Abortion (again)

[ruby sparks]

As an atheist, who doesn't believe in heaven or the equivalent, I have to ask myself, what is in the best interests of an embryo?

It is going to live a life which is at best a mixture of pain and pleasure and it is going to die (most likely in pain or after pain). If it is unwanted or not planned, is it a good thing to force it to face the world? Sure, I might, if I was its mother, change my mind and want it, in fact, that's an option. But maybe its father doesn't want it either and maybe never will. What gives me the right to foist the world onto this potential person without its consent?

I have to be very careful about deciding which is kinder and more responsible (assuming I don't have a time machine and getting unpregnant is not an option). For one thing, I can make sure it never suffers at all, assuming an atheist position and assuming that the abortion is done early (as most are) and that the embryo is incapable of experiencing suffering.

And that's just thinking about the embryo. There are considerations for several people, mother, father, sisters, brothers, society. If we force people to have babies merely because they are pregnant, who wins? It's an open question.

That is my point of view. I realise it's not everyone's.

I'm not saying it's not ending a life. I'm not saying it's not denying a potential person a future. I tend to agree it is both those things. At a pinch, I might even agree it's ending the life of a human being (in that it's human and has being).

There are times when I would feel like arguing that it is morally wrong to have a baby after an unwanted pregnancy and that the most unselfish course of action is to have an abortion. There may even be times when I might wonder, with an open mind, whether or not it is morally right or indeed fundamentally selfish in certain ways to have babies at all. But I'm not necessarily making either of those cases here. I'm only suggesting personal, informed choice. And at the end of the day I would by and large feel that it is the woman's choice.

I do think that there are people out there, probably very well-intentioned people, who are pro-life (aka anti-choice) for a variety of possible reasons, and I tend to fundamentally question their moral stance, whether it's religious or not. At the very least, I think it should be challenged on moral grounds and I think that they should take a long, hard look at their position and what it actually entails and what they are hoping it will actually achieve and what it will achieve.

It goes without saying that I am all for measures which minimises the number of unwanted pregnancies, including good sex education and freely available contraception. I am assuming a situation in which the unwanted pregnancy has happened, for whatever reasons.

 

[Tigers!]

As an atheist, who doesn't believe in heaven or the equivalent, I have to ask myself, what is in the best interests of an embryo?

It is going to live a life which is at best a mixture of pain and pleasure and it is going to die (most likely in pain or after pain). If it is unwanted or not planned, is it a good thing to force it to face the world? Sure, I might, if I was its mother, change my mind and want it, in fact, that's an option. But maybe its father doesn't want it either and maybe never will. What gives me the right to foist the world onto this potential person without its consent?

I have to be very careful about deciding which is kinder and more responsible (assuming I don't have a time machine and getting unpregnant is not an option). For one thing, I can make sure it never suffers at all, assuming an atheist position and assuming that the abortion is done early (as most are) and that the embryo is incapable of experiencing suffering.

And that's just thinking about the embryo. There are considerations for several people, mother, father, sisters, brothers, society. If we force people to have babies merely because they are pregnant, who wins? It's an open question.

That is my point of view. I realise it's not everyone's.

I'm not saying it's not ending a life. I'm not saying it's not denying a potential person a future. I tend to agree it is both those things. At a pinch, I might even agree it's ending the life of a human being (in that it's human and has being).

There are times when I would feel like arguing that it is morally wrong to have a baby after an unwanted pregnancy and that the most unselfish course of action is to have an abortion. There may even be times when I might wonder, with an open mind, whether or not it is morally right or indeed fundamentally selfish in certain ways to have babies at all. But I'm not necessarily making either of those cases here. I'm only suggesting personal, informed choice. And at the end of the day I would by and large feel that it is the woman's choice.

I do think that there are people out there, probably very well-intentioned people, who are pro-life (aka anti-choice) for a variety of possible reasons, and I tend to fundamentally question their moral stance, whether it's religious or not. At the very least, I think it should be challenged on moral grounds and I think that they should take a long, hard look at their position and what it actually entails and what they are hoping it will actually achieve.

It goes without saying that I am all for measures which minimises the number of unwanted pregnancies, including good sex education and freely available contraception. I am assuming a situation in which the unwanted pregnancy has happened, for whatever reasons.

