Abortion
#31
I‘m not religious, so I go with my moral upbringing of right, and wrong. That’s all I have to make my own mind up on a touchy subject.

I think it’s wrong to have an abortion as a use of “birth control” because there are a lot better, and effective forms of birth control prior to conception, and it’s just plain irresponsible for a woman to abort solely for that reason. As most states adopted a first trimester law, I’m in agreement with that. The abortion process is a little more invasive after that, and puts the woman at risk. She has three months to decide if she wants the baby or not. That should be more than sufficient to make a decision. After the first trimester, I feel the “logical agent” to speak for the fetus is the doctor performing the abortion. The baby, and/or mothers life must be in jeopardy, deformity, or other rational medical reasons.

I guess you could say I’m in favor of abortion with restrictions. It must be within the first trimester. That being said, I’m not a woman, and have no idea what those 9 months consist of on a daily basis. Not to mention the last few hours. None of us men do, and we particularly are not the ones to judge.

Another way around this is to have a panel consisting of woman to set, the laws, restrictions, guidelines, etc., on abortion rights. It’s a woman issue, not us men. A woman should also be counseled on alternatives to abortion. Such as adoption. In the end though, it’s her choice. Many woman that I know that had an abortion, did so because of the lack of available education, and choices at the time (prior to the internet), or just feared having a baby.

Now if I had to give a straight answer (yes or no, as it’s usually put) on abortion rights without my, or anyone else’s restrictions, or religious beliefs... I would have to say I’m in favor of a woman’s choice, so the answer is yes.
Reply
#32
Interesting reply, thank you.

(29-01-2012, 01:25 AM)The Debater! Wrote: I‘m not religious, so I go with my moral upbringing of right, and wrong. ... I think it’s wrong to have an abortion as a use of “birth control” because there are a lot better, and effective forms of birth control prior to conception, and it’s just plain irresponsible for a woman to abort solely for that reason. ... I guess you could say I’m in favor of abortion with restrictions. ...

Without going into detail or being specific about your life, I think it is a very unusual upbringing that does not have religion entwined in the general culture in which it occurs. While it may be desireable to treat the "state" and its laws as secular and separate from religion, very few people are adapted to that mental exercise. So as a practical matter, calling something morally right or wrong is hardly ever starkly secular or religious. Or so it seems to me.

I wish to follow up on your point as quoted. I may irritate BalticTrader since he is a physician, but I don't intend that effect.

I think it is proper to call abortion a "cluster" of medical procedures, mostly surgical. I suppose some are in the nature of chemotherapy, e.g. pennyroyal. So the laws prohibiting or restricting abortion are of a category of law which generally tells the medical professional what specific procedures they may or may not use. Broadly, the secular state telling "science" (man's inquiring mind) where it may or may not go. For time beyond recall, religion engaged in that practice with often bad results - usually now known as superstition.

I think it's wrong for women to have breast implants and the various "nips & tucks" commonly called plastic surgery to change their looks to match some sterotype. The time and expense of the physician should be spent on saving lives and improving health. On the other hand, "plastic" surgery can help correct disfigurations which result from tramatic injuries (or other causes). Should motive be the issue upon which the law will allow or disallow a medical procedure?

I raise the points only as a matter of conjecture and discussion. They will in no way settle questions about abortion.
Reply
#33
(29-01-2012, 05:10 PM)CoconutKid Wrote: Interesting reply, thank you.

(29-01-2012, 01:25 AM)The Debater! Wrote: I‘m not religious, so I go with my moral upbringing of right, and wrong. ... I think it’s wrong to have an abortion as a use of “birth control” because there are a lot better, and effective forms of birth control prior to conception, and it’s just plain irresponsible for a woman to abort solely for that reason. ... I guess you could say I’m in favor of abortion with restrictions. ...

Without going into detail or being specific about your life, I think it is a very unusual upbringing that does not have religion entwined in the general culture in which it occurs. While it may be desireable to treat the "state" and its laws as secular and separate from religion, very few people are adapted to that mental exercise. So as a practical matter, calling something morally right or wrong is hardly ever starkly secular or religious. Or so it seems to me.
I'm glad my reply was of interest to you. I thought it needed more elaboration than my earlier reply. Wink

Quite right. I’m not going to go into great detail about my religious upbringing or why I don’t believe in God. My parents never went to church, nor did they ever push the issue with us. We were however brought up with morals, and you don’t have to believe in God to have them. We know the difference between right & wrong, good & bad, and proper ethics, and conduct in public. The usual things that mom’s & dad’s do. I’m proud to boast that I’ve never been arrested, or ever had a traffic ticket. I can look at myself in the mirror, and have no regrets as to how I lived my life, and the decisions I’ve made these past 50 some odd years. This is not to say I never made a mistake, or a poor decision. Heck we all have, but I have learned from them, and I'd like to think I’m a better man for them.

I see the perils of other peoples lives on a daily basis as my job dictates. The topic of abortion comes up quite often, and we have debates, or discussions about it in a relatively friendly atmosphere. Kinda like we are all having now. I try not to judge, but I do listen intently. We all have our opinions, morals, religious beliefs about this topic.

As to your plastic surgery topic... I would have to agree with you. I wouldn’t call it “wrong”. I merely think it’s ridiculous for people to change their appearance due to peer-pressure, or today’s sterotypes. I believe if you can’t do it naturally, then it’s not worth it. Perhaps that should be another thread for discussion. It would be disrespectful to the OP to continue in that direction here, and confuse the issue of abortion with plastic surgery. Wink
Reply
#34
(29-01-2012, 06:17 PM)The Debater! Wrote: ... I see the perils of other peoples lives on a daily basis as my job dictates. The topic of abortion comes up quite often, and we have debates, or discussions about it in a relatively friendly atmosphere. ...

