Abortion Opinions

[Tom62]

I went to a lake yesterday. It was a fairly secluded and quiet spot. Then, these 15 to 17 year old annoying, giggling, loud, and completely rude girls showed up and wouldn't calm down. For future refrence, is abortion only legal if they are your kids and haven't been born yet? I was considering aborting them, but I wasn't sure about the details.

haha, what you were thinking of doing starts with the letter M.

yes, i feel MOST teens should be disposed of. >_>;

We could call it post-natal abortion  .

[Buddy]

I am suddenly fearful for my life.

[Wrath]

Been a couple days, I've been pretty busy.

I don't actually intend to respond to any posts -- something which you guys might consider unfair -- but it would be a lot of posts to respond to and I'm sure that I would get a lot of responses immediately after I finished (and even before then, as well).

I'm sure you guys can respect, though, that I don't want to spend all my time debating here -- much less spend all my time here debating. I'll be around in other threads.  

[Stevil]

I don't actually intend to respond to any posts...

So in conclusion, I assume you value the life of the fertilised egg/zygote/fetus so much that you are in support of law to force a mother to go ahead with the pregnancy unless certain conditions exist (determined by you or your elect government) determining that abortion is a valid option.

And those conditions would presumable be related to whether the pregnancy was life threatening to the mother, but not concerned with defects in the baby e.g. down syndrome, spina bifida, conjoined twins, or other detectable, debilitating conditions or whether the pregnancy was due to a traumatic rape.

Government to decide, not the parents whom will have to live with and support the child. Hopefully with government providing financial support at the detriment of other areas of society that those funds could have gone towards.

And you base this all on your own sense of "morality" in that it is "wrong" for people to chose to abort. Where "wrong" is decided by your emotional reaction or philosophy that all human life is sacred. Thus you know better than the people whose lives that this law impacts.

[Wrath]

I don't actually intend to respond to any posts...

So in conclusion, I assume you value the life of the fertilised egg/zygote/fetus so much that you are in support of law to force a mother to go ahead with the pregnancy unless certain conditions exist (determined by you or your elect government) determining that abortion is a valid option.

And those conditions would presumable be related to whether the pregnancy was life threatening to the mother, but not concerned with defects in the baby e.g. down syndrome, spina bifida, conjoined twins, or other detectable, debilitating conditions or whether the pregnancy was due to a traumatic rape.

Government to decide, not the parents whom will have to live with and support the child. Hopefully with government providing financial support at the detriment of other areas of society that those funds could have gone towards.

And you base this all on your own sense of "morality" in that it is "wrong" for people to chose to abort. Where "wrong" is decided by your emotional reaction or philosophy that all human life is sacred. Thus you know better than the people whose lives that this law impacts.

I have to say, you did not understand my point of view, or my reasoning, and you said a great many things that I disagree with. However, I did say I wasn't going to respond, and the fact that you quoted that indicates to me you are just trying to bait me into doing so.  

[Stevil]

I have to say, you did not understand my point of view, or my reasoning, and you said a great many things that I disagree with. However, I did say I wasn't going to respond, and the fact that you quoted that indicates to me you are just trying to bait me into doing so.  

Honestly, I'm just keen to know what your point of view is, this is your thread and you have decided not to participate, I am baffled by this.

[Wrath]

I have to say, you did not understand my point of view, or my reasoning, and you said a great many things that I disagree with. However, I did say I wasn't going to respond, and the fact that you quoted that indicates to me you are just trying to bait me into doing so.  

Honestly, I'm just keen to know what your point of view is, this is your thread and you have decided not to participate, I am baffled by this.

I wasn't aware that the original poster had to actively maintain their thread throughout its entire life-time. I would probably continue to post if I had any support or at least less opposition. I did get annoyed when I saw people responding to my response to other people responding to my response to other people. I don't want to have to debate each of five points with five people each.

[Stevil]

I did get annoyed when I saw people responding to my response to other people responding to my response to other people. I don't want to have to debate each of five points with five people each.

That is the way public forums operate, even group discussions in real life, people chime in when they have something they want to say, even if they weren't the original two having the conversation.

You certainly don't have to address everyone, or every point. But the way I see it, you have actively challenged people in this thread when their viewpoint was different to yours, but you have offered little clarity to your own viewpoint. In my post above I assumed you weren't going to post anymore so I tried to put together a summary of my understanding of your position. It seems I was wrong, but you aren't willing to clarify. Maybe you feel attacked or overwhelmed, I'm not sure, but you must have known, going into this thread that most atheists are going to be pro-choice on this matter.
I don't feel anyone has attacked you personally or belittled your position, so I am baffled at your early out from this thread.