Is adoption an option for you?

 

[Tigers!]

As an atheist, who doesn't believe in heaven or the equivalent, I have to ask myself, what is in the best interests of an embryo?

It is going to live a life which is at best a mixture of pain and pleasure and it is going to die (most likely in pain or after pain). If it is unwanted or not planned, is it a good thing to force it to face the world? Sure, I might, if I was its mother, change my mind and want it, in fact, that's an option. But maybe its father doesn't want it either and maybe never will. What gives me the right to foist the world onto this potential person without its consent?

By your reason every single child, including yourself, has had the world foisted upon them.
I am not certain what you mean.

 

[ruby sparks]

Is adoption an option for you?

Personally, I would tend to think that if you don't want it yourself, then to a certain extent, offering it for adoption is palming off responsibility for what you have chosen to do. My saying this would have to be seen in the light of what I said above.

So that would be people who find themselves pregnant but decide to go ahead with the intention of having the resultant baby adopted.

I'm not against adoption per se. If for whatever reason (often hardship or other problems, or parents' death) a child already born can be adopted, that might be a good thing.

Good question. You have made me think. That is what I like. My answer was spontaneous. I don't mind it being challenged. It may be too general for one thing.

 

[ruby sparks]

By your reason every single child, including yourself, has had the world foisted upon them.
I am not certain what you mean.

None of us ever asked for it or gave consent.

Obviously, we couldn't, but that still means we didn't. Often/usually, a parent has decided it for us.

 

[Tigers!]

Is adoption an option for you?

Personally, I would tend to think that if you don't want it yourself, then to a certain extent, offering it for adoption is palming off responsibility for what you have chosen to do. My saying this would have to be seen in the light of what I said above.

So that would be people who find themselves pregnant but decide to go ahead with the intention of having the resultant baby adopted.

I'm not against adoption per se. If for whatever reason (often hardship or other problems, or parents' death) a child already born can be adopted, that might be a good thing.

Good question. You have made me think. That is what I like. My answer was spontaneous. I don't mind it being challenged. It may be too general for one thing.

I would not call giving a baby up for adoption to be palming off responsibility. Their are times in our lives when we have to acknowledgement that we are not capable of fulfilling our responsibilities.In thsi case the child is given the chance to have alife and grow up. That is a wise action.
My brother is adopted. Without him my life would be so much different. I thank God often for the wisdom, and yes compassion, of his natural mother who did not leave him to die as she could have.

- - - Updated - - -

By your reason every single child, including yourself, has had the world foisted upon them.
I am not certain what you mean.

None of us ever asked for it or gave consent.

Obviously, we couldn't, but that still means we didn't. Often/usually, a parent has decided it for us.

Yes the parents did. I can count on one hand the number of people I have met who are not glad of teh life they have been given by their parents.

 

[phands]

An embryo is 100% dependent on the mother. It is her choice. Only her opinion counts.

End of discussion.

 

[ruby sparks]

I would not call giving a baby up for adoption to be palming off responsibility.

Ok, I would tend to disagree for reasons given.

Their are times in our lives when we have to acknowledgement that we are not capable of fulfilling our responsibilities.

I might say that if that's the case, and the pregnancy is still early, that abortion is the more moral, responsible, unselfish and kindest option. That is, however, it has to be said, the strong version of my position, and a higher bar. My general position is pro-choice. woman's choice, in the main. In cases of disagreement, woman's choice without caveat. I can't think of many exceptions (in fact right now I can't think of any) but it's always possible there are exceptions.

In thsi case the child is given the chance to have alife and grow up.

And suffer and die (probably after or during pain). Which the adult/parent will unequivocally have decided to cause (in the circumstances of an early pregnancy and not availing of readily available/safe abortion). As for whether it's more happy than unhappy in between, there are lots and lots of unhappy, and suffering people. Life is hard.

That is a wise action.

In your opinion. I'm questioning that.

My brother is adopted. Without him my life would be so much different.

That tells me that you feel you benefitted. Wouldn't that be a selfish reason, of itself?

I thank God often for the wisdom, and yes compassion, of his natural mother who did not leave him to die as she could have.

