Abortion

[Sophus]

So don't kill.

Aww, shucks!  

That's how I follow my belief in that respect. I don't mean to sound glib or disrespectful. I respect you for honoring life. I just have very strong feelings about the need for abortion to remain legal even though it is sometimes abused. We tried making it illegal in the twenties. It didn't work.

I don't think abortion should be completely illegal. I just don't think anyone should be able to have one willy nilly. But, yes I agree, we both have good intentions. It's crazy how in issues like these, one side usually finds the opposing group as evil or warped.

[Wraitchel]

I don't think you're warped  

Oddly enough, we would probably find ourselves on the same side of the table in a different context. I would love to limit the number of abortions. I do think they are performed far too frequently, and they are undoubtedly tragic. I just don't trust the narrow minded deists who want to do the controlling. A victimized or endangered woman should not have to be further victimized by an intrusive and predictably imperfect and unfair bureaucratic process in order to obtain a shameful and traumatic procedure. It piles horror on top of horror. As a victim of child rape, having felt the shame of bringing that event upon myself, I understand better than most how horrific sexual victimization can be.

On the other hand, I withstood a great deal of abuse when I told my husband we were having an unexpected and unwelcome third child. I also had to overcome my own fears. There were many reasons why it was a bad idea for us to have a third, but none of them were enough to make me act against my own belief that an abortion in that case would have been wrong. Naturally, we adore our third as much as the other two, and the disasters we feared would result have not. However, I still fight for the right of women to choose. If just a few of our risk factors had been worse, I might have decided that abortion was the best way to protect the family I have.

As I see it, my job on this issue is to educate and support the women in my life so that they never have to make that choice.

[Wechtlein Uns]

I'm a little different from the main view in that I actually think choice > life. I don't seem to think life is all that sacred, and I've realized that the prime function of life may be just to make choices. It doesn't make sense to deny that primary function, at least to me.

[Sophus]

Wraitchel that is an admirably brave thing you did.  

I'm a little different from the main view in that I actually think choice > life. I don't seem to think life is all that sacred, and I've realized that the prime function of life may be just to make choices. It doesn't make sense to deny that primary function, at least to me.

So be it, but in that same case there are many women (young ones especially) who choose to have unprotected sex and end up with an unplanned pregnancy. They made their choice so they can live with it. Other situations (such as a woman being raped) are more gray.

[Tom62]

So be it, but in that same case there are many women (young ones especially) who choose to have unprotected sex and end up with an unplanned pregnancy. They made their choice so they can live with it. Other situations (such as a woman being raped) are more gray.

I don't think that many women choose to have unprotected sex. They may either be ignorant (due to a lack of proper sex education)  or they accidentally forget to protect themselves. BTW it takes two to tango, the guys who make those women pregnant are also to blame.

[Will]

I don't think that many women choose to have unprotected sex.

I was under the impression that this constitutes the majority of abortion cases. Certainly ignorance can play a part, as can incest and rape, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of abortions are due to simple negligence. It was certainly that way when I was in college. I can't tell you how often a night of drunken debauchery lead to an unwanted pregnancy at SCU. And I can't imagine things have changed much in 5 years.

A great many people are simply irresponsible when it comes to sex. It's such a primal, id drive that it's tough not to shut out the superego completely.

Among industrialized countries, the United States has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancy. According to the latest figures, nearly half of the 6 million pregnancies that occur each year among American women are unintended. Of those, 1.4 million result in births, and 1.3 million result in abortion. Between 1981 and 1994, the latest year for which data are available, the rate of unintended pregnancy in the US declined, from 54.2 per thousand women of child-bearing age to 44.7.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0301/p02s02-ussc.html

The odd thing is that the most recent data on unintended pregnancy is 14 years old. Neither the census nor any private organization has done any real study since then. I guess we won't know for sure until we have a socially responsible government again.

[NearBr0ken]

I just discussed abortion with my Christian father two days ago.  He refused to accept the fact that killing a fly caused more damage biologically speaking than killing a blastocyst.  He even rejected the fact that every cell in his body is a potential human due to advances in science  Why?  Because humans have a soul.  Oh yes.  The soul.  That thing that sets humanity just above the animals regardless of the ridiculously obvious similarities.  I eventually stopped arguing with him.  I was arguing biology and he was arguing theology.  Needless to say, we got nowhere.  I hold the same view of human rights that I do of animal rights.  "And it harm none, do what you will"  I was wiccan for a few months and I found that even when the superstition of religion is abandoned, the ethics carry over quite nicely...except in the case of Christianity, Islam, and other such religions where killing is pretty much part of the politics.

