Abortion, more than meets the eye?

[cmg]

Why does everything always stem back to religion? Does it have an actual reason, or is it just pianistimo?

It's not about "religion," really.  It's about boredom.  I post here in those spots where I am too tired to work, or practice.  That weird space of "boredom" where people -- before the exploitation of the internet -- would have picked up a book, or knitting, or brushed a cat.  Maybe even practiced the piano.

But people out there are lonely.  Restless.  They think they need to feel "connected."  Yet most of the people they connect to on the internet are, well, let's be kind, rather unsympathetic.  Yet, here it is.  The place where we squander our time.

I learned of four deaths this weekend.  One neighbor.  Only 26.  A brain tumor.  And the mothers of three friends.  From cancer. 

Life is short. 

Practice.

[timothy42b]

Why does everything always stem back to religion? Does it have an actual reason, or is it just pianistimo?

But there are some topics that are inherently religious, even if not obvious at first glance.

This is because no rational person could have an strong opinion if it were not for a preexisting religious bias.

For example, clearly there is no harm to society from gay marriage, hence no secular reason to oppose it.  The same is true for abortion:  early abortion is far safer than fullterm pregnancy and delivery, so from a medical or societal standpoint there is no reason to oppose it. 

Capital punishment is a bit less clear.  There are some secular reasons for and against.  Religious groups have weighed in on both sides, though the more vocal ones tend to favor it (even the ones who revere "life" and oppose abortion). 

[ahinton]

Why does everything always stem back to religion? Does it have an actual reason, or is it just pianistimo?

Pianistimo seems to be the principal "reason" - on this forum, at least; she seems to be unable to stop herself for more than a few sentences at a time. Not a lot that any of the rest of us can do about that, it would seem...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

But there are some topics that are inherently religious, even if not obvious at first glance.

This is because no rational person could have an strong opinion if it were not for a preexisting religious bias.

That is surely a potentially dangerous claim in its implication that people without pre-existing religious bias are somehow incapable of forming opinions on certain vital issues; if strong and committed views on a subject as important as abortion were truly open only to those with pre-existing religious bias, the problem would surely be infinitely greater and more worrying than it already is...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Why does everything always stem back to religion? Does it have an actual reason, or is it just pianistimo?

Its not just her, i admit that i goad her into doing it so i can then take the piss.

Thal

[timothy42b]

That is surely a potentially dangerous claim in its implication that people without pre-existing religious bias are somehow incapable of forming opinions on certain vital issues; if strong and committed views on a subject as important as abortion were truly open only to those with pre-existing religious bias, the problem would surely be infinitely greater and more worrying than it already is...

Best,

Alistair

Perhaps it is not fair to limit it to religion.  However, when you are a rational person and you have studied a problem and done some sound cost-benefit analysis, you come up with what you think is the optimal solution.

Think being the operative word.

Rarely do you feel the passion that the irrational person does, whether they are driven by religious beliefs or not. 

The problem IS infinitely great and worrying.  I see no sign we are making progress at being able to do rational decision making, at a time when the problems facing the world demand it more than ever in history. 

[pianistimo]

the 'optomal solution' being kill babies?  i don't like to call them fetuses because usually moms don't call what's in their belly 'my little fetus.'  in fact, many - such as myself - had a name planned wayy before they were born and actually talked to them and rubbed their feet and developed a relationship with the baby before it was born.

you may consider yourselves very rational and cost-efficient - but have you had a baby?

secondly (i'm not angry - really i'm not.  i've been doing stuff around the house and forgotten all about this thread.  i'm just giving you the other side of things)...i've heard that women who have abortions mourn their 'babies' and call them such.  they never say - 'i lost a fetus 3 years ago.  it's always 'i lost a baby 3 years ago.'

i've read some things about how some of these women actually dream about their child, too.  it is interesting to me - although unproven, i suppose. 

in any case - each of us has our viewpoints and i'm not saying you have to have a baby to have a valid one.  my postion is that life is sacred and we can't play God.

