How do feel about abortion? I'm trying to come at this from an angle that explores how ethics change when hey are disentangled from religion.

Now before the comments light up, consider a few things.

Almost everyone here is sympathetic to the LGBT movement, especially to how the Mormon church makes their lives especially difficult. It's technically a political issue, but it's one that goes without saying here. Maybe it's just because the other side has learned to bite their tongue and pick their battles. I don't know.

I'm interested in asking his question to see how people's views develop on other social or ethical issues they might still have reasons to hold. Some of us, I think, just accept that we have no reason to fight gay people like they are the plague and we move on. This was my stance for a while, until I got to know some people and discovered that their struggles were similar to some of my own: hiding and cowering in fear of judgement and thinking you're the only one who has a problem with "serious sin." This ignited my empathy more than anything else.

Not all exmormons go full atheist. I suspect most of us do, but I'd also say that few of us stay at a red-hot state godless fury for very long. We might remain godless, but we come to tolerate, to some extent or another, people who still believe in God so we can move on with our lives. Some find God again or hope at least.

When your belief in the pre existence and the spirit is stripped, what is a human being? We call ourselves humanists, but why? What's the value in a human life? What's the value that a fetus could become a human life? Are we under an obligation to treat the unborn like a fully developed person even while they are still developing into a person? Even at the earliest stages where they are — I'm not trying to be insensitive — just a mass of living tissues slowly taking on he vaguest semblance of a human form?

For me, when life starts is a debate that we will never reach a consensus on, so the right to ultimately decide should be left up to the mother within acceptable bounds as a legislature dictates. I think it's a private decision. You can be pro-choice politically and pro-life in your own behavior.

The issue for me is letting people be free to govern their lives without religious edicts imposing inconveniences and strictures on them that make no sense outside of a religious narrative.

I have never understood how Bible believers could be opposed to abortion, asserting that it is the killing of a human being.

When God created Adam, according to Genesis 2:7, Adam did NOT become "a living soul" until he had "the BREATH of life." Therefore, a fetus - since it does not breathe - does not have a soul until it is born and starts to breathe.

Catholic-life begins at conception...
Protestant-life begins with the first breath...
Wise Rabbi-life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies...

I don't get that men believe they have a right to an opinion about abortion! Okay, maybe an opinion... Just like I'm allowed to have an opinion about who the Dodgers bid on from the free agency pool this winter.

Since I do not have a dog in this fight (I'm a gay man, hence will never have an abortion to call my own, nor will I get a woman pregnant, so it's a non-issue), I rarely spout off, but here goes.

I think abortion needs to remain legal and available or else it will go back to the back alleys again. Personally, I do not think it should be used as a birth control option.

Agree with this comment. I also believe that a person's body is their own. But when it comes to creating new life there should be serious thinking before taking the ability to create it in stride. There is no way to legislate conscious nor morality. But conscious and morality exist outside of religion too. Abortion as a form of birth control is awfully sad.

100% agree.

I got pregnant at 19 a few months into my freshman year of college. Growing up with virtually no freedom plus lack of any affection from my parents equaled me thinking that physical affection meant someone loved me. It's not hard to see where that situation led.

My first thought was abortion. After I calmed down I realized I could never do it. I thought about adoption for a long time but ultimately ended up keeping the baby, who is my oldest daughter and she is now 16.

I don't think I'd ever have an abortion, even in the case of rape. But I am glad that I had that safe, legal option available should I have chosen it.

The religious rhetoric you are referring to has at least two, quite different, motivations...

...one of them is about controlling the sexuality of women, as well as the actual, AND theoretical, right of women to have sovereignty over their own bodies and their own lives...

...and the other has to do with issues relating to the fetus.

The second motivation is secondary (at least for most of people who are trying, in some way, to advance the "cause of the fetus"), but is used as "cover" to obscure the PRIMARY issue (suppression of women's rights to control their own bodies).

This is not universally true (because some percentage of people who oppose abortion ARE genuinely and primarily motivated by religious and ethical issues regarding the fetus)...

...but it IS true at the macro level---and, to an overwhelming extent, at the financial level as well. "Follow the money" (as well as "follow the power") applies just as much in this issue as it does in any other issue of public concern.

My personal belief is that a couple who do not want to bear a child should do everything in their power to prevent conception. I've never bought the "we got carried away" argument. To me this shows a basic respect for human life.

But sometimes even the best birth control fails. I think that the U.S. Supreme Court decision was a good one that balances the right of the mother to self-determination along with the rights of the fetus as it becomes increasingly viable.

