Young Writers Society

LOL! I did try to keep it from getting religious and keep it nice and neat!

But... uh... direct questions. Must answer. Don't get too upset.

That being said, I have a challenge for you. I, not unreasonably, figure that your position has Biblical grounding. Have you ever read this passage of the bible?

It is a reasonable assumption, yes, but I am Roman Catholic, so your assumption is kind of flawed already. We believe in the bible, yes, but we believe that the bible can (and has) been misinterpreted in many ways. And we believe that there are right interpretations and wrong interpretations. Seeing as the bible has been used to justify a host of things, such as slavery, tyranny, mass genocide, etc., this hopefully makes sense. Anyway, we follow both the bible and the doctrine. In particular, especially with modern issues, the doctrine is very valuable. Since the bible says nothing explicitly about abortion (abortion didn't really exist back then in the manner that it does now) the bible wouldn't have explicit directions about whether abortions should be carried out or whatever. However, we believe that the bible does contain directions on how people ought to be treated and what a person is. And that makes up the foundation of our doctrine. So, that's that.

Hopefully, this makes sense?

With that said, what we follow is Evangelium Vitae and Humana Vitae. Those are the main documents, I think. There's also the Catechism and more, but this is what you're looking for, I think.

Attoila: According to my religion, birth control is not allowed. So, yeah. Plan B is not possible for me, lol. So, your logic that you presumed is correct here, though obviously I wouldn't force you to follow it. (Also, the link is just for fun. )

Still, even with religion out (and yes, I am trying to keep religion out of my discussions since I realize that very few of you want to convert to Roman Catholicism), abortion is still a tricky question because of the two questions I posed above a couple of posts ago: 1) when does a human body become a human person, and 2) how much suffering should one human take before it is permissible to kill the living human organism that is causing the suffering?



EDIT: OMG. YES. Did I mention that I loved Monty Python? XD Also, don't watch this seriously. Please.

Well I for one am opposed to the idea of abortion. This is mainly because of two reasons: Religious and Moral values, and many others too. I'm not exactly against pro-abortion, but, in my opinion, it's a problem in our nation. Let's discuss them, shall we?

1.) In terms of economy, taking care of a baby a kind of a burden, yes. But there is no need for abortion. Why create them anyway, if we are to kill them? If the couple didn't create it, then no debate would happen! It was a mistake, many would say. It is always 'a mistake'. And how would we resolve a mistake? By creating another one. No. Think about it, there are a lot of consequences in abortion. Post-operation sicknesses, stress, fatigue and even psychological depression (a mix of guilt and fear). So people would say there are also many consequences of having a child. Well then if we can pour in our everything in those children, then those little people will be the ones pouring almost they're everything to us in a matter of time. It's a circle of life.
About poverty, well, there are a lot of ways to gain money. We can get jobs, even the smallest can do. Also, government programs can also be a source of support. If the burden is still not lightened, there is also the fosters, right?

2.) A few others said that the fetus is not a human being yet. It can't feel anything, it can't think of anything. It didn't know it died. It can't be considered murder. But if we took a deeper approach, we can see that the fetus is alive. It eats, it drinks, it moves (a bit). And it can be considered murder. It's alive, right?

3.) On religion, well, whatever you believe in, abortion is a sin.

That's all I can say, I think. I'm not against the people who're pro-abortion; I'm against abortion itself.

. It eats, it drinks, it moves (a bit). And it can be considered murder. It's alive, right?

So you're a vegan?

Vegetarian, actually.

And you're aware that the dairy and egg industry and the meat industry are one and the same? Are your clothes made in sweat shops? Do you wear leather? Do you wear wool? Do you wear cotton even though it wastes water and polutes rivers? Do you eat organic because of the cost of life? Do you not eat organic because to do so often involves growing more food for the bugs to eat, essentially breeding more bugs and wasting food while people are starving? Do you eat chocolate or drink coffee despite the injustices within the trade? Do you drink tea despite the overpackaging? Do you volunteer and donate money because you are aware that if you witness suffering without doing something about it, you are complicit? Have you ever had medicine or a vaccine tested on animals? Have you ever had detergent or aerosols or toothpaste tested on animals? Have you ever protested the death penalty? Do you travel? Do you have garbage? Do you exhale?

