How do non-deists frame opinions about abortion vs. women's choice?

gillyflower wrote:Thank you for bringing that up. None of you are old enough to remember the bad old days. I do! No one seems to remember that Rowe vs. Wade was haled for saving women's lives. It wasn't that no one had an abortion and suddenly they could - no!

It was that women and girls went to people who weren't qualified, weren't safe - they killed women or left them unable to ever have another child! - to get an abortion. Women tried all sorts of dangerous things they heard would get rid of the fetus. People who feel they have to have an abortion will find a way - even if it killed them which is sometimes did.

I do not want it to go back to that.

Nor I. You're right, I'm not old enough to remember it personally, but I read a lot, or at least I did before I had to work 60 hours a week.....

If we can't get something through legal channels, we will look elsewhere. By it's illegal nature, it's not going to be regulated, and the people that provide the service or product are going to be unscrupulous people who are only interested in money. No regulation, no quality testing.

I'm not old enough to remember pre RvW days, but most of my siblings are. And three of them (the 3 oldest) all knew someone who got an abortion even though it was "illegal". And it was three different girls. One nearly died and was never able to have children, she had to have a hysterectomy. One got a severe infection. The third was very fortunate and had no physical problems.
Making something illegal doesn't make it go away. Drinking and driving, Murder, Speeding, Not picking up your dog's crap when in public... ALL illegal... ALL happen every single day, thousands of times a day.
Making abortions illegal, as All said, will mean it's not regulated and that means that there WILL be abortions MUCH later into the pregnancy for reasons other than life at risk. Right now, it's very difficult to get a late term abortion, one has to be VERY ill or the fetus has to be VERY bad off. Remove regulations and a woman who is 6 months pregnant COULD get an abortion because she broke up with her man(or he broke up with her) and she wants to "get even" or caught him cheating.... And I KNOW at least one woman who would do that.

tmarie64 wrote:You're the one who KEEPS presuming. And if you think you've seen venom, you better stay off the net, cuz you ain't seen nothin' yet. LOL Gilly and I could rip you to shreds, she's more tactful than I am, but trust me, she's not one to be reckoned with.

And 3. In MY opinion, The living breathing mother takes priority at all times. The fetus is a fetus until birth.

Anger and malice are not power; they are an expression of weakness. Nothing anyone in this venue can do will "rip me to shreds" which is far more provocative and contentious than anything I have said. I think most people would not behave in person as rudely as they do thru a keyboard. There have been some false assumptions made about me in an apparent attempt to justify some hateful language. It's a tough way to live, but everyone has their own path.

I believe I have shown each person here courtesy, or tried to, even if I chose illustrative language to clarify an objective point. While my language may have been evocative, I do not think it was "emotional." That is someone else's reaction and I am not responsible for how people react.

My reference to feet was to illustrate a point, one that some posts on this thread seem intent on making for me, though possibly in terms of simultaneously denying their own position.

I observed that the consensus on this thread appears to be that the mother has a right to choose abortion right up to the second before the baby is delivered. I believe that assessment is correct (e.g., see tmarie64, above), and it seems to me that some commentators have vacillated between confirming and denying it - sometimes it in the same post. My sense is that some of my companions here would rather be handcuffed to a werewolf than specify their position on this issue. (please excuse me if that was too illustrative )

gillyflower wrote:No, I can't say that an unborn baby is entitled to equal protection under the law especially from its mother. That really is a slippery slope. If the mother has a drink and someone thinks that will hurt her child, can she be prosecuted for attempting to harm it?

As for ethical, what I consider ethical for myself is one thing. I'm not willing to force my ethics about fetuses on anyone else.

It seems to me that the social contract of law is an agreement to abide by certain ethical standards. We impose laws prohibiting murder, certain kinds of lying (fraud), assault, etc.

I think we should not remove morals and ethics from our laws, but find ways to use reason, facts and compassion to codify ethical standards that are not based on religious dogma. I say this only because I oppose the tyranny of theocracy, whether it is from Islamists, Puritans, or any other discipline, and because history shows us that the vagueness of spirituality is far too nebulous a foundation for a stable society.

