The (im)morality of abortion

#1
This thread has been seeded from relevant comments in The Donald Trump thread. Feel free to continue the conversation from those comments or simply state your view, etc. My view? I gel with Vault313's comments below [paraphrased]: if you are vegetarian (I (Laird) go even further, to a variant of fruitarianism), and therefore oppose the murder of animals for food, then how could you not also be anti-abortion, and oppose the murder of the unborn?

Well said, V. Am happy to defend this view. Here are the seeded comments (with nothing else at the end):

[Cut from a longer post --Laird] As for abortion, it's such an explosive issue. I'll just say this: I've had two wonderful children, and cannot imagine if I had decided to end one of their lives. I'm not specifically pro-choice or pro-life. It's a complicated issue that comes down to personal freedom and responsibility. If Trump feels, by his conscience, that abortion is wrong, he is allowed to have that view. That doesn't necessarily mean he is going to even try to abolish abortion. Why protest something that hasn't even happened and isn't even on the table ATM? The president alone doesn't have that power. But since when is a president not allowed an opinion? Obama was full of them. I didn't see the left saying anything about that, but that's probably because they agreed.

What I do dislike about the whole abortion issue is that it sets up this false argument that if you are against abortion, you are against women or worse, a misogynist. One can be simultaneously for equal rights and against abortion. I really despise that they've created such a false narrative, and call any woman that doesn't agree with their hard line feminist stance either a moron or a self-hating woman. That's so wrong on so many levels.
What I do dislike about the whole abortion issue is that it sets up this false argument that if you are against abortion, you are against women or worse, a misogynist. One can be simultaneously for equal rights and against abortion. I really despise that they've created such a false narrative, and call any woman that doesn't agree with their hard line feminist stance either a moron or a self-hating woman. That's so wrong on so many levels.
NO, that's not wrong. A women, no matter who she is, where she's from, rich, poor, or whatever, should/shall be in charge what she will do with here body, when it comes to conceive a child. No other person should be in charge of her. If you cant see that, do not bother to respond to this 'cause there is no middle-ground here!!!
NO, that's not wrong. A women, no matter who she is, where she's from, rich, poor, or whatever, should/shall be in charge what she will do with here body, when it comes to conceive a child. No other person should be in charge of her. If you cant see that, do not bother to respond to this 'cause there is no middle-ground here!!!
So you see nothing wrong with partial birth abortions as long as that's what the woman wants?
NO, that's not wrong. A women, no matter who she is, where she's from, rich, poor, or whatever, should/shall be in charge what she will do with here body, when it comes to conceive a child. No other person should be in charge of her. If you cant see that, do not bother to respond to this 'cause there is no middle-ground here!!!
Yes, that is wrong. You aren't a moron or self hating woman if you disagree with abortion. It is appalling the moral dominance pro choice people claim. The women who disagree with abortion aren't morally bankrupt; they believe they are being the more moral of the two groups. Thus the dichotomy. It is exactly the attitude you expressed in the last sentence that is the cause of the vitriol with which this issue is discussed. No one is suggesting that women shouldn't be in charge of their own bodies. They're suggesting that, by having an abortion, they are destroying a life. I don't even consider myself on one side or the other because it's just such a complex issue, but to claim with such anger and conviction that "there's no middle ground" is dangerous.
So you see nothing wrong with partial birth abortions as long as that's what the woman wants?
This exact point where a foetus are determined to be a person/individual is always up for debate.
But when one hear people against abortion say that; "conception begins at erection", you just tune out..
Yes, that is wrong. You aren't a moron or self hating woman if you disagree with abortion. It is appalling the moral dominance pro choice people claim. The women who disagree with abortion aren't morally bankrupt; they believe they are being the more moral of the two groups. Thus the dichotomy. It is exactly the attitude you expressed in the last sentence that is the cause of the vitriol with which this issue is discussed. No one is suggesting that women shouldn't be in charge of their own bodies. They're suggesting that, by having an abortion, they are destroying a life. I don't even consider myself on one side or the other because it's just such a complex issue, but to claim with such anger and conviction that "there's no middle ground" is dangerous.
But what do you suggest then? Should a judge decide when/if/or a women should have the right to give birth to a child, or not? I don't want to invoke the Godwin-law here - but really!?!
But what do you suggest then? Should a judge decide when/if/or a women should have the right to give birth to a child, or not? I don't want to invoke the Godwin-law here - but really!?!
I don't claim to have the answer. I just know that certainty of correctness and anger is not the right one.
This exact point where a foetus are determined to be a person/individual is always up for debate.
But when one hear people against abortion say that; "conception begins at erection", you just tune out..
I've never heard that before... lol