I do not know the particular circumstances. I am basing my view on an early pregnancy being detected and good quality abortion being readily available at that point. Or by 'leave him to die' do you mean abort in the circumstances I'm talking about? I read what you said as him being already or almost born at the time of the decision/intention to have him adopted.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes the parents did. I can count on one hand the number of people I have met who are not glad of teh life they have been given by their parents.

Many people suffer. Sometimes a lot. It's not uncommon at all. And data suggests that having been an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy increases the risk in a variety of ways.

That said, many are glad.

But, do they really have a choice? It is true that we are 'hard wired' (and often culturally dissuaded) away from taking the 'get out' clause, and by and large it is not only frowned upon, it is difficult and/or painful, physically. To most people, it is actually terrifying (death that is, and suicide in particular). I think that once you're born you may have to just get on with it and try to make the best of it. My point partly is, what gives anyone the moral right to foist that situation, which is at the very least uncertain regarding outcome (apart from death which is pretty much guaranteed), on anyone else? Assuming atheism.

 

[untermensche]

I can see we are going to wrap up this issue nicely.

 

[ruby sparks]

It probably will never be 'wrapped up nicely' That's accepted. Hopefully we can at least avoid it (the discussion) going up in flames.

 

[Tigers!]

An embryo is 100% dependent on the mother. It is her choice. Only her opinion counts.

End of discussion.

Thank you for your reasoned and concise opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

I can see we are going to wrap up this issue nicely.

No reason what that cannot be the case. we can agree to disagree civilly.

 

[PyramidHead]

By your reason every single child, including yourself, has had the world foisted upon them.
I am not certain what you mean.

None of us ever asked for it or gave consent.

Obviously, we couldn't, but that still means we didn't. Often/usually, a parent has decided it for us.

Yes the parents did. I can count on one hand the number of people I have met who are not glad of teh life they have been given by their parents.

Your comment treats the reports of people who are already alive and have an interest in continuing to exist as retroactive consent for starting to exist. Those are two separate concerns. We know for a fact that nobody has an interest in starting to exist, by definition. We also know that there are strong non-cognitive, irrational, instinctual compulsions in human biology that compel us to seek survival at all costs--and these compulsions are among the constraints imposed on us at birth! It's clearly fallacious to appeal to them to show that imposing them in the first place was not so bad; if I slipped escalating amounts of a highly addictive drug into your morning coffee until you were hooked on it, I wouldn't be able to use your craving for more to justify getting you hooked. That, in large part, is what the clinging-to-life of most people amounts to, a pre-reflective, unconscious, socially reinforced urge we received along with the object of our clinging.

Also, not everybody turns out to be like the people you know. What number of people who have overcome the intrinsic desire to go on living and genuinely wish for death is acceptable, especially given that there is no way for any parent to predict whether their child will have such a fate? Would needing two hands to count that number constitute enough of a risk, while just one hand means it's a fine gamble to make? Isn't any potential at all for the kind of misery that leads someone to suicide enough to make procreation a moral hazard, since not procreating poses no harm to the unborn?

 

[ruby sparks]

One more thing. To be 'pro-life' usually entails something extra, namely being 'anti-choice' which can arguably involve an additional moral question, which is whether anyone should have the 'right' to deny the choices of others (I mean the parents, as well as foisting life in the world onto the future/potential person who never asked for it). I'm not suggesting we should outlaw protests or lobbying or voting against legalising abortion.

 

[untermensche]

An embryo is 100% dependent on the mother. It is her choice. Only her opinion counts.

End of discussion.

Thank you for your reasoned and concise opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

I can see we are going to wrap up this issue nicely.

No reason what that cannot be the case. we can agree to disagree civilly.

As long as we greatly limit opinion we can do that.

Some see it as murder and froth at the mouth. They claim to be in communication with the gods.

They are the problem, not the issue itself.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The main problem with this debate is that the point of life starting is arbitrary. There's good philosophical arguments to pin it at any point in that embryo's development. I've read articles that show that, technically, plants have feelings. You can argue pretty much any point here, and you'd be right.

In a situation like that it's pointless to discuss whether it's life or not. It's better to move the focus onto purely social matters. What is the social impact from moving the chosen point of life to any particular number of weeks. And just talk about that.

I've supported enough women through abortions to know, for a fact, that it's not a decision any woman will take lightly. It's very traumatic for them. It has it's own inbuilt natural "punishment". So I vote for letting nature sort this out. If a woman wants an abortion... regardless of the trimester... then we know that she has very strong and well thought out reasons for doing it.

