Abortion

[adherent]

So, do you think abortion is okay?

[Corvus]

The choices are a bit limiting, adherent. No one, not even those who support a woman's right to choose, believe in unrestricted abortion. Most pro-choicers I know believe abortion is fine up to a point. Most pro-lifers believe abortion is wrong from the moment of conception.

The real question is when a foetus becomes a person.

[adherent]

Arg, it didn't add the third option I put in: Undecided. Sry.

[Sweet]

A foetus is a life as soon as the egg ceel and sperm goin. And I don't beleve in abortion. Because you are killing a life, youre taking away someone's chance to life. It's very similar to taking a childs life, youre taking away his or hers chance to grow up etc.

[Quarkhead]

Adherent, I added an 'undecided' option for you.

For me, the choices are still limiting. Abortion isn't necessarily 'okay,' but I believe it should be legal.

Unless there are serious health issues, or a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, I think choosing abortion is wrong. Ethically, I have a problem with it. That said, however, I find it interesting that so many Christian conservatives argue from an absolutist 'sanctity of life' position, when in so many other arenas, their vision of that 'sanctity' is relativist and tenuous.

[perspective]

Personally, I believe that each family should be able to do what they wish with their children, elders, and other family members. Yes, that includes allowing people to die if the family feels the quality of life for that individual is not up to the family standards of "worth living". Yes, that includes euthanasia for the greater good of the child, born or unborn. Yes, that includes Do Not Resuscitate for the elderly. No, that does not include murder in a fit of rage, murder for insurance money, or any other areas of dying or suffering that are used as a means to an end.

Of course my opinion is unpopular and outright horrid to some people. I only see life and death as natural occurences, and the absurdity of keeping someone alive to suffer is horrid in my eyes. Life is not something to be preserved at all costs in my book. There are many things worse than death to some people.

So in short, yes, abortion is perfectly OK as long as any potential people aren't being used as a means to an end.

[Corvus]

Adherent, I added an 'undecided' option for you.

For me, the choices are still limiting. Abortion isn't necessarily 'okay,' but I believe it should be legal.

Unless there are serious health issues, or a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, I think choosing abortion is wrong. Ethically, I have a problem with it. That said, however, I find it interesting that so many Christian conservatives argue from an absolutist 'sanctity of life' position, when in so many other arenas, their vision of that 'sanctity' is relativist and tenuous.

I'm not entirely sure why Christians are fixated on abortions. If there is an age of accountability, all aborted babies would go to heaven, and if salvation is based on faith not works, the mother who aborted her child can still meet her child there in the future.

[Crixus]

Personally, I believe that each family should be able to do what they wish with their children, elders, and other family members. Yes, that includes allowing people to die if the family feels the quality of life for that individual is not up to the family standards of "worth living". Yes, that includes euthanasia for the greater good of the child, born or unborn. Yes, that includes Do Not Resuscitate for the elderly. No, that does not include murder in a fit of rage, murder for insurance money, or any other areas of dying or suffering that are used as a means to an end.

An issue I have always had with allotting control over such things to familial structures is that it necessitates partiality of one person over the rest. It used to be, and still is in some places, that the patriarch of the family would make such decisions, and the scale of power descended from that point to the most lowborn of the daughters. This sort of hierarchy has, by most, been rejected continuously over human history.

Obviously as an anarchist I despise hierarchical power structures, but even within the modern pseudo-democratic mentality profound issues must arise from this scenario. I am certain that you are not proposing a return to socio-familial patriarchy, but then the question of who exactly is at the top of this framework must be addressed.

To my knowledge euthanasia and do not resuscitate orders, are directives which must be issued of ones own volition. Excepting cases where a person may be incapable of issuing any decisions about their medical treatment for an indefinite period. It seems to me, that you are advocating these decisions be made perhaps against the will of the affected, implicit in which is the creation of a hierarchical order within the family.

So what I am wondering is, in this scenario who is allotted power over who? And, why are these people eligible to impose their will upon others, especially when concerning the destruction of the lesser?

I'm not entirely sure why Christians are fixated on abortions. If there is an age of accountability, all aborted babies would go to heaven, and if salvation is based on faith not works, the mother who aborted her child can still meet her child there in the future.