I don't know if there's a "point" at which "life" begins or if it's a continuum, but I think there is a fairly rapid development prior to birth where the unborn child's ability to feel and react to pain and continue development into a person must be respected over and above the mother's whim. Certainly any thinking empathetic person can see that partial birth abortions near the end of pregnancy are a most barbaric and brutal practice carrying far greater moral weight than the morning after pill.

But Trump has stated it's not up to the Federal government to debate this. It should be up to the states to debate this and come up with solutions. So you might initially have 50 different solutions to this complex moral legal issue - some favoring the woman's choice and some favoring the child. And eventually the states that do the best job handling the issue will become a model for others. And some states will become a haven for those who lean one way or another. The diverse decentralized approach is best.
NO, that's not wrong. A women, no matter who she is, where she's from, rich, poor, or whatever, should/shall be in charge what she will do with here body, when it comes to conceive a child. No other person should be in charge of her. If you cant see that, do not bother to respond to this 'cause there is no middle-ground here!!!
The foetus objectively is not a womans body.

This exact point where a foetus are determined to be a person/individual is always up for debate.
But when one hear people against abortion say that; "conception begins at erection", you just tune out..
>"conception begins at erection"
Never heard of this stance before, sounds like a bad strawman.

But what do you suggest then? Should a judge decide when/if/or a women should have the right to give birth to a child, or not? I don't want to invoke the Godwin-law here - but really!?!
No one is suggesting women should be forbidden from giving birth, I can't name a time when this was ever considered except under social darwinist countries that supported eugenics which is dated so far back as to be irrelevant to the debate today.
If Trump feels, by his conscience, that abortion is wrong, he is allowed to have that view.
I kinda get the vibe that Trump is now pro-life because it is politically expedient... He was never socially conservative... until he ran for president...

What I do dislike about the whole abortion issue is that it sets up this false argument that if you are against abortion, you are against women or worse, a misogynist. One can be simultaneously for equal rights and against abortion. I really despise that they've created such a false narrative, and call any woman that doesn't agree with their hard line feminist stance either a moron or a self-hating woman. That's so wrong on so many levels
Agreed.
I read it (this link supplied by David Bailey --Laird) - it's interesting reading right wing propoganda. The author mentioned abortion - but failed to mention that Trump already signed an anti-abortion executive order.
NO, that's not wrong. A women, no matter who she is, where she's from, rich, poor, or whatever, should/shall be in charge what she will do with here body, when it comes to conceive a child. No other person should be in charge of her. If you cant see that, do not bother to respond to this 'cause there is no middle-ground here!!!
I actually never said anything about being "anti-choice" (really, really idiotic phrase). I said I was a mix of the two. Since you've pressed the issue, then I'll be crystal clear about what I believe. Please keep in mind, this is my belief. I do not claim to speak for anyone but myself.

I believe we all should have the freedom to choose what to do with our own bodies. Keeping in mind, we do not, IMO, have the right to do something we know to be harmful to ourselves and expect society to pay the consequences for such behavior. If you choose to say, do heroin, you do not have the right to demand that society bear the cost of your own poor decisions. Harsh? Maybe. But personal responsibility can be harsh. It is what you make it, no more, no less.

With that said, regarding abortion, I think it should be legal. But should not be covered by insurance nor taxpayer money. If you choose that for yourself, then so be it. But adamantly demanding that others, who believe differently, that choose differently for themselves, pay for it? Get out of here. Who do you think you are? No one has that right, and it's utter nonsense that these "pro-choice" (again, thoroughly idiotic phrase) nazis demand it be so.