Mother Nature aborts plenty of fetuses in the early stages. I'm not sure why we as a culture get so worked up when people elect to do that as well.

I feel grateful I was never in a situation where I had to consider this.

I think the people who are against this option are part of the problem when they don't approve of easily accessible sex education and birth control.

I am all about someone's choice not to have an abortion. There are sometimes when I think people should, but that is only my opinion which I would not try to enforce on them. I just wish others would extend that courtesy to everyone's choices.

If you don't like abortions, DON'T GET ONE.
Other than that, MYOB.

Cold-Dodger, you state very well the thought processes that those of us who actually think go through in taking a position on this. I guess that my years of living and thinking have led me to where I am on this issue.

I believe in the existence of a soul or spirit in each living human being. I don't necessarily believe that there is a "pre-existence" for that soul. I do believe--or at least sincerely hope--that there is a heaven or a place where all of our spirits will join with our loved ones. I miss them and hope to be with them again.

I believe that a fetus achieves personhood when it is born. Until that time, it is part of the mother's body. As a woman's body belongs to her and only her, so does the fetus. It is her decision and no one else's decision as to what happens to a part of her body.

Women don't make the decision to have an abortion without agonizing and soul searching. No one else has to live her life, live through the pregnancy, and care for the child but her.

I don't have the right to make that decision for anyone else. No one does.

Why do virulent anti-abortionists only care about the baby before it is born? They make a big deal about gathering diapers and bottles to give to women who decide to go through and give birth. Where are they when the child needs food as a toddler? Where are they when the child needs clothing, education, medical care? They are MIA. Instead, they are busy electing representatives who try to cut food stamps and fight against providing medical care.

These are the people who gripe about providing birth control--or even making it accessible. If a woman is having sex or is unwise enough to get herself raped, by god, she should accept the consequences!

If a woman is pregnant and her life is in danger, oh well, so sorry! The fetus is what is important. Laws that restrict aborting the fetus to save the life of the mother have resulted in many deaths of women--see Ireland, for example.

I respect the right of a woman/girl or man/boy to declare their own sexuality, be it heterosexual, gay, bi-, trans--whatever and to live their life as they wish. It is the person's own decision, and it must be respected and valued. The same is true of a woman's control over HER OWN BODY AT ALL TIMES.

Counsel all you want. Offer meaningful support all you want. But the decision on all of these things rests with the person in question, not you!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2015 02:46PM by bordergirl.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/home-abortions-rise-after-texas-law-closes-clinics-n465451

This is what happens when women lose the right to choose or a safe place to terminate a pregnancy. I don't want to go back to knitting needles, wire coat hangers, toxic herbal drinks, having someone beat women into a miscarriage, or throw themselves down the stairs.

It's between a woman and her doctor. I've known two women who "use it as birth control" and you know what? They shouldn't be having children anyway. They're complete nutcases with serious emotional and mental problems.

In the end, it's all about punishing women for daring to be sexual for most anti-choicers.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/04/abortion-myths-debunked/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2015 02:30PM by Itzpapalotl.

Persuasion, not legislation.

Having been a person who has been on both sides of the issue during his lifetime (I'm now pro-choice), I find myself in agreement with those posters who have stated that this argument has more to do with the role of women in society than the life of the fetus.

That said, Dagny is also correct. In fact, it was when I realized that the majority of right-to-lifers supported the death penalty and the removal of supports for the poor,especially poor children, that I finally changed my mind on this issue.

But I am one of the few to do so. All of the polling numbers I have seen for at least the past 15 or 20 years have shown an approximately 50-50 split on this issue within the U.S. population that refuses to really budge one way or the other.

I have mixed feelings on this issue and have swung from one end to the other over the years. I believe I'm somewhere in the middle ground right now at this stage in my life. I'm too old to have children any longer.but here goes.
If I was to become pregnant and found out that the child I was carrying had a disability,say spina bifida for example I would most likely (99.9% sure) have the abortion. I know all the fundamental and evangelical Christians will spout all the miracle stories and how the child was a blessing in disguise, Yada Yada, But those are like .1% of all the outcomes of this situation. As a nurse I have seen families torn apart and financially ruined by a disabled child, who will have no quality of life at all. It's just heartbreaking and it didn't have to happen.
Now with normal pregnancy I myself probably would not ( my younger self). But if I did the earlier the better.
I still have problems wrapping my head around late term abortions. It's something I would never want to be a part of as a nurse or patient.

Many members of the disability rights movement would disagree with your statement that people with disabilities could not have a "normal" life and would be therefore worth aborting. In fact, for many disability rights activists, having an abortion because the child would be significantly disabled reminds them of the actions that Adolf Hitler took against people with disabilities prior to and during World War II (Though not as well-known as his actions against the Jewish community, the Fauher's actions against the disabled members of German society were just as deadly).