[ahinton]

the 'optomal solution' being kill babies?  i don't like to call them fetuses because usually moms don't call what's in their belly 'my little fetus.'  in fact, many - such as myself - had a name planned wayy before they were born and actually talked to them and rubbed their feet and developed a relationship with the baby before it was born.

you may consider yourselves very rational and cost-efficient - but have you had a baby?

secondly (i'm not angry - really i'm not.  i've been doing stuff around the house and forgotten all about this thread.  i'm just giving you the other side of things)...i've heard that women who have abortions mourn their 'babies' and call them such.  they never say - 'i lost a fetus 3 years ago.  it's always 'i lost a baby 3 years ago.'

i've read some things about how some of these women actually dream about their child, too.  it is interesting to me - although unproven, i suppose. 

in any case - each of us has our viewpoints and i'm not saying you have to have a baby to have a valid one.  my postion is that life is sacred and we can't play God.

Let's leave "playing God" out of this, since not everyone here believes in God so would accordingly not expect to "play" someone in whom he/she may not believe. The rest of your last paragraph shows the kind of sensitivity that is so often absent from your posts when you get on your God soapbox that I cannot but welcome it wholeheartedly.

I cannot comment about how individual women feel about children / fetuses that they have aborted for the simple reason that I have never actually been directly involved in such a case (if you see what I mean), but I do feel that what is missing from your otherwise very realistic take here is the fact that rarely if ever does any woman choose lightly to have an abortion. Of course it is almost always a profoundly traumatic experience - but whether any woman that undergoes it for any reason regards herself at the time or at any subsequent time as having aborted a "fetus" or a "baby" is a matter of individiual circumstance and persona.

What matters here is surely that no woman ever actually wants to abort whatever it is that might otherwise materialise as a person (let's not use the terms "fetus", "baby" or even "child" in this context in order to prove this point).

Fundamentalist thinking of any kind, howsoever based, is also completely out of order here, I believe; there are, from time to time, emergency circumstances in which it may behove a woman to feel that, nowithstanding any other considerations, she has no alternative but to seek to have an abortion. Let's not insult women by getting dictatorial about this. I am not a woman, so who am I to lay down the law to a woman about abortion irrespective of circumstance when it is not me but the woman herself who would have to undergo the physical, psychological and emotional trauma attendant on such an experience should she opt for that choice for whatever reason?

Best,

Alistair

[wotgoplunk]

the 'optomal solution' being kill babies?  i don't like to call them fetuses because usually moms don't call what's in their belly 'my little fetus.'  i've heard that women who have abortions mourn their 'babies' and call them such.  they never say - 'i lost a fetus 3 years ago.  it's always 'i lost a baby 3 years ago.'

If a woman regrets her abortion, she will obviously refer to the fetus as a baby. The technical scientific term is fetus. If I were a pregnant woman, I'd call it a fetus, not a baby, because that's the right name for it!

Some women are not strong enough to handle the psychological effects of an abortion; they rush into it. Those are the one's that mourn. I know a few women who are fine with their abortions. I know a few who aren't. Needless to say, the ones who didn't regret it were all strong-willed, had high agency, and were all (Religion Alert!) Atheists and Agnostics. The others were lapsed Christians, or monotheists of some sort, and had guilt, etc., after their abortion.

[timothy42b]

The others were lapsed Christians, or monotheists of some sort, and had guilt, etc., after their abortion.

Or perhaps their guilt was simply induced by the propaganda efforts of the pro-life crowd, and without the strident insistence that they were murderers they'd have had no traumatic after effects at all. 

In Russia at one time abortion was a standard method of birth control and the average woman had nine without any ill effects at all. 

[pita bread]

In Russia at one time abortion was a standard method of birth control and the average woman had nine without any ill effects at all. 

dayum

[ahinton]

Or perhaps their guilt was simply induced by the propaganda efforts of the pro-life crowd, and without the strident insistence that they were murderers they'd have had no traumatic after effects at all.

Well, the first part of this may well be true in some - indeed, perhaps many - such instances although I'd not go so far as to suggest as a consequence that the reduction in or even absence  of this kind of externally imposed guilt feeling is necessarily synonymous with "no traumatic seffects" whatsoever; in other words, I do not believe that the range of such traumatic effects is by any means limited to this kind of externally imposed guilt.

In Russia at one time abortion was a standard method of birth control and the average woman had nine without any ill effects at all.

And you reckon that this fact makes if OK, do you? The time of which you write was one where many Russian women (and men, for that matter) suffered unimaginable plights of many kinds, not least fear and penury, so it is perhaps not too much to suggest that the "lack" of post-abortion ill effects that you allege here was in reality a case of such ill effects simply having to take their place alongside all the other ill effects of life in Russia during that time.