There is a cost to every choice we make. Everything has consequences. I'm glad you're vegetarian, it is less hypocritical. The thing is, abortion has been illegal before, it is still in many places, and it doesn't stop people from getting them, it makes backyard abortionists rich and leaves dumpsters full of desperate pregnant women's corpses. It is a terrible death, I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

You wouldn't want someone to force you to have an abortion, other people wouldn't want you to force them to carry to term. Judging people in that situation doesn't change the outcome. I've never been pregnant, thank God, I can't even imagine how hard it is to be put in that situation. There are worse atrocities in the world that I actually can do something about.

Since the bible says nothing explicitly about abortion (abortion didn't really exist back then in the manner that it does now) the bible wouldn't have explicit directions about whether abortions should be carried out or whatever. However, we believe that the bible does contain directions on how people ought to be treated and what a person is.

I really respect how you believe. You don't use religion as dogma, as others sometimes do.

Attoila: According to my religion, birth control is not allowed. So, yeah. Plan B is not possible for me, lol. So, your logic that you presumed is correct here, though obviously I wouldn't force you to follow it. (Also, the link is just for fun. )

Dude, I respect you so much for this then. How you actually take your principles through to their logical conclusion. You don't just cherry pick the things you want to follow - good for you.

abortion is still a tricky question because of the two questions I posed above a couple of posts ago: 1) when does a human body become a human person, and 2) how much suffering should one human take before it is permissible to kill the living human organism that is causing the suffering?

I agree that this is the crux. Except that 2 depends on a certain answer for 1, so mainly I believe #1 is the real center of the debate - except that I would change its wording to "when do we become humans?" I briefly went into my thoughts on this a few posts back. But mostly I believe that exactly because this question is so hard to answer, that's why they need to be legal. Everyone is going to have their own answer to this question, and they should be allowed to have the freedom to practice what they believe in accordance to it. If we lived under theocracies or governments that did dictate all morals, this would be different.

OK, thanks for humoring me Snoink. I understand your response to be: the Bible says a LOT of things, we don't care.

Now, since you brought it up, from a NON-religious standpoint, why do you believe the use of birth control is immoral?

(And while we're admiring Monty Python...)



Attolia: Since you want to discuss rather what government can do then I think we should clarify that giving women the choice is the only option. The government here does not have knowledge of personhood in the first trimester and thus backs off. In contrast, a pro-life stance would say that the government should have the right to regulate a woman's body. This is an intellectual outrage, and a slippery slope indeed.

In contrast, a pro-life stance would say that the government should have the right to regulate a woman's body. This is an intellectual outrage, and a slippery slope indeed.

Yes, exactly!

Otherwise it's the government telling me "You're just a woman, Katrina. It's your duty, for all of our sakes, to dedicate the next nine months of your life to carrying this child." No thanks, Government. This ain't the Third Reich. My life does not belong to the state.

An infant isn't made the second we finish sex, otherwise there'd be no debate. It takes nine months of time in which I have to make it a human baby. I suppose I am more feminist than I thought, as the concept of anyone forcing me to be pregnant against my will and insinuating I'm just a childbearer nauseates me.

Alfred: I think the problem with what you're saying is that you are implying that fetuses human beings, yet you say they should be saved because they are alive. Why? A lot of organisms wiggle about, yet we kill them freely. For instance, sunflowers move toward the sun. They drink water and they eat the various sugars that their plant provides during photosynthesis... plus the nutrients that are available to them in the soil (such as fertilizer, etc.) Does this mean we can't eat sunflower seeds? Well... no. If we, ourselves, want to live, we have to eat, after all. So, we have to realize that life consists of a series of sacrifices. And that, if we want to maintain life, we have to destroy it. Hopefully, we will do this in a humane and environmentally friendly way!

Still, the idea that an organism deserves life just because it wiggles around, it eats, and it drinks is not good enough. We don't consider it murder to kill a fly, for instance. Why? Because it's not human. So, if you want to prove that killing this organism in the womb is murder, you have to prove first and foremost that this organism is a human.

I agree that this is the crux. Except that 2 depends on a certain answer for 1, so mainly I believe #1 is the real center of the debate - except that I would change its wording to "when do we become humans?" I briefly went into my thoughts on this a few posts back. But mostly I believe that exactly because this question is so hard to answer, that's why they need to be legal. Everyone is going to have their own answer to this question, and they should be allowed to have the freedom to practice what they believe in accordance to it. If we lived under theocracies or governments that did dictate all morals, this would be different.

