Pro-Choice folks, what are your reasons for supporting abortion?

[mapleoak]

What is it that makes so many vehemently pro-abortion. I understand the abortion providers are there to make money and therefore do whatever in there power to support and keep abortion legal. What about the ordinary 'lay' people? What is their motivation? Past guilt? Close friends or family members who have had an abortion? Strong and innate resolve that women's choices supercede innocent people's very life itself?

[ribozyme]

Originally Posted by mapleoak

What is it that makes so many vehemently pro-abortion. I understand the abortion providers are there to make money and therefore do whatever in there power to support and keep abortion legal. What about the ordinary 'lay' people? What is their motivation? Past guilt? Close friends or family members who have had an abortion? Strong and innate resolve that women's choices supercede innocent people's very life itself?

I acquired my position after reading Practical Ethics for a second time. In addition, I did not only become pro-choice after reading Practical Ethics, it convinced me that I should stop eating certain food products too. (And I did not stop eating those items after learning about the recent global food crisis, but because I was interested in reducing suffering.)

[mapleoak]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

I acquired my position after reading Practical Ethics for a second time. In addition, I did not only become pro-choice after reading Practical Ethics, it convinced me that I should stop eating certain food products too. (And I did not stop eating those items after learning about the recent global food crisis, but because I was interested in reducing suffering.)

One major problem with Peter Singer's philosophies regarding ethics is that he makes a determinant of good based on the flawed notion that that which results in good for the majority is therefore morally sound.

[ribozyme]

Originally Posted by mapleoak

One major problem with Peter Singer's philosophies regarding ethics is that he makes a determinant of good based on the flawed notion that that which results in good for the majority is therefore morally sound.

Peter Singer did not say that.

[mapleoak]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

Peter Singer did not say that.

Not in those specific words, but one can derive that as one the major flaws in his views by applying logic to what he rationalizes as good by its effects. He also gives his approval wherever he rationalizes that benefit exceeds consequence. Further, he consideres human beings to be apes, and is therefore not to be taken seriously.

[gchmax]

Originally Posted by mapleoak

Not in those specific words, but one can derive that as one the major flaws in his views by applying logic to what he rationalizes as good by its effects. He also gives his approval wherever he rationalizes that benefit exceeds consequence. Further, he consideres human beings to be apes, and is therefore not to be taken seriously.

Bravo! And, yet, by the demands of scientific rigor, does he ever certainly establish that the benefits of abortion exceed consequence?

When one considers the laws of nature, is it in consonance with such laws that a species destroys the seeds for its survival?

[RWMorris]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

I acquired my position after reading Practical Ethics for a second time....

You read it a second time!? That's like reading Catcher in the Rye twice, and just as useless.

[YADA]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

I acquired my position after reading Practical Ethics for a second time. In addition, I did not only become pro-choice after reading Practical Ethics, it convinced me that I should stop eating certain food products too. (And I did not stop eating those items after learning about the recent global food crisis, but because I was interested in reducing suffering.)

So the ending of a childs life causes no suffering? The child whose ife is ended does not suffer? one minute they are safe and secure in the womb th next instance thay are being caustically burned by salt water or ripped fromt he womd or chemically casued to be expelled from the womb .... and there is no suffering here?

The mother who now has a dead baby does not suffer from this "choice"?

The mother who is coerced or forced to obtian an abortion by the boyfriend [or parents] does not "suffer"?

The father [grandparents, siblings] of the aborted chilld do not suffer? What about the society ... it suffers no loss? What if the aborted child would have found that "cure' for some disease? ....

Obviously, you have bought into the concept of a "value system" where some lives have a greater value than others .... in that you join not only Mark Singer but Margaret Sanger, Adolf Hitler and others .... the Eugenics movement is alive and well

[ribozyme]

Originally Posted by YADA

The father [grandparents, siblings] of the aborted chilld do not suffer? What about the society ... it suffers no loss? What if the aborted child would have found that "cure' for some disease? ....

Obviously, you have bought into the concept of a "value system" where some lives have a greater value than others .... in that you join not only Mark Singer but Margaret Sanger, Adolf Hitler and others .... the Eugenics movement is alive and well

Well, if the aborted child had a "cure" for the upcoming energy crisis...

No, the eugenics movement is dead. I could care less about eugenics now.

Thinking about eugenics now makes me rather depressed. I wonder if human ingenuity will save humanity now. What good are ideas about controlling our own genomes if we cannot control the photon? Ultimately, we have to find a way to power our Kardashev 0.72 (and growing civilization) or else we will regress to the Olduvai epoch again.

And yes, eugenics should not be our concern now. The human future looks ominous right now and we might not even develop the means to utilize the new eugenics. Maybe within two decades, eugenics will remind me of all our broken dreams; dreams such as social justice that could not be fulfilled because we lack the requisite energy to do so.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=233039




I do not see any available technology that will adequately sustain civilization. I do not see any point to discuss eugenics now although I USED to support pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and human genetic engineering. I wonder if it is possible to be "pro-life" once we run out of oil. I wonder how will a Malthusian catastrophe be averted, but I do understand that I am going off topic to vent my frustration with the current state of the world.

*sigh*

[wabrams]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

Well, if the aborted child had a "cure" for the upcoming energy crisis...

How many Albert Einstein's, Stephen Hawking's, Louis Pasteur's, and Martin Luther Kings have we aborted?

[Avery]

Originally Posted by wabrams

How many Albert Einstein's, Stephen Hawking's, Louis Pasteur's, and Martin Luther Kings have we aborted?

I do not think this is a valid argument against abortion. Saying that because a pregnancy is not carried out, it is a wasted potential human life is like saying that every time a woman ovulates and does not become pregnant, it is a wasted human life.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by Avery

I do not think this is a valid argument against abortion. Saying that because a pregnancy is not carried out, it is a wasted potential human life is like saying that every time a woman ovulates and does not become pregnant, it is a wasted human life.

Not at all...an ovum is not an unborn child, so it is not the same.

[mapleoak]

Originally Posted by Avery

I do not think this is a valid argument against abortion. Saying that because a pregnancy is not carried out, it is a wasted potential human life is like saying that every time a woman ovulates and does not become pregnant, it is a wasted human life.

Ovulation does not involve new life. This can be checked out in any decent biology reference. Further check out the difference between pregnancy and ovulation.
Note we do not say that "because a pregnancy is not carried out, it is a wasted potential human life", rather we say "because a pregnancy is not carried out, human life is destroyed".

[st lucy]

Originally Posted by Avery

I do not think this is a valid argument against abortion. Saying that because a pregnancy is not carried out, it is a wasted potential human life is like saying that every time a woman ovulates and does not become pregnant, it is a wasted human life.

I don't understand how you can even use this as an example one is there is a human life there and the other is there never was a human life there.

[KathleenElsie]

Originally Posted by Avery

I do not think this is a valid argument against abortion. Saying that because a pregnancy is not carried out, it is a wasted potential human life is like saying that every time a woman ovulates and does not become pregnant, it is a wasted human life.

Ovulation is not a wasted human life. It is a potential that God provided and is not to be denied life through human means (the pill, IUD, etc).