Along with that, while I believe that it is a personal choice that you should have the freedom to do, there are consequences. It is killing life. There is no way around that. You can spout rhetoric until your face falls off, but it won't change reality. It is a life and you are ending that life.

Probably the single most infuriating talking point by the pro-abortion lobby is this trash: "it's just a clump of cells". No. No it's not. Not by a long shot.

For roughly the first 2 weeks this is true. Before a woman even knows she's pregnant. After this, the cells begin to differentiate into the organ groups they will become. The neural tube is formed and by week 4, the heart is formed enough to start beating. This is an embryo at week 8:


That is not a clump of cells. About 26% of abortions take place before week 8 according to the CDC. The remaining % vary between 8 weeks and roughly 20.
This is a fetus at 20 weeks gestation:


Some states allow abortion up to 24-26 weeks, with 24 weeks generally being the earliest date of viability outside of the uterus, depending on the state of the fetus.

These are not clumps of cells. This is life. At 8 weeks gestation, the human embryo is more complex than your average nematode. It is a flat out lie that it's "just a clump of cells". It's moral justification at it's absolute most horrifying. The level of ignorance, willfull or otherwise, is beyond astounding to me.

Have the abortion, go ahead. I won't stop you. I won't even tell you it's wrong. It's your choice. But be absolutely honest with yourself and acknowledge that you are taking a life. Be honest that it is not just "a clump of cells". Know this, be honest with yourself and make your choice. Any consequence that comes from this decision is yours to bear. And yours alone. (By "you" and "your" here I do not mean YOU Pollux personally).

So, morally do I think it's wrong? Hmmm....I guess I'd say that's not my judgement to make. I can say it's morally wrong for me. But I do understand that there are circumstances in which it really might be the right choice. Again, it's a very complex issue. Generally I say this: it should be legal, but at the expense (monetarily and otherwise) of the person choosing this action. It is between them and their God as to the spiritual ramifications of such an act. And yes, I do believe there will be ramifications. Not punishment, really, but consequences spiritually.

See, what the extreme pro-abortion lobby wants is guilt free abortion. They deny reality, and want everyone else to be complicit in their denial of reality. Any woman that can have abortion after abortion without guilt is a morally bankrupt woman. I believe in karma, and I believe that regardless of their denial of certain truths, there will be consequences. It's the adamant insistence that consequences not apply, that reality need not apply, that is perhaps the worst part about the whole thing. I all too often see a complete lack of reverence for life in this lobby. And society is all the worse for it.

And before it's said, do not bring up the exceedingly rare occasions of incest and rape as an argument for taxpayer funded abortion. I acknowledge these cases exist, but they need to be treated separately from the general debate as these would be exceptional circumstances, which I would personally allow for special funding if necessary, keeping in mind that the actual funds needed would be incredibly small. I would never tell any woman that she be required to carry a child conceived under such horrifying circumstances just to appease my morality. It is ending life. I still believe that is true, even in these cases. But such circumstances may be one of those instances where it's best for everyone, including the fetus, due to those extraordinary circumstances. Again, the issue is hardly black and white.


Clear enough?
I have not heard about his executive order on abortion. I will look into that.
As for his stance on abortion, it's hard to know his mind on that, as I do believe he has changed positions. Perhaps it is just political expediency, which I also suspect, but apparently he signed some sort of executive order? I didn't think executive orders could supercede SCOTUS, but maybe I'm wrong. I do need to look into that.
I read it (this link supplied by David Bailey --Laird) - it's interesting reading right wing propoganda. The author mentioned abortion - but failed to mention that Trump already signed an anti-abortion executive order.
Do you know what that order did?
Ok, read up on the order and it's to prohibit American support for abortion services overseas.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38724063

The policy requires non-governmental organisations receiving federal funding to agree to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations".
I have no problem with this. What does make me snicker though is the fury with which some articles (The Huffington Post specifically here: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5886369be4b0e3a7356a7910) portray the issue as a bunch of woman hating men using this to "punish" women. As if men shouldn't be allowed to have a say in this debate? Yeah, "it's the woman's body" but come on, it shouldn't be horrifying for a man to have an opinion, nor should those opinions be ignored, IMO. It does take both sexes to create a human life after all.