Haha, #1 is definitely the tricky one. Still, I would argue that, because this question is so hard to answer, that we need to answer it conclusively as a society so we can live with each other better. If someone said, "Oh, well, I don't think this five-year-old mentally retarded son has any humanity, so I killed him" this would not be justifiable at all. Our society cannot run on individual opinions. There has to be some sort of agreement involved in the standards. So, if we wish to believe that humanity starts as soon as the doctor spanks the newborn baby and the baby cries, then that's that. If we wish to believe that humanity starts as soon as the kid learns how to read, that would be another measurement. If we wish to believe that humanity starts as soon as conception, that would be another measurement. But, there has to be some sort of agreement here.

Also... er... religion is pretty much a huge dogma, just so you know. ^^;;

I understand your response to be: the Bible says a LOT of things, we don't care.

That is a gross over-simplification of things to the point of being wrong, but if that's the way you would like to think about it, then okay. ^^;;

Now, since you brought it up, from a NON-religious standpoint, why do you believe the use of birth control is immoral?

I am not quite sure what you are asking me here, honestly. You ask me why I believe the use of birth control is immoral, yet I can't use religion in the discussion. To discuss immorality is to describe why something wrong is wrong using a certain standards of morality. So, first I would have to define what the certain standards of morality is without using religion. Which means that I would have to answer the fundamental questions of what is humanity and what is sexuality and what the purpose or value of human life is in the first place (because those are at the core of any birth control discussion). Then I would have to describe what "wrong" means in this particular case, and what it means to be "wrong." And then, and only then, could we have an intelligent discussion about this.

I mean, I guess you can cop out and say the generic argument which goes kind of like this: "Birth control is necessary! There are too many humans already and we don't have enough resources to go around and we should concentrate on the people we have already! Besides, some people cannot afford to raise their children, and other people are not able to care for their children, and other people are not emotionally ready to have children, so it's better to wait until they are ready to have children!"

But, those arguments, while valid, have interesting ideas attached to them.

1. Why don't we have enough resources? What resources do we need? What do we consider to be necessary for our children to have? Can our children do without certain resources? Why or why not?

2. From many of these arguments, it seems like there is a lot of emphasis on money and earning. Why? Is this a healthy belief or not? Why do we believe that we have to have this much money? Why is this so much the focus on many of the arguments?

3. Raising children is seen as something that one must be ready for. What steps must someone do to get ready to raise children? When can someone not raise children? When can someone raise children? When should someone not raise children?

4. Birth control is seen as a way to have sexual freedom and to express your love sexually. How is love expressed in sex? Why is sexual freedom so necessary for the individual.

Anyway! If you want me to get rid of my dogmas, you have to get rid of your dogmas as well and we would have to start from the base up. I am not sure of your particular dogmas, or why you justify birth control, but I think that our disagreements are disagreements, not because that we have slightly different views on things, but rather because our dogmas clash so dramatically that we cannot see eye to eye on this. And yes, you have dogmas too, lol. For instance, if you agree with the whole money issue as a means of justifying birth control, for instance, you have a dogma that the pursuit of money should be a priority in life. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Really. But, you have to understand that you follow these ideas.

In any case, this topic would be better off in a different thread. Otherwise, we would get way off topic here.

Attolia: Since you want to discuss rather what government can do then I think we should clarify that giving women the choice is the only option. The government here does not have knowledge of personhood in the first trimester and thus backs off. In contrast, a pro-life stance would say that the government should have the right to regulate a woman's body. This is an intellectual outrage, and a slippery slope indeed.

Lol, not quite. The pro-life stance is that the government should protect all its inhabitants, and that a fetus is just as precious as a child and should be protected. If the woman's body is regulated, it's because it's a side effect of protecting the fetus, not because the government wants to regulate the woman. See the difference? Think of it as kind of like protecting a witness from the mafia in a witness protection program. You want to save the witness as much as is possible, and if that means that you have to go against the mafia, you do it. This is the pro-life view. But, understand that this is with the idea that a fetus has personhood.

