This is a subject very hard to be for or against, as Simon had said to many women do use it for birthcontrol. I know of two friend's that have had atleast two abortions because they were to thoughtless to think they would get pregnant. I can almost , almost ,excuse the first time ,but the second is just plane stupidity. With so many forms of birthcontrol out in the world there is no excuse for not having any. As far as a mother aborting a baby that has some sort of deformaity, it is up the the parent's to make that decision if they can handle the responsibility of a child that will never be independant and needs much care for the rest of the child's life that is their choice. As far as late term abortion for birth control , why not finish the pregnancy and give the child up for adoption as long as the mother can carry to full term with out complications.
Abortion...
by Lostreality 215 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
GenericMan
Cassi said:
"If your belief is religious and someone can show me that God gave the same right to EVERY man, woman and baby without destroying them because he did not agree to that which they were doing or their parents and did not destroy them in fits of temper then I may agree."
My arguments are not an appeal to religious belief. It is plausible to be against abortion and not be religious. My argument is about fairness. It is not fair for one child to die and for another to live based on the choices of their parents.
I believe Roe vs. Wade to be an atrocity because Judge to it upon themselves to separate personhood from humanity. If the unborn are considered human but not people then when does a human become a person? Alot of arguments for abortion are also arguments for infantcide. What if we decided to define a person as having an IQ over 70? Then alot of humans would not be considered people.
-
SixofNine
:Alot of arguments for abortion are also arguments for infantcide.
-
Odrade
GenericMan, that's a scurrilous assumption, and I'm offended. Infanticide?
-
GenericMan
"Not true in the slightest. I've never once heard a pro-choice person argue for infantcide. Not once. I'd wager you haven't either Generic Man."
Actually there are many scientists and academics who have argued for infantcide:
First, theres Dr.James D. Watson the man who co-discovered DNA. He wrote:
"Because of the present limits of such detection methods, most birth defects are not discovered until birth."
"If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice...the doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering."
Children from the Laboratory (1973)
Its also interesting to note that he believes abortions are acceptable in cases where the foetus is found to be genetically inclined to homosexuality.
Second is Dr. Virginia Abernethy, a psychiatrist and anthropologist at Vanderbilt University's School of Medicine. She writes:
"As long as an individual is completely dependent upon the mother (for survival), it's not a person."
January 14, 1985, Newsweek
Also the Australian philosopher Peter Singer has argued for infantcide as well as MIT cognitive scientist Stephen Pinker.
I kid you not.
-
SixofNine
:I kid you not.
-
SixofNine
Well shut my mouth as to your having heard of it. Still, you said "many", and then listed three. Do you have a host of others? Because I'm fairly up on the "headline" aspect of this at least, and I had never heard of this.
-
SixofNine
Could you give the context and intent of Virginia Abernathy's comment please, GenericMan? A quick search on her name did not show her to be someone advocating infanticide.
-
Odrade
It's one thing to debate philosophically the idea and impact of infanticide. It's another thing to say that pro-choice individuals are in favor of it. Your insistence that this is a legitimate argument NOT to support the right to choose is unbelievably misguided. Not one person in this thread has even insinuated they support infanticide. If you went down to planned parenthood, (which is a pro-choice organization) and asked if they supported infanticide, they would probably call the police. In fact many of us have said that although we support the right to have safe abortions in certain circumstances, we do not support third trimester abortion unless death is imminent for mother or fetus. This is the age when the fetus becomes viable, with medical support. How can you translate that into a possiblility of argument for infanticide?
An academic discussion of a philosophical question does not necessarily mean the parties are in favor of the argument, and even if there are a few that are... well, there are indeed people who hold ridiculous and extremist views that the vast majority of the population would find repugnant. Using these extreme ideas to support your argument is nothing even close to good scholarship, and only displays your reactionary attitude to a very legitimate discussion.
-
Simon
It's funny, the fanatical religious right object to abortion *so much* that some will kill people who practice it (because "life is so sacred" after all). If you catch one far enough to the right then they can justify killing infants as well.
Of course their entire arguments fall to pieces *IF* their beliefs were genuine (ie. resurrection, immortality of the soul and so on). In which case, what does it matter? Surely, it's saving someone from a miserable earthly existence?