WASHINGTON ― On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for women’s reproductive health access worldwide.
Surrounded by other WHITE men. Wow, it's a two-fer. Apparently, white men in particular are not allowed an opinion.

Worse is the rhetoric from the MSM that this is somehow going to lead to a boat load more abortions. Somehow. If so, why worry about the money being withdrawn. By that argument, women in these countries have better access to abortion without American funding.
1) I have a problem with it - who are these organisations? What work are they doing? Surely it paves a way for similar executive orders in America?

2) It takes one sex to actually carry and have the baby, men can have a say sure, but sure they be trying to restrict and control whether women have abortions or not? It's easier to do that when you're not the one actually doing it.

3) I think the thing is historically white men have held power and have used it over minorities and women, this executive order is another example of that.
Well in an ideal world this would not be happening, but honestly, the 'Left' have ultimately responsibility for this, in that they should have stayed on traditional ground. I mean, if I were to vote on abortion, I would want it legal up until some limit - possibly determined by some concept of when consciousness might attach to the foetus. This issue isn't totally one-sided - it might be better if his opponents stopped their histrionics and discussed a reasonable compromise.
possibly determined by some concept of when consciousness might attach to the foetus.
This may not be answerable.

There was some research, along similar lines to past-life regression, where people were able to recall at what point their own conscious entered the body. There was no fixed result. It included at one extreme, being present from conception, to at the other, entering after physical birth had taken place. There were also some, if I recall correctly, where the consciousness popped in and out during the development, so there was neither a precise 'moment' nor even a general trend as to when it took place.

The whole subject raises far more questions than there are answers.
1) I have a problem with it - who are these organisations? What work are they doing? Surely it paves a way for similar executive orders in America?

2) It takes one sex to actually carry and have the baby, men can have a say sure, but sure they be trying to restrict and control whether women have abortions or not? It's easier to do that when you're not the one actually doing it.

3) I think the thing is historically white men have held power and have used it over minorities and women, this executive order is another example of that.
Yep, the order means if you're an international group working abroad who performs or gives information about abortions you will no longer receive federal money. An absolutely ridiculous policy IMHO.

Well the issue is if Obamacare is gone, what will replace it? There's no evidence that other private companies will give cheap insurance (why would they?) and a Republican will not introduce single payer. I agree Obamacare should have given free care, I think that was more the original intent but the Republcan opposition and anti-free healthcare propaganda lead to the Obamacare we know today.

If I was an American relying on Obamacare I would be very worried indeed.
First, are you an American Roberta? I ask because what things appear to be from the outside can be very different when your living in it. If this is your perspective as an American, that's fine, your obviously allowed your opinion. If not, you are still, obviously, allowed your opinion, but you might not have the whole story. Even if you are, an American living in San Francisco is going to have a very different perspective that an American living in rural Alabama, or Cincinnati, Ohio. I'm curious to know what angle you are coming at this from.

Second, explain to me why it's the responsibility of the American tax payer to fund abortions for women in foreign countries. Providing taxpayer support for health care in developing countries may be an altruistic act, but kind of ridiculous when we can't even sort out the healthcare situation for our own citizens. Along with that, explain to me why someone who is ideologically, religiously or spiritually against abortion should be required to pay taxes that go toward a procedure that violates their sense of ethics and morality. The truth is, they shouldn't.

These NGO's can retain their funding, just so long as they abide by the conditions set forth by the agencies, in this case the US government, just as with any other grant. It's not unusual at all for donors to set limits or specifications for how the money may be used. Again, what right does anyone have to demand that someone use the fruits of their labor to pay for a procedure they find immoral?
2) It takes one sex to actually carry and have the baby, men can have a say sure, but sure they be trying to restrict and control whether women have abortions or not? It's easier to do that when you're not the one actually doing it.

