[PAX] let's talk

One is fully dependent on its mother for survival, the other is able to survive without the mother.
 
Shai Gar said:
One is fully dependent on its mother for survival, the other is able to survive without the mother.
Click to expand...

so, abortion is viable so long as the infant is dependant on the mother.

Couldn't the case be made that for the next several years the infant will be dependant on it's mother.
 
Barnabas said:
...I know the common religious view that life is sacred....
Click to expand...

Yeah, like those "pro-lifers" (read: anti-abortion) who worry about "unborn children" composed of 24 cells but favor capital punishment. By the way, sperm is alive and a potential (half) human. Is it sacred, too? If so, beware those who engage in the Sin of Onan.

Barnabas said:
Does the child have the right to life, does the child have the right to liberty, doe the child have the chance to pursue happiness.
Click to expand...

How about a blastocyst? Is that what you mean by a "child."

Despite the professed interest in this thread about non-religious opponents of choice (e.g., freedom over one's own body = freedom from the State's control over one's own body), I hate it when people try to shove their religion down my throat.

Interestingly, those who argue that "morality" can only derive from religion, essentially eschew separation of church and state when then seek to impose their "morality" on the nation by outlawing choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
Norton said:
Yeah, like those "pro-lifers" (read: anti-abortion) who worry about "unborn children" composed of 24 cells but favor capital punishment. By the way, sperm is alive and a potential (half) human. Is it sacred, too? If so, beware those who engage in the Sin of Onan.



How about a blastocyst? Is that what you mean by a "child."

Despite the professed interest in this thread about non-religious opponents of choice (e.g., freedom over one's own body = freedom from the State's control over one's own body), I hate it when people try to shove their religion down my throat.

Interestingly, those who argue that "morality" can only derive from religion, essentially eschew separation of church and state when then seek to impose their "morality" on the nation by outlawing choice.
Click to expand...


most of this is off topic and unnecessary, if you wish you could start a pug thread on that subject. But please while here remain peacefull.
 
I am pro-abortion. Despite the fact that I am very spiritual, I can explain the rationalle I have in a secular way.

It is a potential life. Therefore, it has the potential to live, and the potential to die. It could live on it's own, but it needs the aid of another person in order for it to survive. If it is still part of the mother, then I feel that is the mothers decision on what to do. If she feels she is not ready to have a child, for whatever reason, then she can remove the potential life. (don't bother trying to poke holes in my logic, I care not to debate it).

Simply put, it is a potential life, nothing more.
 
Barnabas said:
most of this is off topic and unnecessary, if you wish you could start a pug thread on that subject. But please while here remain peacefull.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but if you go back and read your own OP and analyze what I wrote, you'll see that it is, indeed, very much on topic. Second, there is no aspect of violence (i.e., opposite of "peaceful") in anything I wrote.
 
"this is a pax thread and as such it doesn't need to see negative attacks on either side of the debate just questions and answers."



Norton said:
Yeah, like those "pro-lifers" (read: anti-abortion) who worry about "unborn children" composed of 24 cells but favor capital punishment. By the way, sperm is alive and a potential (half) human. Is it sacred, too? If so, beware those who engage in the Sin of Onan.



How about a blastocyst? Is that what you mean by a "child."

Despite the professed interest in this thread about non-religious opponents of choice (e.g., freedom over one's own body = freedom from the State's control over one's own body), I hate it when people try to shove their religion down my throat.

Interestingly, those who argue that "morality" can only derive from religion, essentially eschew separation of church and state when then seek to impose their "morality" on the nation by outlawing choice.
Click to expand...

Capital punishment has nothing to do with this thread, also and though I did not directly state this, this is not a thread about the politics of abortion. If it was it would have been posted in the N&P section of the forum. Also this is not a religious thread and has been stated not to be so and yet you brought it up. further more this thread has not been made to discuss morality or it's origins.
 
Last edited:
As a "secular" person who is "pro-abortion" I agree with Norton's initial post. It's sort of difficult to ask people their views on abortion under the context of their views being secular and not receive a response that references the political.

It is interesting that those who are not in favor of abortion because it is seen as, "destroying a life" often times see no ethical inconsistency in their religious convictions with being in favor of capital punishment or even war... I think that can be pointed out without this discussion being turned into a conflict.

You asked for people's opinions on the subject, and you got them.
 
Barnabas said:
So i've been pondering abortion latley and thought I would come hear to ask, what is the secular view for pro-abortion?

why Is abortion considered a viable option for any reason other then life ending occurences.

secondly does abortion take away the right of an individual to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?

this is a pax thread and as such it doesn't need to see negative attacks on either side of the debate just questions and answers.

thanks.
Click to expand...

I am secular, therefore you are soliciting my view among others.

Most secular, pro-choice people don't consider scraping a collection of cells from the endometrium to be "life ending." This is in contrast to the many anti-choice people (they call themselves "pro-life") who favor capital punishment, a hypocrisy that demands mention.

Second, restricting choice takes away the right of an individual to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness by removing control over one's body. It also asserts undue State control over the individual and the individual's body, something that most secular, pro-choice people abhor.

Furthermore, many secular, pro-choice people resent having the religions of others impinge upon their freedoms. It's one thing for the followers of a particular religion to follow the dictates of their religion. It's quite another thing to impose their beliefs on others, particularly when it comes to something so personal as control of one's own body. This is how many secular, pro-choice people see it. If you are truly interested in the position secular, pro-choice people have on this issue, then you will acknowledge the validity of their feelings, even if they completely disagree with that which you are totally convinced is true.

