How to make abortions rare?

[JustMyron]

Sex between homosexuals isn't for reproduction at all. 

Excellent point. Teaching that sex is primarily for reproduction can be used to support an anti-homosexual viewpoint. And I really don't want to be cast as a homophobe, which is why I have butted in and responded to something that was addressed to QM. But... the thing is, although I support homosexuals openly being who they are, and I wouldn't call it unnatural, after pausing for reflection I'm going to stick with my position that the reason we have sex drive, and sex is pleasurable, is because those drives lead to us having more babies. Just because there are a few exceptions to that general statement doesn't mean it's not generally true.

My main point is that it's dangerous wishful thinking to think that sex and reproduction can be disconnected from each other through the use of contraceptive technology.

Can sex ever be purely about enjoyment? Sure, if it's between homosexuals, or a man and a woman where one or both have been surgically sterilized in a way where it is physically impossible for a pregnancy to result, or you include oral sex or other sexual acts where there is NO chance of impregnation in your definition of sex.

Actually, I was discussing the implications of contraception on society on a blog recently, and it occurred to me that one of the problems we have is that we use the same word for acts from which a pregnancy can result, and other acts where this is not the case. Acts from which a pregnancy can result carry an entirely different level of responsibility from those where it can't. Social constructs such as marriage are predicated on a definition of sex linked to pregnancy. As are a lot of notions of how relationships should be. A lot of guilt gets thrown around, and there is a lot of miscommunication between people about sex, because the definition of sex that involves a very serious commitment and sex that doesn't (because there is no possibility of pregnancy) both use the same word. We need a new word for one or both terms, so that the distinction is clear. The Catholics I was talking with on that blog viewed the implications of contraception being total social collapse, but I just think we'll eventually come up with a new word, and a lot of the moralizing around sex will focus where it should - on the acts that involve the possibility of conception.

[velkyn]

Sex between homosexuals isn't for reproduction at all. 

Excellent point. Teaching that sex is primarily for reproduction can be used to support an anti-homosexual viewpoint. And I really don't want to be cast as a homophobe, which is why I have butted in and responded to something that was addressed to QM. But... the thing is, although I support homosexuals openly being who they are, and I wouldn't call it unnatural, after pausing for reflection I'm going to stick with my position that the reason we have sex drive, and sex is pleasurable, is because those drives lead to us having more babies. Just because there are a few exceptions to that general statement doesn't mean it's not generally true.

My main point is that it's dangerous wishful thinking to think that sex and reproduction can be disconnected from each other through the use of contraceptive technology.

Can sex ever be purely about enjoyment? Sure, if it's between homosexuals, or a man and a woman where one or both have been surgically sterilized in a way where it is physically impossible for a pregnancy to result, or you include oral sex or other sexual acts where there is NO chance of impregnation in your definition of sex.

Actually, I was discussing the implications of contraception on society on a blog recently, and it occurred to me that one of the problems we have is that we use the same word for acts from which a pregnancy can result, and other acts where this is not the case. Acts from which a pregnancy can result carry an entirely different level of responsibility from those where it can't. Social constructs such as marriage are predicated on a definition of sex linked to pregnancy. As are a lot of notions of how relationships should be. A lot of guilt gets thrown around, and there is a lot of miscommunication between people about sex, because the definition of sex that involves a very serious commitment and sex that doesn't (because there is no possibility of pregnancy) both use the same word. We need a new word for one or both terms, so that the distinction is clear. The Catholics I was talking with on that blog viewed the implications of contraception being total social collapse, but I just think we'll eventually come up with a new word, and a lot of the moralizing around sex will focus where it should - on the acts that involve the possibility of conception.

I'm curious, what do you think about those who are simply infertile?  There are instances where intercourse isn't pleasureble for various reasons too. 

When I was in high school, a lot of my friends thought that lots of sexual acts had no chance of pregnancy. Again, education is key. 

I also find that sex is more for intimacy than reproduction in that I am married and have no desire for children but do find sex makes a relationship stronger.  YMMV. 

Very interesting ideas on how there should be basically two either "kinds" of sex or perhaps one should just be called something else 

[JustMyron]

I'm curious, what do you think about those who are simply infertile?

I think that's unfortunate (if they'd like to have children, that is. Otherwise, I suppose it's not). The question is a little broad. Was there something specific you were interested in finding out?

There are instances where intercourse isn't pleasurable for various reasons too.

Sure. In those instances, I'd say it shouldn't be forced - the idea that children are / sex is a requirement for a happy life shouldn't be pushed on people.

When I was in high school, a lot of my friends thought that lots of sexual acts had no chance of pregnancy. Again, education is key.