3) I think the thing is historically white men have held power and have used it over minorities and women, this executive order is another example of that.
Man, that's uh, one perspective. I do not believe that every man that is against abortion just wants to "[wield] power over women and minorities" (when did minorities get lumped in here?). I think you're verging on your own form of descrimination here. Last I checked it takes both sexes to create a new life. If an unintended pregnancy occurs, and the woman decides to keep it, the man is held legally and financially responsible, whether he wanted her to keep it or not. We cannot force men to take responsibility for children they don't want, while at the same time not give them a voice in whether or not that life is going to be continued or terminated. It's a "want my cake and eat it too" kind of situation these women are asking for. Yes, women do bear the greater physical cost for carrying a child to term. At the same time, unless conception occurs during a traumatic event, these women know what they're getting into. Having sex carries the risk of disease and pregnancy. There has not been a single method devised by man that can avoid this 100%. It is always a risk.

Again, often what the abortion lobby is demanding s a reality free, guilt free abortion.

I have two questions to anyone supporting abortion as a means of birth control, or "family planning" (because it just sounds nicer): 1) do you have children if your own and 2) how, on a spiritual level, do you rectify the possibility that you are ending the life of a conscious being with your spirituality?

For instance, if one is a vegetarian, how can they justify the ending of a human life, but find the prospect of ending the life of an animal abominable?
 
#2
"when did minorities get lumped in here"
Planned Parenthood was established for the purpose of eugenics, and blacks have abortions at a grater rate than their percentage in the general population.

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."​

http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html
...
black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion
...
since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions​

"on a spiritual level, [how] do you rectify the possibility that you are ending the life of a conscious being with your spirituality"

Some people, unfortunately, abuse spirituality to devalue human life because if you believe in the afterlife, death is not the ending of a conscious entity it is simply the change from an incarnate to a disembodied state.
 
Last edited:
#3
It seems to me, that most of us here suspect that the physical body is associated with something non-physical, which somehow becomes associated with us (or more specifically our brains) at some point. That point might be after birth or before it, but I guess most of us feel it happens at some point in the womb.

Politicians won't take any notice of this suggestion, but it might make sense to study all the various studies of hypnotic regression to obtain some estimate of that point, and make abortion freely available before that point, and more restricted beyond that point.

Abortion is a perfect example of a subject where it doesn't make sense to take a sharply binary position. At one extreme, contraception could be seen as a form of abortion, and at the other extreme, who would agree to the killing of a foetus a day before it was going to be born?

David
 
#4
It is unusual, because I'm usually happy to talk openly about anything much, but I feel this is deeply personal, sacred, and not something that I would feel comfortable discussing unless I were forced to. I guess it has to be looked at by those who are in the legal or medical world, as abortions are a real world matter of course.

Maybe it's related to a past life? I think that any decisions taken around this matter, should be taken very carefully. The consequences may run deep for many years.
 
#5
My views on the subject have changed over the years. I used to have a fairly strongly-held opinion. Nowadays I consider that in itself to have been a mistake. My main aim nowadays is to bring a gentleness and love into any decision-making process. That would tend to lead away from any fixed viewpoint, at least for me.
 
#6
I think I'm too afraid to post in this thread.... I will say that I have developed a more nuanced view of abortion over the years. I am not comfortable with feminists who say that if you don't accept abortion rights (including the type Hurm discussed, which I never supported), then you can't be a feminist and are anti-woman. It's one of those topics that gets heated very quickly, so that's why I'm shy to post in this thread. I'll check it out in a few days and see how it goes, haha, before I try to explain my position.
 
#8
I don't think policy on abortion or any other issue should be based on spiritual beliefs. Individuals can vote according to their conscience and spiritual understanding of the issues, but I would not advance spiritual arguments in the public debate. When you do that, people start calling people with different opinions unspiritual or "evil". That leads to dehumanization of and violence toward people with different beliefs. I think it is important to separate "church" and state, ie spirituality and politics. This separation is needed to protect spiritual beliefs from political persecution. And humanity has a sad and bloody history of using spiritual and other ideologies to satisfy political agendas. I don't think there is one set of spiritual beliefs that is right for everyone. Different people are here for different reasons and are at different stages in their spiritual development.

