Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would love to donate to charity, but don't have the extra money. I'm sure a lot of other people are in the same boat.
Not all people. And why wouldn't it be better for them to CHOOSE where their money goes instead of just handing it over to the government which makes arbitrary decisions and in many people's opinion, overfunds the military?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,623,335 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Not all people. And why wouldn't it be better for them to CHOOSE where their money goes instead of just handing it over to the government which makes arbitrary decisions and in many people's opinion, overfunds the military?
I like the government doing it, because by rule of law/regulations, the money has to go to the approved recipient. Where with charity, someone could decide they want to take a vacation or buy a boat instead of donating in a given month
Deep in my heart of hearts, I don't believe we are meant to stop the lives that grow within us...
I am not sure we are "meant" to do anything but granting, for the sake of argument, that there is some absolute moral bedrock on this issue, I'd like to suggest an alternative moral intuition. (Not necessarily to change anyone's mind, but simply to deepen understanding of alternatives.)
I'd say that women are the natural biological "gate-keepers" of human life. Numerous scientific studies have confirmed that a mother's emotional states affect her fetus. Extreme stress levels can, in some cases, even lead to significant fetal damage or miscarriage. On the flip side, positive mental health can positively affect the fetus. As I see it, this fact of biology is Reality's way of telling us that not every fetus is necessarily "meant" to be born. A woman's brain is an aspect of her biology. Given that her body can, in some cases, "choose" to spontaneously abort, why should we automatically assume that it is wrong for her to consciously choose to abort? Why would her choice to do this be any less "natural" or "meant to be" than another woman's choice to go all the way to birth? Nature is not concerned with birth, per se. Nature is concerned with healthy births that eventually lead to reproductive success somewhere down the line. If anything is "meant to be" I'd say what's meant to be is that a mother chooses what's best for her, what's best for her family, and what's best for the fetus within her.
Concerning that last point: No doubt the anti-abortionist will say that what's best for the fetus is always to be born, without exception. But, realistically, human intuitions vary. Some people will say "I wish I was never born" and then prove they are serious about this by committing suicide. Given the harsh realities of life - the miserable health conditions that fetuses can be born with, or miserable environmental conditions that they can be born into - it is not 100% clear, on the basis of logic alone, that the best thing for every fetus is always to be born. How do we know, for sure, that a mother's intuitions favoring abortion might not ultimately be best for the fetus? Your intuition and/or spiritual beliefs might make it 100% clear in your mind that the best thing is always for the fetus to be born, but what is not clear is that your intuitions or beliefs ought to be imposed on other people.
I know that anti-abortionists will want to apply a slippery slope argument at this point. If a woman can abort a fetus, why can't she just kill her year-old child? Why can we all just go around killing people if we think they are miserable, etc.? Here the answer has to fall into the category of practical human social nature. Human morality generally goes beyond pure biological necessity or biological possibilities. We make moral rules because, as social creatures, we need social rules. To the best of our ability we make these rules as practical as possible, given natural "landmarks" or divides. The act of birth is a landmark natural divide and it, quite simply, makes sense to draw a moral line at this divide. Prior to birth the fetus depends on the mother in a way that is not true after birth. I know that most anti-abortion folks will not agree with these intuitions and they will want to draw different lines (e.g., "conception" rather than "birth"), but my point is that these are matters of intuition and/or spiritual belief - not hard, fixed purely logical or biological determinates of morality. My "moral bedrock" might be different that yours on this issue.
When all is said and done, I say that the mother's own intuitions and/or spiritual beliefs have to take precedence over the rules that others might want to impose upon her.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-03-2017 at 10:21 AM..
I like the government doing it, because by rule of law/regulations, the money has to go to the approved recipient. Where with charity, someone could decide they want to take a vacation or buy a boat instead of donating in a given month
You seem to think that there isn't enough support among the population to help out those in legitimate need. Why is that? Just look at this forum. There's overwhelming support for helping the needy. Look at Americans in general. Charitable giving is very high:
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,623,335 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You seem to think that there isn't enough support among the population to help out those in legitimate need. Why is that? Just look at this forum. There's overwhelming support for helping the needy. Look at Americans in general> Charitable giving is very high:
I googled "immortal soul" as I was unsure where you were going with this. Google returned with a band, and a belief from a book called the Bible.
So you want to base current laws, and the health of women and babies, on a fictional book? Seriously? Why don't we add in the opinions of all book authors. Who wrote 50 Shades of Grey?
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. It is not I who wants to base laws on the Bible, but the fundamentalist Christians who mistakenly confuse the Pilgrims' desire for religious freedom for themselves from the Church of England with the Founding Father's desire for religious freedom for everyone, including atheists. I merely want one of the Bible believers to explain to me how abortion damages the fetus' soul, if they believe it has one. And I want someone who believes that everything is a part of God's plan to explain why, if that is the case, that abortion is not part of God's plan.
I support choice and have taken part in demonstrations. I have also acted as a clinic escort. When the protesters scream about God not wanting women to kill their babies, I asked these questions. They have never been answered, not even with an unsatisfying answer.
As far as the post I quoted, it makes mention of several real negative possibilities associated with childbirth. One of them, the death of the mother during childbirth, affected me directly, as it left my father an orphan, and me with no grandmother. I was commenting on the fact that the post was ignored by all of the respondants at that point.
I agree with you that it makes no logical sense to want to ban abortion, limit birth control, and then abandon the babies who are brought into the world by people who did not want them. That was also a factor in my life, as I know that my mother had two illegal abortions after I was born. As a young child, I was often subjected to my mother telling me that I had ruined her life and that she wished I had never been born. I tried to relieve her of me when I was in my teens, but my suicide attempt failed. She ignored it and never admitted that I ended up in the hospital because I was trying to take my own life. At that point in my life, it would have been better for me to have never been born. I would have avoided many molestations by a variety of people, and I would not have been subjected to the verbal, physical, and emotional abuse that my parents doled out to me.
Another issue that no one wants to mentioned is the girls who are getting pregnant by much older men, some of them their own fathers, stepfathers, or mothers' boyfriends. When a thirteen-year-old girl gets pregnant, it is very rarely by a thirteen-year-old boy. Even fifteen-year-olds are not considered mature enough to make the decision to have sex, so the laws are supposed to protect them from themselves. I guess little girls should know enough to keep their legs together. That would have helped the five-year-old who was recently raped in our community. It's a good thing she couldn't get pregnant because of her age. She did, however, contract a sexually transmitted disease. Too bad for her that she became sexually active before losing her first baby teeth.
They don't? Who gets the bill? The government? Nope. The self-injured party gets the bill. There is no 'you f'ed up and crashed your car' government health care fund.
If the person in that car accident doesn't have the money to pay for treatment, they STILL get treatment.
They still get surgery, their bones get set......and SOMEONE ELSE PAY FOT IT.....one way or another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
