Abortion - from a different perspective.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, Oct 5, 2010.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1
    The question relates to philosophy behind pro-choice abortion advocacy and how far the position actually goes. Basically, proponents of abortion often use some sort of justification that the child would live a 'tough' life or that 'no one wants them' or that they will 'suffer'. The accusation is that these individuals may support said positions in part because they have no personal attachment to those very specific situations, i.e. they see someone who's poor, or who lived a life harder than their own and come to the conclusion that that life may not have been worth living (although the subject of the question may certainly disagree wholeheartedly).

    The question then becomes that perhaps if the justification for the killing/abortion was a bit more close to home, their position may change a bit.

    If for example there was an easily definable genetic predisposition in all humans found which could accurately predict homosexuality, and women/families began to abort these babies based on on testing positive for this genetic predisposition, would the same number pro-choice advocates still be pro-choice? Would the number of homosexuals who consider themselves to be pro-choice decline rapidly?

    What's your position? If abortion is used as a tool against homosexuality or against a particular race, etc. does your perspective on the morality of abortion change? If not, why not? If so, why, and how would you prevent it?
     
  2. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #2
    No, I'd still be pro-choice, because ultimately it's none of my business what a woman does with her own body, and she should be allowed to have an abortion regardless of the reason.

    But I bet most people who would hate their child because it's gay wouldn't abort a child either. What a Christian conundrum that would be :rolleyes: The kid is ****ed either way.
     
  3. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #3
    All you can do is say, well I disagree with her reason. Or I hate her reason. Or she's evil. I'm perfectly certain that there have been women who have had abortions because the father was black for example. I don't disagree with the woman's right to choose in that situation either. Might not like it, but it changes nothing. The right is an absolute in my view.


    After birth that's a different matter.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    That's what I say. Less kids having to grow up with fundamentalist Christian parents, and more pro-choice Christians.
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    I think there is something for saying that abortions shouldn't be allowed where they affect people who are members of a usual protected class (so on grounds of sex, I guess colour, and sexuality).

    How I could reconcile that with abortions on socio-economic grounds and whether making people have kids they don't want is difficult.

    Good thread btw fivepoint, this one is interesting.
     
  6. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #6
    I've stated this in the other thread. It should always be the mother's choice regardless of circumstances. That would carry forward even into this hypothetical future.
     
  7. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #7
    Actually, I'd go a bit further. Any woman who has conceived reluctantly, or against her will, and does not, or feels she cannot, carry this pregnancy to term, should be allowed to terminate this pregnancy in my view. Unwanted children can carry that burden for life.

    Of course, abortion should in not be a substitute for proper sex education and readily available birth control, but sometimes there is no other choice.


    Cheers
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
    I don't care what the reasoning is (though I can say there are such things as a bad reason), it's not my body, therefore I shouldn't have any say over the internal workings of another human being.
     
  9. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #9
    Relevant, substantive posts from the old thread which sprung up the issue:


     
  10. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #10
    Just to correct the hypothetical. If we're talking an advanced world where such a test is possible then abortion wouldn't be required either. It could most easily be done and would be done with embryo selection using pre-implantation diagnosis.
     
  11. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #11
    I don't ask this rhetorically. I ask because I don't know what your sentences mean.

    Are you suggesting that this hypothetical scenario would not occur because the detected "gay gene" could be altered and, therefore, it would be "fixed" by the changing of the gene, as opposed to abortion?

    Again, I will state that is not a rhetorical (or loaded question). Feel free to break my question into parts if that makes it more appropriate.
     
  12. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #12
    I'm confused. Who would be the one to take this position? :confused:
     
  13. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #13
    I think he's saying that if such a test existed then a "suitable" embryo would be used instead, thus no need for an abortion in that example.
     
  14. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #14
    ^^^pretty much :)^^^

    No but if we're talking hypotheticals in an advanced future that is possible. I mean instead of going through the trouble (and time) of getting pregnant and the morbidity and mortality of testing and an abortion, if one is choosing attributes the very best way is to create multiple embryos via IVF and test them. You'd only implant the one that had the required characteristics thus rendering abortion unnecessary. It's exactly what is done these days with a number of heritable conditions.
     
  15. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    It wouldn't change my position on abortion.

    It would affect my views on some people's use of it.

    Just like (I imagine) you're pro gun... even though many people use them for ill purposes.
     
  16. william sire macrumors regular

    william sire

    #16
    This is an interesting perspective for analysis. However you need not venture into what may be in people minds given a particular concept for review. All you need do is look into the origins of the modern abortion movement. Have you ever heard the name Margaret Sanger?
     
  17. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    William Sire, the point you are making is a little pointless. It's the same argument that someone who believes in evolution must believe in everything Darwin once said, much the same way that anyone who believes in Christianity must believe in everything Christ once said.

    To someone like me, that argument makes no sense because I don't view authority in the same way you do. I don't think the value of an idea is inexorably tied to the person who first had that idea. I think the value of an idea is tied completely to the value of the idea itself.
     
  18. william sire macrumors regular

    william sire

    #18
    Except I posted to answer the perspective of fivepoints question. And this in that perspective answers that. But as far as using Christianity as an example, it is a bad one. If you profess Christianity it is because you believe as Christ said. Christianity is not a changing brand of product that allows you to create your own version.

    How you view the idea doesn’t change its purpose or effect. It only defines where you chose to, or rather think you can chose to limit it.

    But her own writings, and her own words speak in consistency with what I posted so all other interpretations of her are incorrect. Unless you believe that were she alive today she would argue that point... with herself.
     
  19. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #19
    Then why are there so many different denominations?
     
  20. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #20
    only one is true christianity, all the others are false
     
  21. william sire macrumors regular

    william sire

    #21
    Jesus himself said to his disciples “I have sheep that are not of this flock.” Until I know that the practices of any denomination is inconsistent with the word of GOD I may assume they are Christians as that is the foundation of being a Christian. The name associated with the group you are in is not the foundation. A “First Church of God” member is no more a Christian than a “Second Church of God” member.

    Of course if you are a “Christian” in the “Tower of Beelzebub and the horny Saints,” its safe to dismiss their sincerity and assume that’s a manmade brand of “Christianity” that is not real.
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    Ditto, and greatly worded.

    Thanks!
     
  23. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #23

    So, which branch of Christianity is real then? I have to ask, I'm not religious in the slightest, but I would like to know. Are the Catholic kids who go to the school next door part of a manmade religion? Or maybe the Scottish Presbyterian church up the road? Or maybe the small Greek Orthodox church a few hundred yards away?
     
  24. william sire macrumors regular

    william sire

    #24
    Again I’ll state, if they are rooted in GOD’s word and his instructions they are Christians. False Christians, and false practices of faith in general are not rooted in the word of GOD or blatantly dismiss GOD word.
     
  25. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #25
    So which types of christianity would you say are false christians?

    This is coming from an atheist so I'm just asking, you won't offend me.
     

Share This Page