News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

Any Atheists Here Opposed to Abortion?

Started by LegendarySandwich, January 11, 2011, 02:49:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Amicale

#180
I'm pro choice, because I don't see that pro choice means pro death. It simply means having the ability to choose, and one of those choices is 'have the baby and keep it', whereas another is 'have the baby and give him or her up for adoption'. The abortion debate isn't so black and white. Every situation and pregnancy is different, and people have different reasons for choosing to keep children, for aborting them, or for giving them up for adoption. There may be layers of difficulty involving families, health, life situations etc that I can't know about, fully understand, or judge. If someone has consulted with their family, their doctor, their partner, and they've chosen to end a pregnancy -- then nothing should prevent them from it, so long as they HAVE been given all the options, and are not co-erced into it. The last thing I'd want is for someone going through a lot of pain already to be dragged through even more.

I do know myself very well. I do know that I chose to have my daughter deliberately, that I wanted a child, and that nobody on earth could have persuaded me to abort her. For me, the only way I'd consider an abortion is if I or the baby had a terrible disease, or the pregnancy was incompatible with life (ie, ectopic), or in a situation of rape -- but in that last case, it probably wouldn't get as far as an actual pregnancy, as I'd get myself medical treatment immediately and take anything needed to prevent pregnancy from occurring. I also realize as I say that, that I'm fortunate to a) live in a society with ready access to medical care and b) pregnancy prevention is legal here for people who find themselves in that situation.

More than anything, when someone does get pregnant, I think it's necessary as well as a good idea to go over ALL the options with them. Sometimes, girls and women abort not because they WANT to, but because they think they'll be alone, outcast, and without support. We need to set up situations where if they do want to give birth, they're able to do so in a safe, welcoming community whether they decide to keep their child or go with adoption. I might also add that open adoptions are becoming more and more available -- birth mothers are able to keep track of their kids, even if they're unable to raise them. On the flip side, we need to have support programs and similar communities for women who have chosen/had to go through an abortion. It's a terribly emotionally draining experience, and a lot of times, women can also feel ostracized for making the choice. While societal stigma won't go away anytime soon, there still needs to be safe places, help and counseling for these women too.


"Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb we are bound to others. By every crime and act of kindness we birth our future." - Cloud Atlas

"To live in the hearts of those we leave behind is to never die." -Carl Sagan

Stevil

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 21, 2012, 08:00:16 PM
Where does it end, though? Does the husband have a right to lock her in a room if she smokes because that might endanger the baby? What if she drinks caffiene/alcohol/eats junk food? I hate to be pragmatic about it, but as some point you have to acknowledge that a mother is almost always "more" of a person than an un-born baby and should, proportionally, have more rights.
Very good question.
If the woman is drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, which we know is dangerous for the baby? What justification do we have to stop her?

Asmodean

Quote from: Stevil on February 21, 2012, 09:01:18 PM
What justification do we have to stop her?
Unless she started drinking excessively after getting pregnant, I would say none.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Willow

Quote from: Stevil on February 21, 2012, 09:01:18 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 21, 2012, 08:00:16 PM
Where does it end, though? Does the husband have a right to lock her in a room if she smokes because that might endanger the baby? What if she drinks caffiene/alcohol/eats junk food? I hate to be pragmatic about it, but as some point you have to acknowledge that a mother is almost always "more" of a person than an un-born baby and should, proportionally, have more rights.
Very good question.
If the woman is drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, which we know is dangerous for the baby? What justification do we have to stop her?

The justification to stop her is that alcohol is harmful to the fetus.  However the intervention required to forcefully prevent a person from drinking alcohol would be harmful to mother and child in itself due the to physical harm in the restraint, the stress of the extreme nature of the control and if she is an alcoholic, the dangerous effects of going cold turkey.

It is not in the child's interest to make the authority the enemy of the mother in this way.  It would damage the long term relationship between the mother and the state and mean that engaging with health and other state services would be difficult for the family.  It could be a brutalising experience that seriously damages the mother's mental health.