In my view it is negligent to wait until the third trimester to choose an abortion in the absence of late-developing extenuating medical circumstances such as endangering the life of child or mother. I believe giving every mother carte blanche to terminate in the third trimester without any medical reason is morally vacant because it ignores the fact that a third trimester fetus has an excellent chance of surviving outside the mother, and would almost certainly survive within a few weeks of the due date. On that basis, I believe fetuses deserve representation in the law, though I did not choose the phrase, "equal protection."

If others here agree with that, and we have just been too busy choosing fighting words to notice that we agree, I apologize for any part I had in that. If we disagree, that's fine, too, and I do not wish anyone any ill will for disagreeing with me.

I believe that laws should not enforce morality. While you use the phrase "morally vacant" what you really mean is not that the absence of morals, but that the people are not sharing the same morals, as few with the exception of sociopaths operate in an absence of morals.

It is not up to us to enforce our standard of morality upon others.

Psalm 137:9

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:I believe that laws should not enforce morality. While you use the phrase "morally vacant" what you really mean is not that the absence of morals, but that the people are not sharing the same morals, as few with the exception of sociopaths operate in an absence of morals.

It is not up to us to enforce our standard of morality upon others.

Psalm 137:9

I'm happy to have you disagree, but I don't usually accept others telling me what I mean.

I didn't say that any person was morally vacant. I expressed that disregarding the ignoring the rights of a viable near-term fetus is a morally vacant position, in my opinion.

Whose morals? The morals of people like Newt Gingrich? HE can't keep his penis in his pants, can't commit to one woman and you think HE is qualified to speak on morals? You think he even has morals?
OR those who say "Cut welfare"? The ones who want babies born, and just don't give a shit if the babies have food, homes, love, medical care...? Really? THAT kind of "morals" don't have a place in my home.

You talk about your view... and want respect for that... Yet you want to passive-aggressively imply that everyone who has disagreed with your view is somehow less intelligent.... Yeah. You don't want discourse, you want agreement.
Oh, and it is morally vacant to change your stance in less than a week... Original post..

It seems to me that giving a woman four or five weeks to make a decision
after noticing a missed menstrual cycle is appropriate and adequate.
That means before the 10th week (1st trimester).

Last one...

I expressed that disregarding the ignoring the rights of a viable near-term fetus

Make up your mind. Because, sweetie, 11 or 12 weeks is NOT viable or "near term".
So, when you get YOUR opinion in line, feel free to discuss.

tmarie64 wrote:Whose morals? The morals of people like Newt Gingrich? HE can't keep his penis in his pants, can't commit to one woman and you think HE is qualified to speak on morals? You think he even has morals?
OR those who say "Cut welfare"? The ones who want babies born, and just don't give a shit if the babies have food, homes, love, medical care...? Really? THAT kind of "morals" don't have a place in my home.

You talk about your view... and want respect for that... Yet you want to passive-aggressively imply that everyone who has disagreed with your view is somehow less intelligent.... Yeah. You don't want discourse, you want agreement.
Oh, and it is morally vacant to change your stance in less than a week... Original post..

It seems to me that giving a woman four or five weeks to make a decision
after noticing a missed menstrual cycle is appropriate and adequate.
That means before the 10th week (1st trimester).

Last one...

I expressed that disregarding the ignoring the rights of a viable near-term fetus

Make up your mind. Because, sweetie, 11 or 12 weeks is NOT viable or "near term".
So, when you get YOUR opinion in line, feel free to discuss.

I floated an opinion in example (10th week) and later opined a stricter stance on another position (zero regulation of third trimester). These are not inconsistent statements. I am not responsible for your interpretation of my remarks.

I am surprised (but only a little) that you feel the need to chastise me for even appearing to moderate my position toward yours.

Prudence6 wrote:I'm happy to have you disagree, but I don't usually accept others telling me what I mean.

I didn't say that any person was morally vacant. I expressed that disregarding the ignoring the rights of a viable near-term fetus is a morally vacant position, in my opinion.

Ah, semantics.

Still, it comes down to try to force your moral position on another. Others do not share your version of morality. Others still make tough decisions regarding the best that can be done in that situation.