As to your plastic surgery topic ... Perhaps that should be another thread for discussion. It would be disrespectful to the OP to continue in that direction here, and confuse the issue of abortion with plastic surgery.

The OP has gone away; I made the second post.

I did not intend "plastic" surgery as a new\separate topic.

Abortion and cosmetic surgery are just two of a myriad of medical procedures about which people have opinions. Those opinions range from opposition to support. Some opposition is so strong as to lead to outlawry.

I asked the question, "Should motive be the issue upon which the law will allow or disallow a medical procedure?"

That question is general and applies to abortion as well as many other medical procedures. It does not confuse things between abortion and "plastic" surgery.

Abortion is a topic which is highly charged with thoughtless emotion. To examine some general principles without the emotional surcharge, it may help to look at other less charged procedures to which the general principle applies. Take your pick:
  • cosmetic surgeries
  • tonsillectomy
  • circumcision
  • liposuction, also known as lipoplasty
  • etc.

That's why I mentioned "plastic" surgery as an illustration.
Reply
#35
(30-01-2012, 04:53 PM)CoconutKid Wrote: The OP has gone away; I made the second post.

I did not intend "plastic" surgery as a new\separate topic.

Abortion and cosmetic surgery are just two of a myriad of medical procedures about which people have opinions. Those opinions range from opposition to support. Some opposition is so strong as to lead to outlawry.

I asked the question, "Should motive be the issue upon which the law will allow or disallow a medical procedure?"

That question is general and applies to abortion as well as many other medical procedures. It does not confuse things between abortion and "plastic" surgery.

Abortion is a topic which is highly charged with thoughtless emotion. To examine some general principles without the emotional surcharge, it may help to look at other less charged procedures to which the general principle applies. Take your pick:
  • cosmetic surgeries
  • tonsillectomy
  • circumcision
  • liposuction, also known as lipoplasty
  • etc.

That's why I mentioned "plastic" surgery as an illustration.
Regardless if the OP is here or not, I find it wrong to stray from a threads intended purpose. Your other topics that you have mentioned are quite good, but I feel they need their own seperate threads for discussion so this original topic doesn't get lost in the shuffle. No offense intended. I just think they should be discussed individually, so I just won't comment on them here in the "ABORTION" thead. To me it's a matter of respect, and consideration. I would rather stay "On-Topic" here, and not stray. That's just my opinion.
Reply
#36
It's only a discussion thread. It just isn't all that important. Che wasn't particularly hung up on staying on topic, either.
Reply
#37
(31-01-2012, 03:40 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote: It's only a discussion thread. It just isn't all that important. Che wasn't particularly hung up on staying on topic, either.
They’re all discussion threads, and each one has a specific topic for discussion. It may not matter to you, but it does to me, and I’m sure to others. For me it’s just simple forum ethics. I love a good discussion as much as the next guy, but I try my best to stay on-topic. Wink

Reply
#38
im not religious, still i believe in soul, cause i found many correlations in chackras and psychological analization of people
far too much, i never believed in predestinations, yet there are so many proofs that our subconscious can alter our decisions in life, genetics, enviroment and beliefs change our path and there are things which are hard to explain logically
still not believing in god, especially that way like others do, a man who controls your destiny, i believe in karma, just some other way
left brain thinking and logic is often against right brain thinking and emotions
spirit science may have some interesting points, like empaths, auras, positivity, negativity, chackras, energy, in some particularry extreme cases people find themselves in hard situations then emotions make it even harder, basically there are universal rules of the world, religions found them out early on, history its not so linear at all, and lot of conspiracies are true, i dont think im special or i got a job for make world better, religions just interpret metaphors as physical, many bad interpretations, im not surprised people wont believe in spirituality, stupid thinking anyway

christian and muslim is too widely accepted, eastern and paganic, satanism (laveyan satanism is great) are not so well known

the importance of what i say is in pleasure/pain, fight/flight, and thinking with emotions instead of logic
too many people fear the death, religions just set you conditions based on this fear, if reincarnation exists, happens anyway with no rules, dark side, the yang is widely underrated, intelligent people fear from stupid ones, fear from beeing a bad person, more than stupid ones, and even if they learn how to act and hunt pleasures like others do, they dont realize how their own values of perfection fear others

logically thinking, nobody should give a life, if cant afford to raise a children, his/her education and a home in rent, and freedom to do what it wants when is 18, so better to use condoms, or abortion if cant raise it right

as for abortion is a kill? well, death is not painful or something, my near death experience was deep and teached me some things, but i dont fear death, i dont want to die but im not afraid of it, and its good to know that i may be able to see again this planet
if not, then i just die, and i shouldnt care, i must live in a hedonistic way and give a fuck about what others think right or wrong

so basically its not a kill, lot of things i dont know, which interpretation is correct, like soul is a small physical supercomputer, or we are receivers connected to a source, which phase can somebody be counted as human, i think after birth we got our soul, that is most probable, hearing stories of reincarnations, choosing family, reborning from same parents, etc. if anything its true then abortion is not a kill, as our meat covered skeletons are only vessels with autopilot until born
Reply
#39
As in many things, much depends upon a point of view. I view it as a kill, something was alive and now is gone, all its hope and potential never to be fulfilled. As for karma, dear soul, what karma does one acquire who so casually kills?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)