Foetal alcohol syndrome is a serious life long disability, but it still does not justify physically preventing a woman from drinking.

I don't think this is very well thought through, ah well.

Whitney

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 21, 2012, 07:50:42 PM
Quote from: Whitney on February 20, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
The line should be drawn at viability since at that point the baby could just be removed alive instead of aborted.

So you are against late-term abortions, assuming the fetus is viable?  

Yes, but I don't' think it's a big deal as far as laws are concerned.  If the fetus is viable it can just be taken out alive; rather than killed then taken out....at that point, it's no more invasive to give live birth than to abort a baby.  But, I'm not even sure if there is a statistic for women who want an abortion when the fetus is viable as it has to be so rare that it's not worth legislating against.  Even if there was a medical reason they'd just induce labor at that point (or c-section) rather than aborting.  Late term abortion is practically always for medical reasons. 

Sweetdeath

Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 09:43:17 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 21, 2012, 07:50:42 PM
Quote from: Whitney on February 20, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
The line should be drawn at viability since at that point the baby could just be removed alive instead of aborted.

So you are against late-term abortions, assuming the fetus is viable?  

Yes, but I don't' think it's a big deal as far as laws are concerned.  If the fetus is viable it can just be taken out alive; rather than killed then taken out....at that point, it's no more invasive to give live birth than to abort a baby.  But, I'm not even sure if there is a statistic for women who want an abortion when the fetus is viable as it has to be so rare that it's not worth legislating against.  Even if there was a medical reason they'd just induce labor at that point (or c-section) rather than aborting.  Late term abortion is practically always for medical reasons. 


Yeah, late term abortions are usually  "we have no choice"  matters.
Law 35- "You got to go with what works." - Robin Lefler

Wiggum:"You have that much faith in me, Homer?"
Homer:"No! Faith is what you have in things that don't exist. Your awesomeness is real."

"I was thinking that perhaps this thing called God does not exist. Because He cannot save any one of us. No matter how we pray, He doesn't mend our wounds.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 09:43:17 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 21, 2012, 07:50:42 PM
Quote from: Whitney on February 20, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
The line should be drawn at viability since at that point the baby could just be removed alive instead of aborted.

So you are against late-term abortions, assuming the fetus is viable?  

Yes, but I don't' think it's a big deal as far as laws are concerned.  If the fetus is viable it can just be taken out alive; rather than killed then taken out....at that point, it's no more invasive to give live birth than to abort a baby.  But, I'm not even sure if there is a statistic for women who want an abortion when the fetus is viable as it has to be so rare that it's not worth legislating against.  Even if there was a medical reason they'd just induce labor at that point (or c-section) rather than aborting.  Late term abortion is practically always for medical reasons. 



Yeah, perhaps there's really not even an issue here. I'm obviously not a woman, but it would be hard to imagine someone carrying a healthy child for 8-9 months and then electing to abort it without any serious medical issue.

Amicale

Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 09:43:17 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 21, 2012, 07:50:42 PM
Quote from: Whitney on February 20, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
The line should be drawn at viability since at that point the baby could just be removed alive instead of aborted.

So you are against late-term abortions, assuming the fetus is viable?  

Yes, but I don't' think it's a big deal as far as laws are concerned.  If the fetus is viable it can just be taken out alive; rather than killed then taken out....at that point, it's no more invasive to give live birth than to abort a baby.  But, I'm not even sure if there is a statistic for women who want an abortion when the fetus is viable as it has to be so rare that it's not worth legislating against.  Even if there was a medical reason they'd just induce labor at that point (or c-section) rather than aborting.  Late term abortion is practically always for medical reasons. 