There's a real danger, because people want to have sex, of people underestimating the risk of pregnancy.

I also find that sex is more for intimacy than reproduction in that I am married and have no desire for children but do find sex makes a relationship stronger.

Sure. The Catholics I was talking to on that blog were in full agreement that another purpose of sex is to strengthen the bonds between the people who have it, by the way. The question is, although you don't want to have children, would one be OK?

In my (unmarried) state, what I think about the attachment value of sex is that very often one person or the other will think "this person really cares, he/she is willing to risk having a kid with me", or, "I really care about this person enough to raise a kid with them, so it's OK if we have sex". And because of the definitional difficulties I've mentioned above, people get hurt when their expectation of the closeness from sex isn't reciprocated. While I think sex can build closeness, it has to be done very carefully, with absolute clarity and agreement on what the sex you're having means. And it's easy to just "let it slide" and let the other person think sex brings a closeness that isn't really there. Outside of a committed relationship, I think promoting societal acknowledgement of the link between sex and reproduction (rather than denial of that in the interest of having sex for fun / to build closeness that may not really be there) leads to healthier relationships, because both people know where they stand. Certain kinds of sex, I guess it's OK to use them to build closeness, but there has to be a whole term-clarifying conversation that goes on beforehand, which too often just doesn't happen.

I think sex can have a very powerful closeness-building potential. But it can be diminished if you say it's just about pleasure and physical intimacy. To me, one of the most fantastic compliments you can give to another person is to say that you would be willing to raise a child with them. That you think so highly of them that you judge they would be a good parent, and you could see yourself with them for several decades at least, happily. When I have sex (I haven't yet, although I'm 28, because I haven't been in a suitable situation - although I won't say I haven't done anything sexual, I just haven't done anything that risks getting a girl pregnant) that's the statement my action will be making. I think it just makes things confusing and gets people hurt when you disconnect (in your mind) sex from the possibility of reproduction. It doesn't mean you shouldn't use contraception, but recognizing a baby could nevertheless result from your actions, and letting it be known that you're OK with that, builds a lot of closeness. If someone is not comfortable to make a statement about the parenting potential of the person they're having sex with, I can't see why they would risk a pregnancy with that person, when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives which will build a high (although not quite as high) level of physical intimacy, with no risk of either pregnancy or confusion about the meaning of the act.

[JustMyron]

Also, since sex where conception can happen and sexual acts where it cannot are so closely linked in many people's minds, it's very hard to draw and maintain a line once you've started in that direction. So I think it's for the best to acknowledge up front that all of those related acts are at least approaching something that involves reproduction, and the drives you're playing with are geared towards getting you to reproduce.

[QuestionMark]

You have a legitimate point here. If something made the laws of physics, and that same something made laws of objective right and wrong (if there is no such thing, this entire conversation seems to me to be pointless, so let's assume for the sake of the argument that objective right and wrong exist), then it would appear that that something doesn't mind abortion in some circumstances. However, my view is that same something gave us (or caused us to develop through natural means, I should say) a sense of right and wrong that's contingent on our ability to control things. If we have a choice about whether to abort, that's different from a "naturally occuring" abortion.

Permitting something to happen and not paying it mind are two different things.

[Sweetling]

I have to say that I'm shocked that no one has challenged this statement. 

You're shocked that no one else has a seared conscience in the same way you do?

Abortion is always objectively wrong.

Wow.  I've been back for less than a week and have already gotten QuestionMark's hoopskirts in a twist.  Thanks for the personal attack on my morality, QM.  Way to prove your point.

So, to address your baseless, unwarranted statements:

1. You don't know what my personal stance on abortion is, because I haven't stated it here.  I only pointed out my opinion that there is no objective truth on the morality of abortion.

2. Your implication that "no one else" has mixed feelings or sees a gray area in the abortion debate is ludicrous.  I am embarrassed for you.  And your use of the biblical "seared conscience" is almost funny, even as it insults.  One could posit that your blanket indictment of personal reproductive choice shows that your conscience has itself been cauterized against the varying needs of pregnant women.  You have chosen to value the potential life of the womb contents over the woman who already exists as part of our world community.  That is your right, but it is not a universal truth.  Every human on earth could agree on a moral question, and it still wouldn't necessarily be an objective truth; it's just what we've worked out.

3. Abortion is always objectively wrong?  Prove it, objectively.

(Topic for another day: If the bible provides such clear guidance on absolute truth, right and wrong, why is it so demonstrably easy for highly educated believers to disagree completely on so many of its teachings?  Is this where the Magic Decoder Ring comes into play?)