I suppose this is sort of like methodological naturalism, the belief that science should limit itself to natural explanations (which I think is wrong). However, I do think that political policy should limit itself to materialist assumptions. (I don't like to make absolute statements so I will allow that there might be exceptions.)
 
Last edited:
#9
#10
I don't think policy on abortion or any other issue should be based on spiritual beliefs. Individuals can vote according to their conscience and spiritual understanding of the issues, but I would not advance spiritual arguments in the public debate. When you do that, people start calling people with different opinions unspiritual or "evil". That leads to dehumanization of and violence toward people with different beliefs.
Agreed - but when we discuss such an issue here, it just has to be relevant! The Helen Wambach interview seem to indicate that there is a fair scatter in the moment of attachment, but that it is generally much later than I had expected.

BTW, I'd advise people to listen to the whole video.
I think it is important to separate "church" and state, ie spirituality and politics. This separation is needed to protect spiritual beliefs from political persecution. And humanity has a sad and bloody history of using spiritual and other ideologies to satisfy political agendas. I don't think there is one set of spiritual beliefs that is right for everyone. Different people are here for different reasons and are at different stages in their spiritual development.

I suppose this is sort of like methodological naturalism, the belief that science should limit itself to natural explanations (which I think is wrong). However, I do think that political policy should limit itself to materialist assumptions. (I don't like to make absolute statements so I will allow that there might be exceptions.)
Right!

David
 
#11
That is an intresting link!

David
Thanks, it came from a previous thread, http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/dr-wambach-reincarnation-skeptic-turned-believer.2153/

Note there is also part two to the same interview.
Also, how did you post a video advanced to a particular point of interest?
Easy way - click on the "share" button on the youtube video page and select the "Start at:" option.

Or manually edit the link and add "?t=22m52s" (might need a '&' instead of a '?' - helps if you're used to editing URLs.).
 
#12
This thread has been seeded from relevant comments in The Donald Trump thread. Feel free to continue the conversation from those comments or simply state your view, etc. My view? I gel with Vault313's comments below [paraphrased]: if you are vegetarian (I (Laird) go even further, to a variant of fruitarianism), and therefore oppose the murder of animals for food, then how could you not also be anti-abortion, and oppose the murder of the unborn?

Well said, V. Am happy to defend this view. Here are the seeded comments (with nothing else at the end):
Thanks for going to this trouble, Laird. I've wanted to ask you the same thing about vegetarianism/veganism squaring off with this topic but never did (obviously).

For the record, I find Vault spot-on with every single point.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#13
I think if there was ever a global consensus on the afterlife it would definitely reshape this issue, along with a host of other policies related to human freedom/life.

Similarly male birth control will likely reshape the landscape on this issue, as it seems (AFAIK based on my reading) far less contentious than female birth control.
 
#15
I think I'm too afraid to post in this thread.... I will say that I have developed a more nuanced view of abortion over the years. I am not comfortable with feminists who say that if you don't accept abortion rights (including the type Hurm discussed, which I never supported), then you can't be a feminist and are anti-woman. It's one of those topics that gets heated very quickly, so that's why I'm shy to post in this thread. I'll check it out in a few days and see how it goes, haha, before I try to explain my position.
That's a big problem I see within the US lately and it's honestly one that I worry about the most. Censorship doesn't need to be carried out by the Nazi Brownshirts if we are willingly censoring ourselves. Calm discourse in which an exchange of ideas, opinions, facts and worldviews is how progress, true conscious progress, occurs. (As an aside, this is what I find DEEPLY disturbing about the left's riots and protests- it's aimed specifically at shutting down alternative opinions and views through violence or the threat of violence).

What I've stated here is my opinion, and only my opinion. I'm open to hearing others, again it's the only way I have of expanding, evaluating and refining my own worldview. I'm not afraid to speak my own personal truth because I'm not afraid of being told I'm wrong or being presented with facts that contradict my personal beliefs.