Nothing of the above contradicts the concept of "pax," given your professed interest in how secular, pro-choice people feel about individual freedom. The feelings are strong. How could they be otherwise when the alternative is the State having control over one's body?

Think what you like. I will write no more.
 
Barnabas said:
"this is a pax thread and as such it doesn't need to see negative attacks on either side of the debate just questions and answers."

Capital punishment has nothing to do with this thread, also and though I did not directly state this, this is not a thread about the politics of abortion. If it was it would have been posted in the N&P section of the forum. Also this is not a religious thread and has been stated not to be so and yet you brought it up. further more this thread has not been made to discuss morality or it's origins.
Click to expand...

You cannot have a PAX thread, attempt to argue with everybody, and then cry foul when others argue back.
You are asking for secular opinions, and replying with "moral", or "religious" opposition.

You're not discussing anything, you're passively arguing your own points in opposition to secular reasons.

Norton said:
Sorry, but if you go back and read your own OP and analyze what I wrote, you'll see that it is, indeed, very much on topic. Second, there is no aspect of violence (i.e., opposite of "peaceful") in anything I wrote.
Click to expand...
Very true.
 
I apologise, Norton hind-sight being 20-20. I see my mistake, I'm genuinely not trying to argue.

As this subject has become deepl political I'm having a hard time seperating all the implications from one another.
 
I am pro-choice. I believe that every woman should have the option to end an unwanted pregnancy. Making it illegal does not mean she will carry the baby to term. Women find other ways of terminating pregnancies. These ways are not sanitary and much less safe for the woman and the "child" if botched. Clean and safe medical facilities cut down on back alley abortions. Simple as that.

However, I see absolutely no reason for third trimester abortions. the mother has had six months to decide whether or not she wanted to continue with the pregnancy by six months that cluster of cells that could have been scraped out early on now resembles a child. Three more months and it would all be over. If the mother chose not raise it, fine there is always adoption. She has come this far, why terminate now? The only good reason I see for late term abortions are medical issues.

Would I get an abortion? Depending on the situation, I might. I would have to weigh my options, list my pros and cons and make the best decision for me. I don't believe that I would choose to get an abortion even if I did not have the means to raise the child. I would likely consider adoption before termination. Now, if the idea of carrying that person's child for nine months sickened me (if the pregnancy resulted from an abusive relationship or rape) I would probably terminate.
 
DevilDoll said:
I am pro-choice. I believe that every woman should have the option to end an unwanted pregnancy. Making it illegal does not mean she will carry the baby to term. Women find other ways of terminating pregnancies. These ways are not sanitary and much less safe for the woman and the "child" if botched. Clean and safe medical facilities cut down on back alley abortions. Simple as that.

However, I see absolutely no reason for third trimester abortions. the mother has had six months to decide whether or not she wanted to continue with the pregnancy by six months that cluster of cells that could have been scraped out early on now resembles a child. Three more months and it would all be over. If the mother chose not raise it, fine there is always adoption. She has come this far, why terminate now? The only good reason I see for late term abortions are medical issues.

Would I get an abortion? Depending on the situation, I might. I would have to weigh my options, list my pros and cons and make the best decision for me. I don't believe that I would choose to get an abortion even if I did not have the means to raise the child. I would likely consider adoption before termination. Now, if the idea of carrying that person's child for nine months sickened me (if the pregnancy resulted from an abusive relationship or rape) I would probably terminate.
Click to expand...

so, you believe that women will have abortions in the future anyway and should have them done in clean safe enviroments, making them illegle will take away such an enviroment.

That women have if deciding after the first six months that she does not want to have a child should still continue throught with the pregnancy unless health issues arise.

and that you'd most likely have an abortion in a case of rape or abuse as opposed to having the appropriate income or ability to raise the child after birth.

did i get all that.


thanks for contributing, I agree with most of this.
 
Barnabas said:
so, you believe that women will have abortions in the future anyway and should have them done in clean safe enviroments, making them illegle will take away such an enviroment.

That women have if deciding after the first six months that she does not want to have a child should still continue throught with the pregnancy unless health issues arise.

and that you'd most likely have an abortion in a case of rape or abuse as opposed to having the appropriate income or ability to raise the child after birth.

did i get all that.


thanks for contributing, I agree with most of this.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the gist of it.
 
I am anti-abortion
especially when I saw this video

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8RUPUH-DoE"]YouTube- anti abortion. story of a baby[/ame]

From the very start of conception.. there is life.. and life is a miracle

if you don't want to get pregnant then don't do it... then use contraceptives or something

those poor babies........ they never had the chance to live :(
 
Last edited:
The controversy surrounding abortion seems to mainly stem from secular sources, for example in the hippocratic oath it says doctors shouldn't do it. From a human point of view, terminating the life of someone who has a perfectly viable candidacy for humanhood pulls on strings of innate human emotion.

What's odd is that the Christian right in America have really taken a rough stance towards abortion when there's really nothing direct about it in the bible. It never used to be an issue for the Protestants, so again it seems it's become another political issue for the religious to capitalise on, especially amongst Catholics.

I personally don't see much common sense in fretting over unborn humans more than those who are already born, so I don't object to abortion.
 
Last edited:
My views on abortion are quite simple. A woman should have the right to choose what goes on with her body. The circumstances of a conception can be complicated and it's often unwanted.

A child should not have to suffer because the mother was unfit or unprepared to take care of them.
 
I think it's their decision to make, but I don't support it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top