Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Obliq wrote: »

You're in a subjective debate about the moral value of life. That is what I have been talking about anyway - and as I pointed out, you haven't entered into a discussion on those terms as it is probably the crux of the issue (and one that you have just admitted you want to avoid). Pro-life people constantly bang on about Christian values of the "right to life", as you well know. And as for your last sentence, what would you argue that they're based on then?

No, I don't agree at all that human life has "special" qualities to any animal except humans. What special qualities? Are we magical? We are only more intelligent/reasonable than other animals - some creature had to be eh?

My whole point is that we can morally agree that killing something is acceptable when we value our needs above that of a living being. The cow and the pig being killed for food are examples of when we do this. The family dog is an example of when we do not. And actually I do believe that the "right to life" has a very different meaning to a starving child in Africa, where their life/death is entirely contingent on society's emotional attachment to them. We just happen to be lucky to live here. Real equality does not happen, anywhere.

As well you know, something happens at birth. It is not magical, it is natural. The clue is in the word "newborn". I would not argue with the natural law of birth being a good starting point for the actual right to life. I am not a heartless person. It's not in me to see any animal suffer, and I would support late abortion for cases where the suffering of the foetus dying would be less than it's suffering if it had to undergo birth and a few hours/days of distress/pain. Again, as you well know, nearly all (with exceptions I'm sure - that prove the rule) late term abortions are for medical reasons.

And?? Your point? Please try reading the link I sent about the pro-life woman who became pro-choice - it's very interesting. No amount of banning abortion will make it go away as a choice, but she offers some USEFUL methods for lowering the abortion rate everywhere.

If you look at the stats you will see the late-term abortions are frequently for conditions such as Down syndrome. I don't accept that is a 'medical reason' as no one's life is threated.

Family dogs have little or no legal protection. We can keep them alive but are only obligation is not to be cruel to them. You can easily request your vet to kill your dog. You can not do the same to a person. I agree that our equality is not equal to say in certain parts of Africa but the situation out there is improving all the time. Equality is what we are striving for so you can't just dismiss it. Emotional attachment is a watery concept. We should move away from definitions like that allow people to be left behind and focus on fairer universal concepts. What does the right to life mean for you?

I skimmed over the article by the ex-pro-life woman on Patheos.
She notes that many zygotes are lost naturally and apparently its hypocritical of prolifers not to worry about them. This really made no sense to me. I have know about this fact for years, indeed from the mouths of pro-lifers themselves. We have always seen this as nature's way or self-selection. There is one hell of a difference between natural processes and abortion. Additionally, it is completely beyond our technological capabilities to do anything about these naturally lost zygotes at the moment and for a very long time.

Secondly she talks about a contraception with 'facts' provided by the Planned Parenthood spinout the Guttmacher Institute. It doesn't strike me as nonpartisan. Its worth noting that the pro-life movement is not intrinsically against contraception. Furthermore, we know from Ireland's very low abortion rate that abortion restriction can be linked to less abortions.

kylith wrote: »

The thing is that if one is religious then humans are automatically much, much more important than any other animal because the entire universe was made just for you (and they call us arrogant!). Whereas those of us who are evolutionists know that we're just an ape that had a lucky break, and therefore no better nor worse than any other living thing upon the face of the planet.

Its incorrect to frame the debate as one of pro-choice evolutionists vs pro-life. For instance I work in the study of human evolution full time. I know our evolutionary linage. It is very valid to argue what make human special from other species but not in an abortion debate! As the fact is, everything in our society religious or secular recognises we are different from other species so we work in that framework. On what basis do you propose we are recognised legally?

Ronagig wrote: »

I jumped for joy when I found out I was pregnant
I loved the week where their hearts started beating
I marveled the week where they started producing alpha & beta waves - dreaming for them was a reality
I hugged myself the day they started moving & punching and kicking
I breathed a sigh of relief the week I knew their lungs had developed sufficient coating to reinflate after birth (JIK)
I grinned from ear to ear the day I finally put a face to them

I am however very much in favour of contraception, neither pro choice or pro life. I would love to see an option in the middle of the two where contraception was a right and abortions only happened pre heartbeat/brainwave activity & only if that was the last resort.

I think you will find many pro-life people would actually agree with you about contraception.