 

[phands]

The main problem with this debate is religious men forcing their wrong opinions on women.



The above cartoon summarizes it well. Cartoon appears at https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/20/1787575/-Cartoon-A-profound-commitment

Go give them and Sparky's list some support.

 

[steve_bank]

As an atheist, who doesn't believe in heaven or the equivalent, I have to ask myself, what is in the best interests of an embryo?

It is going to live a life which is at best a mixture of pain and pleasure and it is going to die (most likely in pain or after pain). If it is unwanted or not planned, is it a good thing to force it to face the world? Sure, I might, if I was its mother, change my mind and want it, in fact, that's an option. But maybe its father doesn't want it either and maybe never will. What gives me the right to foist the world onto this potential person without its consent?

I have to be very careful about deciding which is kinder and more responsible (assuming I don't have a time machine and getting unpregnant is not an option). For one thing, I can make sure it never suffers at all, assuming an atheist position and assuming that the abortion is done early (as most are) and that the embryo is incapable of experiencing suffering.

And that's just thinking about the embryo. There are considerations for several people, mother, father, sisters, brothers, society. If we force people to have babies merely because they are pregnant, who wins? It's an open question.

That is my point of view. I realise it's not everyone's.

I'm not saying it's not ending a life. I'm not saying it's not denying a potential person a future. I tend to agree it is both those things. At a pinch, I might even agree it's ending the life of a human being (in that it's human and has being).

There are times when I would feel like arguing that it is morally wrong to have a baby after an unwanted pregnancy and that the most unselfish course of action is to have an abortion. There may even be times when I might wonder, with an open mind, whether or not it is morally right or indeed fundamentally selfish in certain ways to have babies at all. But I'm not necessarily making either of those cases here. I'm only suggesting personal, informed choice. And at the end of the day I would by and large feel that it is the woman's choice.

I do think that there are people out there, probably very well-intentioned people, who are pro-life (aka anti-choice) for a variety of possible reasons, and I tend to fundamentally question their moral stance, whether it's religious or not. At the very least, I think it should be challenged on moral grounds and I think that they should take a long, hard look at their position and what it actually entails and what they are hoping it will actually achieve and what it will achieve.

It goes without saying that I am all for measures which minimises the number of unwanted pregnancies, including good sex education and freely available contraception. I am assuming a situation in which the unwanted pregnancy has happened, for whatever reasons.

Well ruby sparks along with being on the cynical side you open up a main point of the anti abortionists.

The slippery slope. What keeps abortion from slipping into eugenics? Parents find the fetus when advanced has genes that are not necessarily debilitating or limiting, but undesirable? Brown Eyes instead of blue. Gees that may be statistically corelated to violence and so on.

A new master race? Genetics is to the point where that may be possible for those that can afford it.

As to abortion itself far from any religious concern I find late term abortion grotesque. At some [pint the fetus is functioning and sensing.

When birth control and abortion opened up there was a statisicall correlation with the decline of crime. I doubt many would argue that kids born into lousy situations are more likely to take a bad term.

Do we sterilize people who have a risk of bad parenting or drug addiction or have a high probability of birth defects? Why not prevent the need for abortion in the first place?

Abortion is not a simple issue of rights.

The height of cynicism is viewing a fetus as noting but a bunch of cells and chemicals.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As an atheist, who doesn't believe in heaven or the equivalent, I have to ask myself, what is in the best interests of an embryo?

It is going to live a life which is at best a mixture of pain and pleasure and it is going to die (most likely in pain or after pain). If it is unwanted or not planned, is it a good thing to force it to face the world? Sure, I might, if I was its mother, change my mind and want it, in fact, that's an option. But maybe its father doesn't want it either and maybe never will. What gives me the right to foist the world onto this potential person without its consent?

I have to be very careful about deciding which is kinder and more responsible (assuming I don't have a time machine and getting unpregnant is not an option). For one thing, I can make sure it never suffers at all, assuming an atheist position and assuming that the abortion is done early (as most are) and that the embryo is incapable of experiencing suffering.