Because as Christians it is our duty to show compassion, and seek justice in the world, even for society's untouchables. Certainly saving the life of a person warrants the attention of humans everywhere regardless of religion. However, the question you ask seems to pit Christians as nihilists seeking only to get into heaven through the most direct route. It could equally be asked why do Christians care about rape? If indeed through repentance the violator can obtain peace with God, and the victim is blameless. Yet, would it not be our desire to be aided if we were being victimized? So then to do nothing, to ignore the crime, would be to treat another as we would not them, treat us; thereby violating law. That is an argument from a literalist standpoint, but it should be apparent, with study of the bible, that God desires the preservation of all life, because, though we are not entirely aware of it, there is a purpose in our existence, and so there is a purpose in our choosing to follow God through our own merit.

[Corvus]

I'm not entirely sure why Christians are fixated on abortions. If there is an age of accountability, all aborted babies would go to heaven, and if salvation is based on faith not works, the mother who aborted her child can still meet her child there in the future.

Because as Christians it is our duty to show compassion, and seek justice in the world, even for society's untouchables. Certainly saving the life of a person warrants the attention of humans everywhere regardless of religion. However, the question you ask seems to pit Christians as nihilists seeking only to get into heaven through the most direct route.

Heaven is the direction for which we should be aiming. If our actions place us in heaven, then it's an ends with a completely justified means, approved by God, otherwise he would not have us there.

Why is life, finite pleasures and pains, better than heaven, an existence of perpetual happiness, and why is it worth saving a life if it could come at the cost of losing salvation?

It could equally be asked why do Christians care about rape?

I do not believe the situations are exactly equal. In the case of rape, the victim has an act imposed on them against their will, which brings grief and suffering. In the case of abortion, the only one to suffer is the father, mother, or transgressor. If the baby suffers, it is temporary, and if it loses its life, it cannot miss something of which it may not have been aware.

As you showed clearly here:

To my knowledge euthanasia and do not resuscitate orders, are directives which must be issued of ones own volition. Excepting cases where a person may be incapable of issuing any decisions about their medical treatment for an indefinite period. It seems to me, that you are advocating these decisions be made perhaps against the will of the affected, implicit in which is the creation of a hierarchical order within the family.

...you understand will is something to be considered when a person's life is taken. So what then happens when there's no will?

That is an argument from a literalist standpoint, but it should be apparent, with study of the bible, that God desires the preservation of all life, because, though we are not entirely aware of it, there is a purpose in our existence, and so there is a purpose in our choosing to follow God through our own merit.

If he has a purpose then nothing can make him err in realising his plan, since he knew the outcome when he first breathed life into man. If our impermanent lives here hold a purpose, then so does out habitation in heaven, since if it had no purpose, we would never be there.

[perspective]

An issue I have always had with allotting control over such things to familial structures is that it necessitates partiality of one person over the rest. It used to be, and still is in some places, that the patriarch of the family would make such decisions, and the scale of power descended from that point to the most lowborn of the daughters. This sort of hierarchy has, by most, been rejected continuously over human history.

The structure of a family does not have to be underlaid by a a hierarchy. It can subsist through values and standards. Each family discusses openly and objectively what exact conditions make a life worth living or not living - both for themselves and for their loved ones. In the areas where a consensus can be reached, those standards set the bar for that family or community.

Obviously as an anarchist I despise hierarchical power structures, but even within the modern pseudo-democratic mentality profound issues must arise from this scenario. I am certain that you are not proposing a return to socio-familial patriarchy, but then the question of who exactly is at the top of this framework must be addressed.

No one need be at the top. But yes, profound issues will always arise from scenarios regarding life and death. No one is claiming that there is a simple solution that will be painless and happy. There will always be sadness surrounding death and suffering.

To my knowledge euthanasia and do not resuscitate orders, are directives which must be issued of ones own volition.

Euthanasia cannot be a directive that is issued of one's own volition. The child in question typically would not be old enough to make such a decision.

Excepting cases where a person may be incapable of issuing any decisions about their medical treatment for an indefinite period. It seems to me, that you are advocating these decisions be made perhaps against the will of the affected, implicit in which is the creation of a hierarchical order within the family.

If the loved one is able to make decisions and make those decisions known, the loved one's opinion should carry great weight with the rest of the family. That's part of treating someone as an end and not a means to an end. Any person who chooses to remain in suffering or chooses to live a life substandard from the rest of the world chooses that path on his own. It should not be chosen for him. That, to me, seems hierarchical - almost like sentencing.

So what I am wondering is, in this scenario who is allotted power over who? And, why are these people eligible to impose their will upon others, especially when concerning the destruction of the lesser?

Yes, people should be able to impose their will upon others only when those people are the people who love the person in question. If he is not loved by family, than why go on living anyway?