This. Late term abortion is usually so heartbreaking because the parents so often want the baby very badly. It's almost always done to save the mother's life, or because the baby has such a severe condition that if the baby were born, he or she would suffer horribly. It happened years back in my own extended family -- the mother-to-be wanted the baby very much, but came down with an aggressive form of cancer and already had 2 kids at home to look after. At the same time, tests showed the baby had spina bifida, and several other physical anomalies as well that would have guaranteed a childhood of extreme pain followed by an early death. The decision was made to end the pregnancy at 6 and a half or 7 months into it. The mother lived, following 3 rounds of cancer treatment... but the emotional impact of losing that baby stayed with her a long, long time. It was made even worse when people in her CHURCH, of all places, accused her of cold-blooded murder. Understandably, she stopped going there. It was sad because she reached out to them for support when she needed it most, and was rejected. Luckily, a non-profit social group for people who have lost babies stepped in and she joined them instead and got the help she needed. It was devastating though. She really resented the fact that she'd wanted her son so badly, but couldn't have him, while being treated so poorly too.


"Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb we are bound to others. By every crime and act of kindness we birth our future." - Cloud Atlas

"To live in the hearts of those we leave behind is to never die." -Carl Sagan

Whitney

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 21, 2012, 10:47:26 PM
but it would be hard to imagine someone carrying a healthy child for 8-9 months and then electing to abort it without any serious medical issue.

Ya, I wouldn't even want to meet a woman who would do that...something would be quite wrong with her.  

I really can't imagine a woman not knowing if she's going to keep it within a week of finding out she was pregnant; of course, that's also why first trimester abortions are the most common as most women who want an abortion find out then go take a pill that forces miscarriage.  I've always known what I would do at various times in my life if I became pregnant because that's pretty important to know if you are a female and it is easier to plan when you are not under stress.....of course, I guess maybe it's not normal to plan ahead like that; but I think I knew too many people that got pregnant on accident to not think about having a personal plan of what I'd want to do or who I'd ask for help.  Now it's not so much of an issue since we'd just keep it.

Dobermonster

This is an interesting issue for me. I'm quite pro-choice, but I cannot say that killing a viable fetus is ethical. The youngest viable fetus was documented at 23 weeks. To 'abort' a fetus at 7 months because for some reason you changed your mind (and it is not a health-related issue) is unconscionable in my mind. At that point, you could elect to schedule a c-section or force labour, and adopt out. Killing the fetus at that point is just killing for its own sake . . . which I could never advocate.


Sandra Craft

#190
Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 09:43:17 PM
But, I'm not even sure if there is a statistic for women who want an abortion when the fetus is viable as it has to be so rare that it's not worth legislating against.

Somewhere, at some time, I read it was less than 1% of those seeking late term abortions.  I'd go looking for something more precise but Google and I just don't get along.

Just remembered about this: Dad confronts abortion protesters.  And if you scroll down, you'll see a comment from someone accusing this man of killing his baby.  Some people just don't see fit to use their brains, I don't understand it but they don't.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

Stevil

So what conclusion are HAF members coming to?
Are you saying that optional late term pregnancies should be against the law?
Is this based on an ethical stance?

Dobermonster

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 05:31:22 AM
So what conclusion are HAF members coming to?
Are you saying that optional late term pregnancies should be against the law?
Is this based on an ethical stance?

Tentative yes, and yes. But I doubt any consensus will be made in a thread.

Asmodean

#193
Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 05:31:22 AM
So what conclusion are HAF members coming to?
Are you saying that optional late term pregnancies should be against the law?
Is this based on an ethical stance?
I, most certainly, am not. As long as it's a part of someone's body we are talking about, I leave it up to them.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Ali

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 22, 2012, 02:20:40 AM
Just remembered about this: Dad confronts abortion protesters.  And if you scroll down, you'll see a comment from someone accusing this man of killing his baby.  Some people just don't see fit to use their brains, I don't understand it but they don't.


That made me cry a little.  He's absolutely right, those dicks are shouting at people on the worst day of their life, not knowing anything about how they got there.   :'(