[Will]

I just discussed abortion with my Christian father two days ago.  He refused to accept the fact that killing a fly caused more damage biologically speaking than killing a blastocyst.  He even rejected the fact that every cell in his body is a potential human due to advances in science  Why?  Because humans have a soul.  Oh yes.  The soul.  That thing that sets humanity just above the animals regardless of the ridiculously obvious similarities.  I eventually stopped arguing with him.  I was arguing biology and he was arguing theology.  Needless to say, we got nowhere.  I hold the same view of human rights that I do of animal rights.  "And it harm none, do what you will"  I was wiccan for a few months and I found that even when the superstition of religion is abandoned, the ethics carry over quite nicely...except in the case of Christianity, Islam, and other such religions where killing is pretty much part of the politics.

The best argument against the soul is an appeal to sympathy, particularly an appeal to sympathy for domesticated animals.

"Ah, humans have a soul, I see, but what about your beloved dog? What about your eternally loyal companion, who would gladly sacrifice his life for yours? He adores you, he worships you. Do you really think god would reward such beautiful devotion with nothingness after he dies?"
"Well, I'm sure dogs have a soul."
"Why stop at dogs? Cats are loyal and loving, capable of many noble behaviors just like dogs. So are most higher mammals. And where's the cutoff? Many people love their birds just as much as you love your dog. Many even love their fish. And what about all of the dogs, cats, birds, and fish that didn't happen to have owners?"
"Well, I... um..."
"Can you definitively determine what does or doesn't have a soul?"
"No."
"What is a soul?"
*blah, blah, blah, jesus, blah, heaven, blah, eternity*
"That's what a soul does. What is a soul?"
*drooling...*

I've had that conversation more times than I care to admit, and each time it basically goes the same. They start out certain what a soul is and by the end it's another one of "god's mysteries". Fortunately, them admitting that they don't know what a soul is means that they can't logically make any rules concerning souls.

[NearBr0ken]

Thanks Will, but my parents are a special kind of fundamentalist.  Example:

"You do more damage when you kill a fly than when you kill a blastocyst"

"I don't care about killing flies."

"Why?  The biology is essentially the same...water, chemicals, etc."

"Flies don't have souls"

"How do you know?"

"Because only humans have souls"

"How do you know that"

"The Bible says so"

I wish I was kidding, but I spoke those very words only a few nights ago.  I try not to argue with them anymore.  I highly doubt I could convert them.  My mother accused me of "bowing down to stupidity"     If it didn't cause so much strife, it would be funny.

[Will]

That's just it, though. I'm certainly no expert on the Bible, but I'm very familiar with it. Nowhere in the Bible does it specifically say that animals do not have souls. Even the best Biblical arguments for only humans having souls are really quite subjective:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448

I can easily take apart each of these arguments. Man's authority over animals does not assume souls in only those of authority. Killing and eating animals does not speak to having a soul or not. Not being made in god's image does not preclude the presence of a soul.

The Bible does not say that animals do not have souls. It's silent on the issue (just like it's silent on a thousand other things that Christians claim it teaches, like abortion).

[Sophus]

I just had this conversation of souls with a theist earlier today. I'll do what I always love to do and point to psychology for an answer. Man tends to give souls to those living things he deems valuable. The whole concept is based on a feeling toward the worth of some thing's life. So insects tend to be left out since nobody really cares about them. Yet, naturally, theists struggle to replace feelings with logic that refutes them.

[thirteen31]

Yes, both sides of the argument use the semantis game to bolster their argument.  Pro-choice use "fetus"  so it's not as personal and pro-life use "baby" or "child" so it IS personal.  I can divorce myself from the semantics game and look at it rationally.  Use "fetus" or "baby" or "child" and I'll feel the same regardless.  The woman's existing rights trump those of the unborn, especially in cases of rape, incest or when the child has significant defects and it would be a massive hardship for the family to care for the child.

I agree, it should be left up to the individual's right to choose.

The question becomes, what is the determining influence that strengths the beliefs between pro-choice and anti-abortion. If you disagree to pro-choice, what determined your decision? God, parents, community, etc? Are you satisfied with your decision or are you blindly following someone else's?

The only roadblock I have is when the father doesn't want to abort but the mother, who will carry the child, does.  What then?  I don't know.

That is a good point, but the decision, no matter what is decided should be between the mother and the father, who are we to tell them what to decide?  

This is where I find I have the most problem, it has nothing to do with pro-choice or anti-abortion, but everything to do with government or religion taking away my choice to decide between pro-choice or anti-abortion. I can't really say what I would do unless I were in that situation and I will have to decide then. In any case, as with any decision, it should be an informed one.

[Kylyssa]

I just wanted to interject that my father is an atheist and is vehemently "pro-life" in his views even though the soul concept means absolutely nothing to him.

[McQ]

I just had this conversation of souls with a theist earlier today. I'll do what I always love to do and point to psychology for an answer. Man tends to give souls to those living things he deems valuable.

Does this mean there's a doggy heaven? I hope so.  

[curiosityandthecat]

Does this mean there's a doggy heaven? I hope so.  

Well, duh. Every kid knows that All Dogs Go To Heaven. I mean, ol' Walt wouldn't lie to us, would he?