As you will notice from my previous posts on this topic, I am far from being an anti-abortionist and I believe that most of the quaintly termed "pro-life" brigade - religious or otherwise (although they're mostly the former, in my experience) - are at best grossly insensitive and at worst utter nutcases, but I nevertheless have enough respect for womankind to recognise that abortion is not an action to be taken lightly.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

And you reckon that this fact makes if OK, do you?

I reckon what it means is that the claims of how inherently damaging abortion is to women are exaggerated at best, and outright fabrications at worst. 

We might remember that the recent US court decision upholding a ban on one particular type of abortion was done with the justification that women are so fragile they must be protected from the horrific emotional aftereffects.  Curiously there was no real discussion of protecting the life of the fetus - other methods of abortion at the same late stage of pregnancy remain legal.  It is a decision that remains incomprehensible to me.  Prolife advocates hailed it as a major victory, but I'm not really sure why. 

[ahinton]

I reckon what it means is that the claims of how inherently damaging abortion is to women are exaggerated at best, and outright fabrications at worst.

I have to say that this rather surprises me. If one considers (as I implied earlier) the general conditions under which many Russians were forced to live, one might be forgiven for thinking that suffering from the aftermath of having an abortion was no worse than the effects of any other painful things meted out to Russians; I don't see that this justifies abortion as a means of birth control any more than it dilutes the possible effects of abortion upon those who have them. I didn't say that abortion was or is "inherently damaging" to all women and I do not believe that it is so as such; that, however, does not mean that no women suffer psychologically as a consequence of undergoing an abortion and, whilst I am not (as I have said) an anti-abortionist at all, I am not unaware that there is a potential difference between having an abortion and having a tooth removed. Where I do agree with you in principle is in the disagreement with the so-called "pro-lifers" who simply use any excuse and none, irrespective of its credibility, to seek to make a case against abortion under any circumstances other than the direst of emergencies (and, in the cases of some of the most fanatical of these people, not even then).

We might remember that the recent US court decision upholding a ban on one particular type of abortion was done with the justification that women are so fragile they must be protected from the horrific emotional aftereffects.  Curiously there was no real discussion of protecting the life of the fetus - other methods of abortion at the same late stage of pregnancy remain legal.  It is a decision that remains incomprehensible to me.  Prolife advocates hailed it as a major victory, but I'm not really sure why. 

I cannot comment on a particular case, especially one with which I am unfamiliar (and I am not based in US anyway), but I do agree that it might seem somewhat bizarre that the "pro-lifers" would hail anything as a major victory that did not embrace discussion of protecting the life of a fœtus, except perhaps to the extent that they were prepared to applaud a decision while conveniently turning a blind eye to the way in which it had been reached...

Best,

Alistair

[matterintospirit]

hmmm. not many seem to care about the life that "could have been." ---just whose ideas are "right." How dismal.

[cmg]

hmmm. not many seem to care about the life that "could have been." ---just whose ideas are "right." How dismal.

Well, you raise an interesting point, certainly.

For myself, I am opposed to abortion, but believe that those women who will risk their lives undergoing illegal and often deadly abortions, should not have to die or be maimed for their choice.  (If we can spare their lives, perhaps we can educate them to reflect on the seriousness of bringing unwanted lives into this world.  Perhaps we can improve their lives this way.)  That's why I subscribe to legalized abortion.

But I do believe the Romantic notion that life is a marvelous, rewarding and fulfilling journey is enormously flawed.  Those of us posting here come from developed countries where we have food, shelter, opportunites and hope.  Most of the world lives differently.  Life out there can be brutish and short.

And the Romantic notion of having children is equally flawed.  In the world, one must get a license (and therefore instruction) to simply drive a car.  But, bring a life into this world?  Hey, it's wing time!  Most miserable lives are the result of miserable parenting.  Adults too immature to have chldren.  Adults too uneducated even to know how to care for a child, let alone raise it and tend to its developmental needs.  The result are children that wish they weren't alive at all.  We even read on this forum of young people who claim they want to die.  Life is not always the happiest option.

If religion wants truly to be of service, it should offer practical child-rearing education to prospective parents instead of spiritual cliches. 

And, yes, I should be practicing.  But I'm off to work.  Bye.

[ramseytheii]

Well, you raise an interesting point, certainly.

