Abortion is morally WRONG

This is hardly a topic for ATS.

Go find yourself a religious sounding board.

`I am going to re-post the only argument I have ever made on the abortion issue on ATS, with a qualification:

I'm going to risk the flamers to say: I have come to consider abortion the same way I consider infant sacrifice in ancient culture. The ancients sacrificed their babies to their gods of wood and gold, hoping for a good harvest or what have you. These women sacrifice their babies to their god of money and fornication, hoping that they will still be able to afford manolos and gucci, or still catch the eye of that hot guy at the bar. Same difference, different era.

But, I will add that since I have never been raped or had incest perpetrated against me, I don't know how that would affect a decision to abort. Seeing that I believe that therer are no accidental lives, I would hope to realize that the child is innocent, and find a family that was desperate for a child to love.

The vast majority of abortions are commited because the mother doesn't want to be bothered with the responsibility. Following that line, why not make it legal to kill children until say, the age of 12. That way, mothers who tired of caring for their children could legally shirk the responsibility then, too. After age 12, it would be murder because the child could ostensibly take care of itself reasonably well enough.

Originally posted by Slih_09
So I guess it's morally right to conceive a human being that's going to be unloved and treated like trash, and who is gonna end up tossed around like some thing someone needs to take care of?

Some people just aren't meant to be parents. And it's better to realize that before having a baby than after you ruined their life.

So are you saying that children who are living in those families are better off dead? Better off if they had never been born?

And why would the consequences of the actions of others be directed at someone who has absolutely nothing to do with them and is completely innocent? Kill the innocent?

Originally posted by Monts
No matter what side of the debate you are on... abortion is morally wrong;

I disagree. But let's say I agree for the sake of argument. Let's say abortion is morally wrong.

So is hitting a child (spanking).
So is eating meat.
So is lying.
So is the death penalty.
So is war.
So is dishonor.
So is cheating on a spouse.

But the fact is, NONE of these actions is against the law. So, whether or not abortion is morally wrong is not really the issue... so what? Each person must decide for themselves whether or not to behave in a moral fashion in a variety of areas in their lives. People behave in immoral ways EVERY DAY.

So, what are you suggesting? That we legislate this morality of yours? Or do you just want everyone to agree that abortion is immoral? Because I don't agree.

reply to post by nerbot


I understand your point of view... but what I don't understand about this argument is how a chance calculation is made about the future of a person's life, and that reasoning alone is enough to warrant ending someone's life without them even having a shred of blame.

How is anybody to really know how that child is going to end up in the future?

You could argue that the child will grow up being abused, and then become an abused themselves.

I could argue that the child will end up being taken away from it's abusive surroundings, be raised in a more loving atmosphere, and end up a valuable member of society.

There is no way to know or calculate the future... and there is no reason to use chance as a catalyst to end someone's life.

Are people ever convicted of criminal offenses simply because there is a "chance" that they did it? Of course not. You need hard solid evidence and proof.

reply to post by xiphias

Abortion is morally wrong, but forcing your morality on others is akin to terror or fascism.

This is not true. Quite the contrary, when you believe something to be moraly wrong, you have a moral obligation to act and enforce your morality on others by appropiate means. When I see a criminal, I am not going to let him be because his morality may differ from mine and he may not consider it wrong. Moral relativism does not mean that anything goes, period.

I am pro-choice, I dont consider abortion to be moraly wrong. But if I would be pro-life, I would certainly want abortion to be restricted or banned, so I understand those who want to do it.

reply to post by Monts


You religious, yeh?

If so, it's not a surprise that you think you have some sort of moral superiority to everyone else who has the CHOICE of abortion, when available.

We are not encouraging people to have abortions or using it as a fail safe, education and family planning is a must. I just hate despicable threads like this, trying to grab attention with some sort of over the top thread title.

The pope has a problem with contreception because he wants to spread his vile religion, the less people that use contraception, means that theres better chance of people who are religious reproducing and indoctrinating the hell out their children.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by nerbot

 

You have no way of knowing that they will become a parasite on society, and we have no way of knowing what kind a parent the mother will become, and that holds true for the mothers that want their child

You have obviously never been to a welfare office or witnessed the hoards of single mother "pram-pushers" that want it all without lifting a finger. It is they who are an extreme burden on society. Free housing, no tax payments, free utilities, free everything. Then they have more kids and create disfunctional families. I use the term "families" lightly because without a father around there is something missing from the literal description.

Take all the benefits away and I BET they wouldn't have those kids.

reply to post by Monts

So are you saying that children who are living in those families are better off dead? Better off if they had never been born?

Carefully with those analogies. "dead" does not equal "never been born". You have to exist first to die, otherwise all pregnancies anticonception casued to never exist must be considered dead humans.

being born into caring family = good
never existing (abortion, anticonception) = neutral (!)
being born into non-caring family = bad
to die after existing = bad

So if I have to choose between "never existing" and the last two options, we must choose the least of all evils - neutral over bad.