Despite the above points, I still remain pro-choice.

People with disabilities movement,many not all were born with perfectly normal development. I'm talking about the child with 1\2 brain, trach on vent, feeding tube FROM BIRTH. These children IF they survive to adulthood which is not likely but it hpens will end up in nursing homes dependent for every need. That's the ones I'm talking about so don't bring Good Ole Hitler into this, besides doctors do council patients to abort severely disabled children everyday in this country. Ask me how I know.

And I think there's only 2 or 3 doctors that will actually perform them here. Usually they are only done when there are extenuating circumstances.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/06/truth-late-term-abortions/

This is a touchy issue with me being as my oldest, who was unplanned, and I chose to keep as a single parent, is significantly disabled.

I understand not everyone wants to take that on. I understand that a child with severe disabilities has virtually no chance at being adopted from foster care. But for me, saying someone would abort a fetus who will be disabled is the same to me as saying we should just euthanize anyone who we see as disabled and who we think has no quality of life. I fully believe it's up to YOU as the parent to provide a quality of life.

I did my damndest to keep my daughter home. She can't walk, talk, or feed herself. She's entirely dependent on help, and has a feeding tube. Basically, she's a 4-5 month old infant in a 100 lb body. Unfortunately for us, she got too big for me to care for her myself, and we had to place her in a residential facility. It was the hardest decision I've ever had to make and I still struggle with it even tho it's been almost 5 years.

It still doesn't change the fact that if I knew then what I know now, I still would have done it all over again.

It's a good idea to try to reconsider the ethical dilemmas sans the religious bias. Many of us here have had to do it to reverse the LDS programming

Pro's:

Abortion stops unprepared mothers/fathers from having children they can not care for. Crack babies, fetal alcohol syndrome, other drug abuse causes lifelong mental and physical issues.

Abortions for the mothers health reasons can save her life.

Abortion decreases the population growth that we already are having issues with environmental damage and food supply.

Abortion will be done whether they are legal or not.

Miscarriage of young fetuses is extremely common. Estimates from studies state that around 1/3 of fertilized eggs are miscarried. Most women don't even know it has happened for many of these.

Con's:

Abortion is not without risk. Complications from abortion can lead to infertility or even death.

Anyone who has experienced a miscarriage/abortion knows that there is emotional cost. Grieving is very common.

It can become a baby. We are genetically hardwired to protect it.

Neither pro nor con: Just questions.

At what stage should abortions be limited?

When does it stop being the mothers body?

My conclusions:

Personally I have no issue with first trimester. Third trimester babies I am opposed to as the fetus can survive outside of the mother. 2nd trimester I am torn on. Early second okay, late second my genes cry "It is a baby!!".

Godless abortions - hats off for the way you presented the question, CD.

I think the short answer is that no one really knows, because so few are willing or able to approach it coldly. You're so correct in your assumption of a potential battle.



It's folly to call a clump of 150 cells a "human being." It's also folly to call a 16-week fetus a non-human being.

If someone other than the mother terminates a 12w pregnancy against the mother's will, we would say that she had been damaged by that criminal act, that she suffered a grievous loss. If the mother chooses to terminate a pregnancy at the same stage, we say it is her choice.

That places the fetus in the realm of property, in the sense that one has ownership of her own body.

How do we then address the 8w pregnancy of the substance-abusing mother who intends on carrying the baby to term? Or, the non-mother who keeps popping out babies, only to neglect and/or abuse them?

At what point is the father granted a vested interest in the life of his child, and how do we balance that against the body-ownership of the mother? If a wife starts guzzling alcohol to deal with the stress of being pregnant, can the husband do anything to protect his future child?

These are only a few of the questions that your question brings up. I don't think that all-or-nothing answers can address the realities.

If someone could please make a
flowchart, it could be helpful.

I'm an atheist and personally do not advocate abortions. I could feel my unborn child within me at 10 weeks, before some women even know that they're pregnant. Even if I was raped, I could never abort that child. That genetic combination will never occur again and will be lost forever. Only half of that child even has my DNA and I don't have the audacity to terminate a unique individual just because it happens to reside in my body.

That being said, this is the 21st century and how the hell have we not solved this problem yet? With all of our technological advances, there should not be any unwanted pregnancies. We need better education and more longterm birth control measures without the adverse side effects. This is needed especially in less advantaged, minority communities that are disproportionately having abortions. There are too many children born to parents that didn't want them or weren't prepared. A woman should never have to make the decision whether to abort or not. The system has already failed her at that point.