By the way... you said that government here does not have knowledge of personhood in the first trimester. Does the government have knowledge of personhood in the second or third trimester? I mean, the fetus does look more human. But, it's still entirely dependent on the mother, and what if the mother doesn't want the child? It's not as if the mother can just hand the fetus to someone else, as in adoption. I can understand the argument that a fetus is different from a child because the mother can put her child up for adoption, whereas she's kind of stuck with the fetus until it is born. But, if you are going to argue that, then why not argue for abortions until the child is just about to be born? Would any of you pro-choicers agree with this idea?

Fair enough Snoink! I'll try to focus more on the issue at hand. I did distort my political statement with the bias that a fetus should not have the right to life or whatever you want to call it.

The debate should be framed then as the point in which a fetus becomes a person. This is a question that seems unanswerable by science. It then becomes in fact a religious, or philosophical question. This is why I say the government has no ability to know whether or not a fetus is a person, thus not taking a side so to speak.

I think there's plenty of room for thought on that point, though. What needs to be remembered is that personhood is a universal concept. If your definition applies to an embryo, or an ovum and sperm, or what have you, it also applies to everything else in the world.

I would like to discuss this philosophically and perhaps sort out our contradictions, but any supernatural claims disqualify an argument, or at the very least end the discussion.

Dude, this is getting so fun and juicy.

Still, I would argue that, because this question is so hard to answer, that we need to answer it conclusively as a society so we can live with each other better.

So you would be okay if we conclusively as a society decided it is not murder?

Moral issues that do not obstruct order or our rights have a very sticky place in law. Ultimately, in free democratic societies, laws can only be based off morals if a heavy majority agrees that it is, in fact, immoral. You're exactly right - our society isn't based off individual opinions, it's based off the majority. But murdering your five-year-old child is universally deemed bad in our society, that's not really held in much contention.

But that's just it; I feel like majority of citizens have come to a consensus (at least as much a consensus as we're going to get for now): they do believe that having a procedure to get a fetus out of your uterus should be legal, even if some of them personally don't like the thought of it. That's the first thing that validates abortion. But even if the populace did deem abortion illegal, I'd still take the issue to the supreme court as an obstruction of my rights - where they would, and did, conclude that "the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision."

Also... er... religion is pretty much a huge dogma, just so you know.

Organized religion, yes. Deism, no. Individual religious/spiritual beliefs, no.


Question - so do you believe that birth control should be outlawed?

I could and really want to address all your birth control points, but I agree that it'd be getting off topic. But also, honestly, I'd find it too easy, as I could sum up my argument into this:

Free, democratic, progressive, modern society = birth control.

Simply put, we have the freedom to have sex for fun. (Like dolphins! )

LOL! I wrote a nice long reply to this, but it got erased. I hate myself. XD But that's okay, because it was mostly about birth control (in response to your question, Attoila), and... uh... that's off-topic.

We should start up a topic on birth control, I think. I'm pretty sure that the answers to this question would be absolutely fascinating as well, especially since it's not as clear-cut in the Christian world as abortion is. I think you'll really find a really diverse amount of opinions, as far as everything goes. And, that's the cool part about the debate forum, right?

But, yeah! I would love discussing this idea further and fleshing it out! And I don't think it'll be too easy either, lol, because there is no general consensus on the word "free" even though we use it all the time. And, the word "progressive" indicates we're progressing toward something... so what are we progressing toward? So, we can really go deep into those ideas and discuss them at length.

I would like to discuss this philosophically and perhaps sort out our contradictions, but any supernatural claims disqualify an argument, or at the very least end the discussion.

That would be lovely! I was hoping for something like this. Just... er... one request! There are many philosophers from various religions (including Christianity) that have excellent ideas, and I think it would be a shame not to delve into those ideas, just because they are made from a religious perspective. However, I am fine with not using sacred writings to justify or to condemn abortion.

So you would be okay if we conclusively as a society decided it is not murder?

Me, personally? No, lol. Like you, I would fight it if I thought there was injustice.

When I said what I did, I mean that, right now, there is not a general consensus with when life begins. So, it's necessary to define it for legal reasons.

http://news.yahoo.com/2-abortion-provid ... 3QD;_ylv=3

^This seems relevant. If the doctor really was aborting 36 week fetuses without the mother being at risk, I could agree with the charge of murder - why not just do a C-section, dude? But for now I'm going to refrain from stating an opinion. However, I agree with this:

"In Maryland, licensed physicians can perform abortions before the fetus is deemed capable of surviving outside the womb, and abortions of viable fetuses are permitted to protect the life or health of the mother or if the fetus has serious genetic abnormalities. Doctors generally consider fetuses to be viable starting around 23 weeks"

So I guess that's where the state of Maryland makes the line that we've been debating.