In my opinion, legislating morality is a bad idea. Everyone ends up loosing somewhere. Laws should be a framework for behavior, not a guideline.

Like stealing is okay if it's for a good cause?

Stealing bread is ok to feed your starving family.
Lethal force in defense of one's own life or that of others is ok.
Answering "no" to your wife's "does this make me look fat" is seen as an understandable act of self preservation.

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:Answering "no" to your wife's "does this make me look fat" is seen as an understandable act of self preservation.

Good one.

So terminating a healthy, viable fetus that is well-developed enough to survive outside the womb and poses no risk of harm to itself or its mother is permissable, if that's what the mother chooses?

Prudence6 wrote: Good one.

So terminating a healthy, viable fetus that is well-developed enough to survive outside the womb and poses no risk of harm to itself or its mother is permissable, if that's what the mother chooses?

No risk? Are you a parent?

Indulge me for a moment.

How do you feel about current self defense laws?

Okay. Should I have said "medical risk?" Please assume I did.

It seems like every time we get close to nailing down a definitive position, the subject veers off. It must be very painful to declare unqualified support for limitless pregnancy termination rights. Please promise me you will eventually answer my question.

Now, do you mean representing yourself in court or defending yourself from attack? I have an undeveloped opinion on the former, at best. As to the latter, I support an individual's right to self-defense from imminent attack. Where are we headed now?

Prudence6 wrote:Okay. Should I have said "medical risk?" Please assume I did.

<sigh> It seems like every time we get close to nailing down a definitive position, the subject veers off. It must be very painful to declare unqualified support for limitless pregnancy termination rights. Please promise me you will eventually answer my question.

Veers off? No, I see it as an attempt at clarification. See, I am neither an Abrahamatic, nor an atheist/agnostic. Hence, if you try to determine an answer using your current line of questioning, you may feel that you have arrived at an answer that satisfies you as the right one, but not the right one. Catch my drift?

Prudence6 wrote:

Now, do you mean representing yourself in court or defending yourself from attack? I have an undeveloped opinion on the former, at best. As to the latter, I support an individual's right to self-defense from imminent attack. Where are we headed now?

Defending yourself from attack. I am no lawyer, and it is very possible that matters of the law, especially given my current attitudes may always be beyond me.

So, you support an individual's right to self defense from imminent attack. Do you mean respond in kind? Do you mean overwhelming force? The manner of defense can take many shapes, as can the manner of attack. Where do you stand on attacks on property? Where do you stand on a duty to retreat?

The law being a separate matter, my personal belief is that I am entitled to defend my property to intervene in it's damage or theft. We never know how we will respond in an emergency, but I think, in principle, I would decline to kill someone for attempting to steal my car, mostly because it is insured. But physical force that is at least adequate to stop the attack is reasonable and should be anticipated by any attacker. Also, it could depend on what is in the car. Does that answer your question?

One of the lessons in my religious tradition is to list 5 things that you feel are ethically wrong to do and then list 5 situations in which you would do those things.

Prudence6 wrote:

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:Answering "no" to your wife's "does this make me look fat" is seen as an understandable act of self preservation.

Good one.

So terminating a healthy, viable fetus that is well-developed enough to survive outside the womb and poses no risk of harm to itself or its mother is permissable, if that's what the mother chooses?

What you are suggesting is terminating a pregnancy of a fetus that is healthy enough to survive outside the womb and most likely the fetus will. You are describing an abortion that can be called inducing labor. Any number of people have done that - terminated a pregnancy as you describe. You are going to have to narrow it down more. Unless this is what you mean? Or do you mean that the mother intends to murder the newborn?

gillyflower wrote:One of the lessons in my religious tradition is to list 5 things that you feel are ethically wrong to do and then list 5 situations in which you would do those things.

That is a fascinating exercise!

gillyflower wrote:

Prudence6 wrote:So terminating a healthy, viable fetus that is well-developed enough to survive outside the womb and poses no risk of harm to itself or its mother is permissible, if that's what the mother chooses?

