well so we just change it. [Your argument is an argument that has generally led mankind down the wrong path over the decades and centuries, costing an untold amount of lies.[/quote]Not an argument, just a pointing out of reality. That is why it varies from place to place and time to time, culture to culture and necessity to necessity. Can not agree on most things and resort at times to nasty name calling their colleagues. Just like it is to be a realist.
I am pro-life because there is so much evidence for the fact that from the moment of conception, there is a new, unique, human being who has the same rights and dignity that all other human beings have. For example, the newly conceived embryo (baby) has all of the chromosomes that any other human has. It has all of the DNA it needs to be fully human. I could come up with other reasons why I believe that abortion is wrong but those are the reasons that come to mind right now. I am pro-life and so is my Church, the Catholic Church. I believe that abortion is intrinsically evil and is never justified. I don't even believe abortion is justified in the case which I believe is extremely rare, if not non-existent, that the pregnancy cold cause the death of the mother. The reason is that you can never do evil to bring about good. Also, I do want to point out the Principle of Double Effect. An example of this would be a woman who finds out she has uterine or cervical cancer while she is pregnant. In order to save her life, she must have a hysterectomy. Well, getting the hysterectomy would not be immoral even though it would result in the unintended death of the baby within her because the point of getting the point of getting the hysterectomy is not to end the life of the baby but to save the life of the mother. I find it hard to explain the Principle of Double Effect and so here are some links which will explain it better: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2263 http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/moral-principles-101-5065 http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0501556.htm http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/philosophy/ph0040.htm
No, I don't want to give rights to chromosomes and DNA. I want to give rights to human persons who already have a right to life which is given to them by God.
But you are. A single cell has all of that and you wish for it to have rights. Odd. When did God come up with the idea of rights?
That single cell is a human person with a soul. As for when did God come up with rights, I suppose He did that when He created us. We all have inherent rights given to us by God and among those are the right to life. By the way Promoteus, you are coming across as very trollish.
Is it? Can you support that with anything? Yet He chose not to inform us of any of it in scripture. Bull crap. Really, because I point out the fallacy in your posts or because you can not defend what you post?
If the embryo were to split into twins up to 14 days after conception, what would become of the soul? Would it also split into two souls? Or would both twins share one soul?
In the case of twins, there are two souls: one for each person. As for the specifics on how ensoulment occurs, that is a mystery. We don't really know for sure when ensoulment occurs or how it occurs but I do believe it occurs. It is a matter of faith. You're free to believe or disbelieve in ensoulment and the existence of souls but I am going to continue believing.
Look, I am not an expert in the matter. I already told you that I don't know for sure how ensoulment occurs. I am not God. It is a mystery. That is all I am going to say. If one person is conceived then there is one soul. If two people are conceived then there are two souls. I am not sure how I could explain it in any other way. I'm sorry if that is not satisfactory for you.
But you asserted that the single cell already has a soul and now all of a sudden it is not known when that happens.
QUOTE=AveMariaGratiaPlena;1063318441]Look, I am not an expert in the matter. I already told you that I don't know for sure how ensoulment occurs. I am not God. It is a mystery. That is all I am going to say. If one person is conceived then there is one soul. If two people are conceived then there are two souls. I am not sure how I could explain it in any other way. I'm sorry if that is not satisfactory for you.[/QUOTE] Maybe you should reconsider your statement claiming that a single cell at conception is a person with a soul.
Maybe you should reconsider your statement claiming that a single cell at conception is a person with a soul.[/QUOTE] Fine, I will say it this way. I do not know if a single cell at conception is a person with a soul or not. I do believe that every single person has a soul. When they get their soul, I don't know. I do know that every person has a soul though. I will also say that every person has a right to life from the moment of conception and a person has a right to life regardless of whether or not they have a soul. I am going to assume that an embryo does have a soul and that I simply don't know the specifics on how it got its soul and such. Ensoulment is a mystery that I know nothing about. God knows about it and that's fine by me. He's the one who gives us a soul anyway.
I put him on ignore too long ago to remember exactly why, but I'd say that description is overly charitable. Only if one presumes God has no way of making two souls out of one, or that two souls cannot inhabit one body.