It is my conviction that life is life. As an example, I HATE spiders. I have a legit phobia. But I do not like killing them. Doesn't mean I don't do it, because fear is irrational, but I always apologize and feel terrible. I also acknowledge that nature is a hell of a bitch. We live in an environment that in many ways seems to be designed to destroy life or force competition. I'm still working on how I view this aspect of reality and how to integrate that with my spiritual view. But it's why I remain open to others choosing for themselves if abortion is right for them (geez, sounds like a big pharma commercial "ask your doctor if abortion is right for you").

Is consciousness the key? If we are ever able to find an answer to The Hard Problem, will that elucidate a definitive answer to the abortion conundrum?

I'll make one last comment as to why I feel it is beyond question wrong for me. I've had two children. I am truly humbled by and grateful for the experience. I have always held the creation of life in high regard and with great reverence, but being able to be a part of that process has shown me just how sacred the act of creation really is.

Ancient cultures all over the world held the act of creation in very high regard. Fertility and birth were sacred. I think our culture has performed the ultimate evil; we've taken the act of creating life, a beautiful and sacred act, and perverted it and destroyed its value. It is said that true evil is taking that which is pure and good and perverting it and making it ugly. Sex is no longer a sacred act, a coming together of the masculine and feminine; it is now something to be used and abused to sell products and get people to behave in animalistic ways that cause self and societal destruction. Sex in itself is far from evil, it's beautiful, but our culture has perverted it and made it ugly in many ways. I see a lot of pro-abortion activists that seem to revel in the destruction of what was once considered holy and sacred. It grieves me more than anything. A society that has lost reverence for life itself is a lost society.

In my experience of bringing my children into this world, I can honestly say that I believe that not only were they present, consciously in the womb, but that I knew them before they were born, their temperament and aspects of their personalities could be felt. Those temperaments and personality features are still present in them today. I will also say that I felt like I knew them before they were ever conceived, and by that I mean, I always felt like someone was missing. Like I knew, someone was supposed to be here, in this world, but wasn't. I no longer feel that, because they are here with me now.

That is just my anecdote, my experience. There's nothing even vaguely scientific in it. But it's why I asked if anyone so totally for abortion is a parent themselves. I think the process of bringing new life into this world can have a dramatic effect on how one views the morality of abortion. Not always, but....

Anyhow, I think I've said enough and made myself pretty clear I where I sit. I really would love to hear others opinions. Don't censor yourselves! Rational (and sometimes irrational :P) discussion is what Skeptiko is all about. Let's discuss!
 
#16
I'll make one last comment as to why I feel it is beyond question wrong for me. I've had two children. I am truly humbled by and grateful for the experience. I have always held the creation of life in high regard and with great reverence, but being able to be a part of that process has shown me just how sacred the act of creation really is.
We just had a baby girl 17 days ago . . . And yes, it's insane how moving an experience it is. Even now, it's still hard to get over the miracle of it . . . we just kinda sit and look at her, amazed . . . I wanna ask her where the hell she came from!

When I look at the sonogram (or whatever they are) pictures, taken months ago, I just cannot understand how there's something that makes her at that point any less of what she was when born or now.

Strange note: we found out my wife was pregnant with our first child on MLK day, and our girl born two weeks ago was born on MLK day.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#18
We just had a baby girl 17 days ago . . . And yes, it's insane how moving an experience it is. Even now, it's still hard to get over the miracle of it . . . we just kinda sit and look at her, amazed . . . I wanna ask her where the hell she came from!

When I look at the sonogram (or whatever they are) pictures, taken months ago, I just cannot understand how there's something that makes her at that point any less of what she was when born or now.

Strange note: we found out my wife was pregnant with our first child on MLK day, and our girl born two weeks ago was born on MLK day.
Congrats Reece!
 
#20
Strange note: we found out my wife was pregnant with our first child on MLK day, and our girl born two weeks ago was born on MLK day.
Life is strange that way.

And I'll add my congrats here too.

Having had the honor of "growing" my children, it's an experience unlike any other, truly. It's like, one of the truly few divine processes we can physically be a part of on Earth.

Enjoy your little one. They grow so very fast. My youngest is 17. Time flies.
 
Top