Have you at the age of 19yrs ever had to make such a decision? I don't if you are male or female, but I think you have a lot to learn before you have the right to call judgement on the morals of any woman who has an abortion. If the pregnancy is the result of rape, do you actually think what amounts to a living reminder of what must be a horrible experience, is going to be loved as a child would that was conceived by a two people in love? Come on now... rape does not in any way involve love, with the woman very often being badly beaten and tortured, and if she is still alive after this, she is left with sleepless nights filled with terrible memories, and is emotionally scarred for the rest of her life. How do you think she will feel every time she hears the baby cry? Now how about her decision to keep the child? She doesn't know the family history of the rapist. He obviously has a serious mental health condition to be capable of commiting such a heinous act in the first place. Is their a history of violence in the family, particularly against women? What about physical health? Is there a history of hereditory illness in the man's family? Yet you say a woman who has an abortion after all she's been through, is morally wrong? You are obviously not a stupid person, but I do think you put a little more thought into a subject such as this, or even live a few more years before coming to a decision on all women who have to or choose to have an abortion. What about those cases that sometimes happen when a woman who has almost reached full term, has just been involved in a bad accident and is suddenly given a choice between the baby's life or her own?

reply to post by Bkrmn


If you would have read the entire OP... you would have noticed that I exempt situations where rape or endangerment from my argument... because as you said, those are exceptional cases.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by xiphias

 

Abortion is morally wrong, but forcing your morality on others is akin to terror or fascism.

This is not true. Quite the contrary, when you believe something to be moraly wrong, you have a moral obligation to act and enforce your morality on others by appropiate means. When I see a criminal, I am not going to let him be because his morality may differ from mine and he may not consider it wrong. Moral relativism does not mean that anything goes, period.

I am pro-choice, I dont consider abortion to be moraly wrong. But if I would be pro-life, I would certainly want abortion to be restricted or banned, so I understand those who want to do it.

The way I look at it: abortion is morally wrong, but only because unwanted pregnancy isn't really that hard to prevent. Laziness is not an excuse. Sure, sometimes it happens accidentally while taking the appropriate precautions, but that's the rare exception.

Likewise, having unwanted children could also be considered morally wrong, so in reality, moral relevatism is the only thing that separates stable-minded people. They key here is civility and understanding, something which is lacking these days.

The problem is that "morally wrong," to most pro-lifers, is actually a religious issue.
They look at abortion as a sin, and look at pregnant mothers and abortion doctors as murderers, regardless of their own religious beliefs. When you make this "murderer" classification, even vocally and non-violently, you are in fact forcing your morality onto other people through a psychological and emotional attack on a person for doing what they feel is the right choice.

Some moral issues are inter-personal, affecting society or the public, while others are entirely personal and private. So, some moral issues are fair game, others are not. Abortion is not fair game.

Ask yourself: how would you feel if someone classified you as a murderer for eating a hamburger? At the very least, you would be annoyed.

reply to post by xiphias

Some moral issues are inter-personal, affecting society or the public, while others are entirely personal and private. So, some moral issues are fair game, others are not. Abortion is not fair game.

Thats what I am talking about - some people consider abortion to be personal issue, including me. Some people consider it to be inter-personal issue, because they believe that the foetus is a person, or future person, and deserves protection. From their point of view, it is a murder, and so forcing their morality on others is justified for them, and not fascist at all.

reply to post by Monts


So, you think it's morally wrong. What are you suggesting we do about it, if anything? Or are you just stating your opinion that it's wrong?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

So, you think it's morally wrong. What are you suggesting we do about it, if anything? Or are you just stating your opinion that it's wrong?

I dont think abortion is moraly wrong (except late-term abortions). My point was that forcing your morality on others is not always akin to terrorism or fascism.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by xiphias

 

Some moral issues are inter-personal, affecting society or the public, while others are entirely personal and private. So, some moral issues are fair game, others are not. Abortion is not fair game.

Thats what I am talking about - some people consider abortion to be personal issue, including me. Some people consider it to be inter-personal issue, because they believe that the foetus is a person, or future person, and deserves protection. From their point of view, it is a murder, and so forcing their morality on others is justified for them, and not fascist at all.

I understand what you're saying. The way I see it, whatever happens inside the body (or mind) is between that person and their maker. This is a bond more sacred than life itself.

Is it morally wrong to kill a homeless man if he knows nobody, contributes nothing to society, and he has no future engagements?

The answer: No, not if it doesn't hurt your conscience. It's only wrong according to man written law, the fact that it doesn't harm anybody makes in acceptable.

But you caused the homeless man pain!
Fact is, a dead man knows no pain. And if no one knows or is expecting that dead man, he is only conceptually alive anyway.

Same goes for a being that has not been born yet. If it doesn't yet understand life, in that context death is not wrong. A mother who dies in child birth will cause much more suffering then an abortion, but we can only hold other people accountable for death, not nature. So your going to see people ridiculed all the time for abortion, but the world would probably be a much more crowded and economically tragic place if it was outlawed.

That's not being harsh, it's just being rational.

reply to post by Monts


What is really interesting, and a basis of arguments, is the fact that a fetus is considered a breathing entity after 6 days of conception. So now where do we go with that one?

reply to post by Monts


Again everyone has their own reasons and own views for morality. That's why what people do is between them and what ever they believe. There are many women who don't wish to be pregnant because it will damage their bodies, and not in the stretch mark and weight gain area, but rather spinal injuries, and hormonal imbalances. If you feel okay that's fine and I'll support your choice. Other women don't want a child for fear that they will pass on genetic diseases, like Bipolar, severe depression, schizophrenia, and various medical conditions.

There are so many scenarios people neglect to look at. You choose to only see the women who do it because they are 15 pregnant and on heroin and doing their dealer to pay. I get on a religious sense that some people feel it is immoral but for those of us who are not defined by religion we see things differently it doesn't mean we are bad people we just see the world differently. Let people make their own choices. Good parents let their children learn from experience, stop trying to determine someones fate. That to me is immoral.

reply to post by Monts
My apologies! I guess by the time I got that far I was seeing red. I'm about to open a tub of icecream, that hopefully will mask the taste of the humble pie I'll be eating shortly. First the main course....Crow!