What you are suggesting is terminating a pregnancy of a fetus that is healthy enough to survive outside the womb and most likely the fetus will. You are describing an abortion that can be called inducing labor. Any number of people have done that - terminated a pregnancy as you describe. You are going to have to narrow it down more. Unless this is what you mean? Or do you mean that the mother intends to murder the newborn?

I am not suggesting anything. I am trying to verify positions other than my own that I think I have seen supported in this venue. I understand from posts in this thread that that are advocates of a woman's right to choose to abort a pregnancy - resulting in the termination of the life of the fetus - up until the moment the baby is born. That is, at any moment prior to delivery, the mother reserves the right to terminate the life of the unborn fetus - NOT to be confused with inducing labor.

Prudence6 wrote:The law being a separate matter, my personal belief is that I am entitled to defend my property to intervene in it's damage or theft. We never know how we will respond in an emergency, but I think, in principle, I would decline to kill someone for attempting to steal my car, mostly because it is insured. But physical force that is at least adequate to stop the attack is reasonable and should be anticipated by any attacker. Also, it could depend on what is in the car. Does that answer your question?

What if someone was threatening you with bodily harm? Say the ability to work, or to continue on to higher learning?

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

Prudence6 wrote:The law being a separate matter, my personal belief is that I am entitled to defend my property to intervene in it's damage or theft. We never know how we will respond in an emergency, but I think, in principle, I would decline to kill someone for attempting to steal my car, mostly because it is insured. But physical force that is at least adequate to stop the attack is reasonable and should be anticipated by any attacker. Also, it could depend on what is in the car. Does that answer your question?

What if someone was threatening you with bodily harm? Say the ability to work, or to continue on to higher learning?

Why don't you just make your point instead of leading me thru a metaphorical maze?

Prudence6 wrote:

gillyflower wrote:

Prudence6 wrote:So terminating a healthy, viable fetus that is well-developed enough to survive outside the womb and poses no risk of harm to itself or its mother is permissible, if that's what the mother chooses?

What you are suggesting is terminating a pregnancy of a fetus that is healthy enough to survive outside the womb and most likely the fetus will. You are describing an abortion that can be called inducing labor. Any number of people have done that - terminated a pregnancy as you describe. You are going to have to narrow it down more. Unless this is what you mean? Or do you mean that the mother intends to murder the newborn?

I am not suggesting anything. I am trying to verify positions other than my own that I think I have seen supported in this venue. I understand from posts in this thread that that are advocates of a woman's right to choose to abort a pregnancy - resulting in the termination of the life of the fetus - up until the moment the baby is born. That is, at any moment prior to delivery, the mother reserves the right to terminate the life of the unborn fetus - NOT to be confused with inducing labor.

No, no, no, that is not what you have been saying. You said that the fetus is healthy enough to survive outside the womb. Read what you said again carefully. Then please restate what you think you mean. If the baby is healthy enough to survive outside the womb, then the life isn't terminated.

gillyflower wrote:If the baby is healthy enough to survive outside the womb, then the life isn't terminated.

Says who? That is the scenario I have been trying to confirm whether you and others advocate. As long as the baby is not yet delivered (transited the birth canal or separated from the mother by C-section), the mother has the right to terminate it. I'm pretty sure that is tmarie64's position, and I thought it was the same for you and others, based on the comments I've been reading.

Prudence6 wrote:
Why don't you just make your point instead of leading me thru a metaphorical maze?

I am going to illustrate a difference in perceptions in regards to attitudes in regards to life and health and the lengths that one is willing to go to defend it. In order to do so, I need you to answer the questions, and another one, have you ever heard of Asatru?

Prudence6 wrote:

gillyflower wrote:If the baby is healthy enough to survive outside the womb, then the life isn't terminated.

Says who? That is the scenario I have been trying to confirm whether you and others advocate. As long as the baby is not yet delivered (transited the birth canal or separated from the mother by C-section), the mother has the right to terminate it. I'm pretty sure that is tmarie64's position, and I thought it was the same for you and others, based on the comments I've been reading.

I posted the definitions of abortion. You read them didn't you? What is your definition of abortion? Right now you are calling a live birth a "termination." Termination of a pregnancy does not necessarily mean the death of a fetus. I've already posted that I do not support the murder of live babies.