And that's just thinking about the embryo. There are considerations for several people, mother, father, sisters, brothers, society. If we force people to have babies merely because they are pregnant, who wins? It's an open question.

That is my point of view. I realise it's not everyone's.

I'm not saying it's not ending a life. I'm not saying it's not denying a potential person a future. I tend to agree it is both those things. At a pinch, I might even agree it's ending the life of a human being (in that it's human and has being).

There are times when I would feel like arguing that it is morally wrong to have a baby after an unwanted pregnancy and that the most unselfish course of action is to have an abortion. There may even be times when I might wonder, with an open mind, whether or not it is morally right or indeed fundamentally selfish in certain ways to have babies at all. But I'm not necessarily making either of those cases here. I'm only suggesting personal, informed choice. And at the end of the day I would by and large feel that it is the woman's choice.

I do think that there are people out there, probably very well-intentioned people, who are pro-life (aka anti-choice) for a variety of possible reasons, and I tend to fundamentally question their moral stance, whether it's religious or not. At the very least, I think it should be challenged on moral grounds and I think that they should take a long, hard look at their position and what it actually entails and what they are hoping it will actually achieve and what it will achieve.

It goes without saying that I am all for measures which minimises the number of unwanted pregnancies, including good sex education and freely available contraception. I am assuming a situation in which the unwanted pregnancy has happened, for whatever reasons.

Well ruby sparks along with being on the cynical side you open up a main point of the anti abortionists.

The slippery slope. What keeps abortion from slipping into eugenics? Parents find the fetus when advanced has genes that are not necessarily debilitating or limiting, but undesirable? Brown Eyes instead of blue. Gees that may be statistically corelated to violence and so on.

A new master race? Genetics is to the point where that may be possible for those that can afford it.

As to abortion itself far from any religious concern I find late term abortion grotesque. At some [pint the fetus is functioning and sensing.

When birth control and abortion opened up there was a statisicall correlation with the decline of crime. I doubt many would argue that kids born into lousy situations are more likely to take a bad term.

Do we sterilize people who have a risk of bad parenting or drug addiction or have a high probability of birth defects? Why not prevent the need for abortion in the first place?

Abortion is not a simple issue of rights.

The height of cynicism is viewing a fetus as noting but a bunch of cells and chemicals.

I'm for Eugenics. We're already screening for genetic defects. What is considered a defective gene is a question of degree. It's a sliding scale and we're already at the bottom of this slippery slope. The limitation right now is purely technical. If you have money there are labs around the world in countries with zero regulation.

The reason I'm for Eugenics is the same reason I'm for legalisation of drugs, for abortion and for a liberalisation of copyrights. These are all things that it's pointless to ban. Its already super easy to circumvent the regulation. It's pointless to put up any barrier. If we do it'll, as usual, just make life harder for the poor. I don't want to make access to it a class issue. I don't want to live in a world where all the rich are healthy and pretty, and the poor are dying and ugly.

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm for Eugenics. We're already screening for genetic defects. What is considered a defective gene is a question of degree. It's a sliding scale and we're already at the bottom of this slippery slope. The limitation right now is purely technical. If you have money there are labs around the world in countries with zero regulation.

The reason I'm for Eugenics is the same reason I'm for legalisation of drugs, for abortion and for a liberalisation of copyrights. These are all things that it's pointless to ban. Its already super easy to circumvent the regulation. It's pointless to put up any barrier. If we do it'll, as usual, just make life harder for the poor. I don't want to make access to it a class issue. I don't want to live in a world where all the rich are healthy and pretty, and the poor are dying and ugly.

Eugenics can only ever be a relative term, as there are no good genes. All of our genes are defective, not because of their phenotype being one way or another, but because they are genes, and genes make temporary, vulnerable organisms that inhabit the world at each other's expense. The rich would also be dying and ugly, just less so.

On a practical level you're correct, though. However, it's not so much that we should simply avoid placing barriers in the way of eugenics and watch as everyone partakes of it across economic and social strata. It's not that simple. To avoid it becoming what you fear, we would have to actively provide it for free, such that there would be no advantage to paying for a better version.

So, on the societal level, if we are going to make an informed policy for the future, perhaps that's the way to go. But it's still a conversation about the least bad way to totally and unilaterally manipulate someone from the start of their existence, how to put the best possible spin on an act of terrible disrespect.