If that’s what you got from my post, then I don’t think we have any more to say to each other. I was given an either-or proposition, and was trying to make some logical sense out of decision that God willing I will never have to make. OF COURSE I do not think that elderly peoples’ lives are worthless. BUT, I think we can all admit to ourselves that when a 95-year-old dies, we don’t consider it quite the tragedy that we do when a baby dies, even if it is not under natural circumstances.
I try very hard, as I stated, to be intellectually honest in my opinions, and also not be hypocritical. This is a tall order when you are given wildly far-fetched hypotheticals to work with.
Then I’m causing unbelievable harm when I shave every morning.
If that’s how you’re defining harm to a clump of cells, I still think it’s a (literally) microscopic amont of harm compared to the harm inflicted on a woman forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want.
Thank you very much…I appreciate the complement. And it’s totally find that you think I am wrong. If we didn’t disagree, what on EARTH would we have to talk about?
Well, that’s the thing. It doesn’t seem like it, does it? But, as I said, working backwards, I can’t find the appropriate spot where it goes from being that pile of cells and magically turns into a baby. Since I can’t find that spot, then I can’t justify a dividing line for when an abortion is OK, and when it isn’t.
Unfortunately, that also extends the definition of “harm” beyond all value. Eating formerly-alive animals or vegetables is also harmful, but we do it anyway. If we drink clean water, it’s after it’s been sterilized and all the one-celled bacteria in it have been killed. A woman who allows an unfertilized ovum to be expelled without doing her damnedest to try to fertilize it has created harm (even if this means living in a state of perpetual pregnancy through her fertile years). Any male masturbation or use of contraceptives or oral/anal sex means hundreds of millions of alive sperm cells are sent to their deaths. Is that harmful?
So let’s not “slice and dice” the concept of “harm”. Doesn’t that mean everything we do is harmful?
The thing is, I think the potential of the clump of cells has to be factored in. The cells you destroy shaving will never be anything but a skin cell or a hair cell. They are not destined to be sentient beings. I agree that the blastocyte is not a sentient being itself, but there is more to it than just a skin cell.
Are you a Jain, then? Do you follow the path of ahimsa? Do you sweep the ground when you walk so you won’t step on any bugs? Do you eat any meat or fish? Do you disapprove of killing plants for food? Do you avoid brushing your teeth so you won’t kill bacteria? If you don’t think these things are examples of “harm,” then you need to rethink your definition.
It’s impossible to live without killing things every day. Many of the things we kill have far more sentience than a frigging blastocyst. Does it cause more “harm” to kill a conscious, full grown pig with a full capacity to suffer or to kill a non-sentient clump of cells with no consciousness or ability to suffer?
Well, let’s evaluate it, then. A pregnant woman decides she doesn’t want a child. What is the value of denying her an abortion? The birth of that child into a situation where it wasn’t wanted? How valuable is that? And it’s not enough to simply say “life is precious” or something similar. An evaluation requires a hard factual analysis.
I tend to value her freedom more than the life of a potential person, in general terms. I’m perfectly happy to get far more specific and talk about crime rates and drug use in places where abortion is unavailable.
Isn’t that just a little of an understatement? You’re Catholic - I don’t think that’s “somewhat religious” so much as “definitely religious”.
I personally think it’s more than coincidence that you’re Catholic and pro-life, but I accept that you believe the two are not linked. Why then do you consider the foetus a human life? Do you believe it has a soul? Logical reasons for not considering a foetus to be a human life have been offered before. I think what you lack is an emotional reason.
See, I see it the exact opposite. The baby doesn’t have anyone depending on it. The baby hasn’t built dozens of relationships that will be hurt by his passing. The baby may grow up to be a social parasite. The baby hasn’t contributed anything to society. Potential is meaningless when you’re talking about reality.
I don’t think any of this is far-fetched. You’re putting more importance on a clump of cells than you are on those who already exist, who function, who contribute, who think, feel, love, work, etc. You don’t take into account that bringing the cells to the point of an individual, separate baby is no guarantee that that life is going to amount to anything. Embryos in many parts of the world are born into poverty and sickness. Many are orphaned from the moment they’re born. We *know * many children will be born into a horrible existence because that’s the way life is. You are looking at the issue through rose-colored glasses if you think that the right to be born into this world is automatically a good thing. It isn’t.
OK, that’s a bit clearer, but I wasn’t looking for hypotheticals, I was looking for answers like Sarahfeena’s.
I can accept that there are atheist pro-lifers. I just haven’t encountered any here. Reasoning always devolves down to the “humanity” of the foetus, but people are not often honest enough to back that up with their real, religiously-motivated reasons.
(my bolding)
An aborted foetus isn’t “destined” to be a sentient being either, clearly. It’s “destined” to be aborted. Why not let “destiny” take its course?
BTW, Sarafeena, despite how I may have been sounding, I want you to know that I also think you’re a cool poster and appreciate your efforts, like Salt Seller. Don’t let anything I wwrite make you think different, y’hear?
I, for one. I was pro-life long before I developed my religious convictions. The same is true of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL. He was an atheist when he turned away from the pro-choice cause.
Stratocaster, beagledave and I have discussed the abortion issue on the SDMB many times before. To the best of my recollection, none of us have ever offered any religious arguments against abortion. In fact, we have steadfastly avoided doing so.
Isn’t it at least fair to suggest that pay a lot more in taxes to support the foster system, and the price of increased law enforcement, court time and prisons to pay for the lives they insist must not be aborted?
So you don’t have to adopt. But would you pay twice as much in taxation to support all the unwanted babies that are now foisted on society? If you knew of a woman who unintentionally became pregnant and expressed some ideas about terminating her pregnancy, would you report her to authorities? How much personal effort are you willing to expend on this issue? That’s not an ad hominem attack; it’s a valid inquiry about how serious you are and how much responsibility you’re willing to assume.
JThunder, I assume that you believe that society has a certain responsibility toward children in general. In practice, society’s responsibility to unwanted children is *already * burdensome. So why is it out of line to ask someone who wants to prevent women from having abortions exactly what we’re to do with all these unwanted children?