In my ideal world, everyone would receive a reversible sterilization at puberty and would be able to reverse it once they've decided that they actually want children. It would sure be cheaper economically in the long run, not to mention the savings in social costs.

I dont think I would consider an abortion unless it was to save my own life or if there was something seriously wrong with the fetus which would compromise its quality of life. However I do support the right to choice for women. I also support birth control, education and personal responsibility to reduce the number of abortions.

As Jimmy Carter said, abortion is a tragedy, but often a necessary one. Usually, if people are careful and wise, and use other available technologies, there will not be the need for abortions. But it is good to know that abortion is available should things go wrong.

Some people say that killing an unborn baby is the worst thing. I say that making that unwanted baby be born could be the worst thing. A life of poverty, neglect, abuse, and lack of love could be its lot. Quality of life is more important than quantity of life.

I well remember the horrible tragedies that happened back in the days when abortion was illegal. I would hate to see that happen again.

Some people feel that they have the right to make decisions for others on a wide range of matters. I disagree with them. No matter what I personally feel about abortion for my own self, I can not be the one to decide what is right for another person on this issue.

My views on abortion are a work in progress. I have a hard time getting worked up over the loss of a blastocyst before there has been any significant cell differentiation and certainly no cognition.

At the other end of the spectrum, it's hard for me to see how abortion of a fetus which has cerebral functionality and could survive on its own outside the womb does not violate the basic right to life in some degree.

With regards to the abortion process, I have read accounts of pro-abortionists who have discounted the response of a fetus to the abortion by stating it is an autonomic response and is not accompanied by feeling or awareness. However, this is the same argument proffered by doctors in the eighteenth century to justify vivisection of dogs and other animals. Consequently, I am a bit skeptical of abortion at a stage of development where the fetus is capable of responding in some manner to the abortion process.

Just my two cents, but as a caveat, I'm trying to become more informed on the topic and my views are still in a state of flux.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2015 04:57PM by Elijah Unabel.

The government doesn't even have the right to force dead people to donate organs to keep people alive. The government should not have the right to force women to use their bodies to keep a fetus alive, especially before viability.

It's a matter of equal protection under the law. Women deserve the same rights we give to dead people, the right to self-determination on how your body is used.

^ ^ ^

This is an excellent and valid point...and one I have never thought of before.

Well done, Brother of Jerry!!!

:)

I think abortion should be readily available, legal, safe...and rare.

It's every woman's right to decide to carry a fertilized egg to term or not, for herself.

I have to recuse myself due to my lack of a uterus.

Thanks for your words of wisdom donbagley. I am not sure which I enjoy more - your wisdom or your mastery of the written word. Perhaps they are inseparable.

What a person decides to do with their own body is none of my business. Even if you take the stance that abortion is wrong, you have no right to prevent someone else from getting one. The thing that pisses me off about the "pro-life" movement is that the life of a woman carrying a fetus doesn't matter. They expect her to sacrifice her body, time, means, and potentially even her own life, in order to bring new life into the world. The call should be hers to make, not anyone else's.

I think it should (and US law supports this) on how far along she is. There is a big difference between getting an abortion at two or three months and getting one at six or seven months. In the latter case, she needs to have a better reason than not wanting a kid. We are not longer talking about a clump of cells, but rather a baby which might well be viable.

Personally, I would love it if every viable fetus that would've been aborted in the third trimester could be saved, but I don't think how far along a woman is is the only thing that matters. Most get abortions long before then, and those who don't often have extenuating circumstances. What if the fetus has some kind of disease or defect that would prevent it from living anyway?

Also, I would never require a victim of rape to carry a baby, regardless of how far along she is. I would never require a woman to carry a fetus if it threatened her life to do so. You say she "needs to have a better reason than not wanting a kid", but this isn't about raising children. It's about giving birth. No one's saying she has to keep the kid. Maybe she doesn't want to go through the pain and suffering of childbirth. Maybe she just doesn't want to die.

There is a greater chance of a woman surviving an abortion than there is of her surviving childbirth. Would you die for a child you don't want?

The person who is pregnant gets to make that decision.

I do not believe that politicians who are rabidly anti abortion because they care a fig about the welfare of a child because those people are the same ones who are quickest to cut services and education to make life a little easier for the children of the poor.

The best way to make abortion rare is to make effective birth control easily available. But most of the anti abortion types are also anti birth control.

I think the anti abortion group are often males who can't stand seeing women controlling their own lives. The religiously brainwashed women who are anti abortion are usually raised in church that give men women dominion over women.