For myself, I am opposed to abortion, but believe that those women who will risk their lives undergoing illegal and often deadly abortions, should not have to die or be maimed for their choice.  (If we can spare their lives, perhaps we can educate them to reflect on the seriousness of bringing unwanted lives into this world.  Perhaps we can improve their lives this way.)  That's why I subscribe to legalized abortion.

But I do believe the Romantic notion that life is a marvelous, rewarding and fulfilling journey is enormously flawed.  Those of us posting here come from developed countries where we have food, shelter, opportunites and hope.  Most of the world lives differently.  Life out there can be brutish and short.

And the Romantic notion of having children is equally flawed.  In the world, one must get a license (and therefore instruction) to simply drive a car.  But, bring a life into this world?  Hey, it's wing time!  Most miserable lives are the result of miserable parenting.  Adults too immature to have chldren.  Adults too uneducated even to know how to care for a child, let alone raise it and tend to its developmental needs.  The result are children that wish they weren't alive at all.  We even read on this forum of young people who claim they want to die.  Life is not always the happiest option.

If religion wants truly to be of service, it should offer practical child-rearing education to prospective parents instead of spiritual cliches. 

And, yes, I should be practicing.  But I'm off to work.  Bye.

I think you say a lot that's right, especialyl in the second-to-last paragraph.  But the suicidal tendencies of some children should never be placed as a total blame on the parent.  There are many children with miserable childhoods, that want to live even more fully.  There are many children with debilitating psychological conditions, whether they endured miserable life or not, who can be treated with drugs and therapy.

In short, the desire to end life should not be seen as proof that life should not be miserable, or that we are somehow better off without it.  From a different standpoint, Christians argue that because life only begins after death, it is ok to enforce and encourage material and spiritual misery on this earth.  Mother Theresa was one of the proponents of this philosophy.  Although there are many anti-Catholic Christians on this forum, don't let them convince you it is only a Catholic phenomenon; it's a logic that is well-founded in the Bible, not in any doctrine of any sect.

For those who say they wish they had never born, who are miserable in life, we should do everything in our power to show them what we know to be the beauty of this life on earth, not encourage their misery, and suggest that they are right.

Walter Ramsey

[n_n]

i briefly read the thread and was reminded of another topic:

Is it legal for the doctors to disconnect the life support equipment of a patient who is brain dead, w/ no chance to ever wake up again, not a single family member or relative alive, but still has heartbeat? 

Family members have the right to choose to stop this heartbeat since brain death is the legal and medical definition for "death". It is sort of interesting that we don't see as many protesters against this issue that is actually extremely similar, if not the same, in nature.

I remember one of the factors in determing what is legal in the case above was whether the patient feels pain at the moment of being disconnected with the machine... again, it might have some implications on the abortion issue too?

I'm not here to debate. I just suddenly thought that it is amazing that both birth and death are surrounded by ethical dilemmas. hummm...   i think it all comes down to the conflicts between scientific advances and nature (nothing to do with religion, IMO).

[timothy42b]

hmmm. not many seem to care about the life that "could have been." ---just whose ideas are "right." How dismal.

I do not care about life that could have been, or might have been, or should have been, or could be imagined to have been.  It isn't life. 

I care a great deal about life that is, and consider it sacred.  A few cells that have not differentiated and may never differentiate are not life to me.  Noone here has expressed any coherent argument why I should consider them life.  They consider it a given that I must simply accept it.  It is not a given, and I don't accept it. 

[pita bread]

I do not care about life that could have been, or might have been, or should have been, or could be imagined to have been.  It isn't life. 

I care a great deal about life that is, and consider it sacred.  A few cells that have not differentiated and may never differentiate are not life to me.  Noone here has expressed any coherent argument why I should consider them life.  They consider it a given that I must simply accept it.  It is not a given, and I don't accept it. 

Damn, some intelligence finally walked in the door.

[ahinton]

Damn, some intelligence finally walked in the door.

It has been known in these annals, you know...

Best,

Alistair

[G.W.K]

Would you kindly permit me to enter your crevice?

Hmmm.......latest incarnation of comme?

No, this is what I said when the persians refused my entry, I thought I'd try asking nicely before slaughtering them 

Am I missing something here? What has this got to do with abortion? Speaking of an infamous person whom has long departed from PianoStreet...at least that is what we are led to believe...

Could we maybe return to the original topic...it was quite interesting before then.

G.W.K