[Wrath]

I did get annoyed when I saw people responding to my response to other people responding to my response to other people. I don't want to have to debate each of five points with five people each.

That is the way public forums operate, even group discussions in real life, people chime in when they have something they want to say, even if they weren't the original two having the conversation.

You certainly don't have to address everyone, or every point. But the way I see it, you have actively challenged people in this thread when their viewpoint was different to yours, but you have offered little clarity to your own viewpoint. In my post above I assumed you weren't going to post anymore so I tried to put together a summary of my understanding of your position. It seems I was wrong, but you aren't willing to clarify. Maybe you feel attacked or overwhelmed, I'm not sure, but you must have known, going into this thread that most atheists are going to be pro-choice on this matter.
I don't feel anyone has attacked you personally or belittled your position, so I am baffled at your early out from this thread.

You say I've offered little clarity to my own viewpoint, but I have by far the most posts in the thread, and the longest initial post of my opinion. You misquoted me a couple pages back when you said that my reasoning was that "murder is wrong", but I never said that, I only compared abortion to murder. In both cases, you are denying somebody their future. It was argued against me that the embryo/fetus cannot conceive of its own mortality or future, therefore it is not wrong -- but I countered that there are many contradictions to this. You would consider it "wrong" for me to kill you in your sleep, even though you could not conceive of your own mortality at the time. We also support the comatose, the mentally ill, and the elderly with dementia, even though they may be no more capable of it.

There's a great many points that have been discussed, I consider the above possibly the most significant -- but if you actually read any of my posts, you would see that I have offered plenty of clarity. The reason why I am not continuing at the moment is simply because I do not feel like it. 

[Stevil]

Murder is against the law because we consider it wrong to deprive a person of their future, just the way abortion deprives a fetus of their future.

I see three main points that you have stated
"I cannot see how any burden that is non-life threatening justifies depriving somebody of life.

I don't believe that anything that can be considered morally reprehensible should ever be out of the public domain.

The abortion does not only end its current existence but also prevents its future existence -- the same reason why we outlaw murder."

I feel my summary post was consistent with these.

[Wrath]

Murder is against the law because we consider it wrong to deprive a person of their future, just the way abortion deprives a fetus of their future.

I see three main points that you have stated
"I cannot see how any burden that is non-life threatening justifies depriving somebody of life.

I don't believe that anything that can be considered morally reprehensible should ever be out of the public domain.

The abortion does not only end its current existence but also prevents its future existence -- the same reason why we outlaw murder."

I feel my summary post was consistent with these.

Your summary suggested that my reason for "wrong" is based on emotional or philosophical reaction rather than reason, but I have done nothing other than compare abortion to already well-established ethics.

[En_Route]

Hehehehehehehehe  *Pokes Stevil in the ribs*  Look over there, Stevil!  What is that?  Better go investigate.....

I'll try my darndest not to get into a morality debate here, I understand we are all sick of my endless rants (me included)

Steady up man! You and I are entitled to bang on about the myth of morality as much as anybody else is entitled about the myth of theism (which of course we also bang on about as well). One day they will listen! Mark my words.

[DeterminedJuliet]

An OP might not be obligated to baby his thread forever, but you started this two days ago.
And, really, there haven't that many people who've chimed in. Not more than your pre-described "5", really.

You have to understand that it's pretty frustrating to have someone come in, ask for respect, completely challenge your views, and then refuse to acknowledge your rebuttal. How you would feel is someone walked into a party and did the same thing? "Hey guys! You're all wrong! Here's why! No-no-no, I'm not going to respond to everything you have to say. Don't have time. Later!"

It's pretty rude. I would appreciate it if you could address at least some of my points.

[En_Route]

Once you take religion out of the equation, then the issue simply becomes which society values more- the contingent ability of the foetus to become a human being or the freedom of individuals not to be forced to procreate against their will. Personally, I think I would always incline to according liberty to the individual who is  a fully formed buman and is capable of making an informed choice. Maybe this a bias in favour of actualised human beings over potential human beings given that I am a member of the former camp. I think myself I just prefer a society where individual freedoms take priority over abstract ethical argumentation.

[Siz]

Hehehehehehehehe  *Pokes Stevil in the ribs*  Look over there, Stevil!  What is that?  Better go investigate.....

I'll try my darndest not to get into a morality debate here, I understand we are all sick of my endless rants (me included)

Steady up man! You and I are entitled to bang on about the myth of morality as much as anybody else is entitled about the myth of theism (which of course we also bang on about as well). One day they will listen! Mark my words.

I listen. And I agreed with everything Stevil said as much on the 47th occasion that I did on the first...