**And here is where I remove myself from posting more on this thread.**

PS - Snoink, I'd definitely be down for that birth control topic, though.

Kit wrote:And you're aware that the dairy and egg industry and the meat industry are one and the same? Are your clothes made in sweat shops? Do you wear leather? Do you wear wool? Do you wear cotton even though it wastes water and polutes rivers? Do you eat organic because of the cost of life? Do you not eat organic because to do so often involves growing more food for the bugs to eat, essentially breeding more bugs and wasting food while people are starving? Do you eat chocolate or drink coffee despite the injustices within the trade? Do you drink tea despite the overpackaging? Do you volunteer and donate money because you are aware that if you witness suffering without doing something about it, you are complicit? Have you ever had medicine or a vaccine tested on animals? Have you ever had detergent or aerosols or toothpaste tested on animals? Have you ever protested the death penalty? Do you travel? Do you have garbage? Do you exhale?

There is a cost to every choice we make. Everything has consequences. I'm glad you're vegetarian, it is less hypocritical. The thing is, abortion has been illegal before, it is still in many places, and it doesn't stop people from getting them, it makes backyard abortionists rich and leaves dumpsters full of desperate pregnant women's corpses. It is a terrible death, I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

You wouldn't want someone to force you to have an abortion, other people wouldn't want you to force them to carry to term. Judging people in that situation doesn't change the outcome. I've never been pregnant, thank God, I can't even imagine how hard it is to be put in that situation. There are worse atrocities in the world that I actually can do something about.

To leave to world alone and it's resorces would have naked, cold, starved, dead people all over the place. It's what we have to do to survive. Resocres keep us alive and convinence us.

If a bay can be carried to term after being taken after the mother at embryo or fetus stage, it would be done. but we do not have the technology to do it safely, not yet. In the mean timewe have to deal with rapes, and mistakes. Money, ethics everythings comes into pplay when a child is on the line.

People have getting people for causing the accident that killed their child (car crash) example, my aunt was in a crash with her unborn baby, it he had died, the person responsable would not be trialed, since a unborn baby is not 'alive' in the eyes of the law in several states of australia.

So, killing a child in the womb is not considered murder. Abortion for the wrong reasons is bad. But Abortions for the right reasons good? Ethics.

My puny reply will be NOTHING like the excellent points/issues raised previously, and I may be repeating what someone may have already said, but here is my two cents.

Abortion is a very touchy subject. An extremely touchy one, at best. Let me clarify that I am not in Camp For or Camp Against. I understand it is traumatic and something that brings on guilt, but honestly it's the woman's choice. There are certain situations where the last thing a woman wants is a baby. As cruel as it sounds, it is true.

Take this scenario: Brenda is a really smart girl about to sit her exams. However, she falls pregnant. What does she do? By having the baby she'll have to drop out of school, meaning scarse qualifications and no money to pay for the baby. If she aborts however, it goes back to the argument about morals.

Is it murder? Well, it depends. Technically in the first couple of weeks the foetus is not a baby, and is still developing in the early stages, so this is the ideal time in my opinion to abort. Aborting after those first couple of works springs more controversy. Again, the foetus is still developing but this time it is developing into a baby that relies on it's mother. One of the most horrifying experiences I can think of is going to the clinic, and them yanking a 5-6 month foetus out of me.

Murder? A man shooting another man is clear murder. I don't have an opinion whether or not it is murder, because that would lead to a recurring argument that will never end. However, while abortion is frowned upon in religion, it is down to the lady herself. Whether you agree with her decision or not, she has a right to her body. Even if it means ending a life before it's born.

And thus that is why abortion is a never ending dilemma: even at times when it seems right to do, you still feel wrong about it. I am not religious, nor am I non-religious, but if you argue that God decided this baby's fate, then does that mean that if a mother has a miscarriage the baby's fate is to die? Again, a never ending dilemma.

These points may seem very unsubtle and repetitious, but what the heck? Just my opinion.