[QuestionMark]

1. You don't know what my personal stance on abortion is, because I haven't stated it here.  I only pointed out my opinion that there is no objective truth on the morality of abortion.

No, you pointed out that you have NO moral qualms about abortion. Because that's what it means to say there is no objective truth on the morality of abortion. You think it's ok to kill a baby the day before it is born. In fact you think there is no objective truth on the morality of killing a baby the day before it is born. Now if someone killed a month old child you'd probably have them arrested. If someone killed three you might demand their incarceration or death. But a day before the baby is born, in your world, cut off its limbs and suck out its brain, void it, no problem.

Is this where the Magic Decoder Ring comes into play?)

Yes. Without the Holy Spirit no one would accept the sanctity of life, because it disagrees with our ego.

[Sweetling]

1. You don't know what my personal stance on abortion is, because I haven't stated it here.  I only pointed out my opinion that there is no objective truth on the morality of abortion.

No, you pointed out that you have NO moral qualms about abortion... You think it's ok to kill a baby the day before it is born... But a day before the baby is born, in your world, cut off its limbs and suck out its brain, void it, no problem.

Now, if I wanted to go on the attack like some folks do around here I might say: "Show me where I said any of that, you mendacious blowhard."  I could smite thee with a hearty laugh.  But I will settle for putting you on notice that you are fabricating motives and using personal attacks, unwelcome behavior in this forum.  You might search your own ego before projecting your weaknesses onto others.

So!  Are you working on the Abortion is Objectively Wrong Proof?

[QuestionMark]

Go on the attack?

You said that there is nothing objectively wrong about abortion.

But you're concerned that it would be taboo to go on the attack? What a backwards world.

It's ok to kill babies but not to use strong words.

[Sunnysweets]

It's ok to kill babies but not to use strong words.

Yes, kill the babies but don't wear fur and no using strong words either!  That is the way of our world...

[Sweetling]

QM, if you do not enjoy being on the receiving end of a verbal lashing, please consider that feeling the next time you excoriate someone's morality and twist statements to fit a strained and narrow view of reality.  Thank you.

[QuestionMark]

What? Are we even in the same conversation?

Verbal lashings are quite literally all talk. You can talk all day about me, my mother, my race, or my car, it doesn't matter.

But when you pretend like you're a better person because you don't want to cross the political correctness line to defend your own beliefs, I would be remiss NOT to say something about it.

Killing babies is wrong. Murdering a defenseless child is sadly not the most cold thing we do, because we are a far more vile race. But it is evil and it is wrong, and if our victims had a chance they'd tell us and be right to seek vengeance, and God will repay.

You don't think that there's anything wrong with abortion, or you don't have the moral fabric to say that there's something wrong with abortion. Either way, if someone aborted a child you wouldn't tell them they were wrong. That's cowardly, and leads to all the deceptive evil in the world.

You might as well say there's nothing morally wrong, and turn your world on its head because apparently you think speaking directly to the person with the words necessary to address the real issues is the greatest moral calamity that has ever occurred.

Wake up! Your world is backwards.

[Sweetling]

apparently you think speaking directly to the person with the words necessary to address the real issues is the greatest moral calamity that has ever occurred.

I just had to repeat that.  Great stuff.

[QuestionMark]

Thanks.

I call it like I see it.

1. You say there's nothing wrong with abortion.
2. You say there is something wrong with saying there's something wrong with abortion.

Conclusion: It's worse to call someone out than to murder a baby.
So it's ok to suck someone's brain out, but not to say what you think directly to them.

[Sweetling]

I'm still eagerly awaiting the reasoning behind the continued existence of a clump of cells always taking moral precedence over the life choices or health needs of a pregnant person.  The person who can show that this is a universal truth, or even that it objectively serves the greater good, will surely impress every skeptic here.

[QuestionMark]

Do you believe in objective morality? That some things are necessarily and always wrong?

[Sweetling]

Thanks.

I call it like I see it.

1. You say there's nothing wrong with abortion.
2. You say there is something wrong with saying there's something wrong with abortion.

Conclusion: It's worse to call someone out than to murder a baby.
So it's ok to suck someone's brain out, but not to say what you think directly to them.

You are not calling it as you see it, because you don't really feel certain that I think calling someone out is the worst moral calamity.  You're just using colorful language to exaggerate what you see as my moral depravity.

And I challenge you to quote me saying you shouldn't say there's something wrong with abortion.  I never said that.  I also never said it's okay to suck out someone's brain.  I am getting tired of your sweeping statements which bear no resemblance to what people have actually said.  I am also tired of the baby murder refrain.  If you can't discuss the topic in an intelligent, adult manner, perhaps you should beg off.

I have no problem with anyone sharing their views.  I did ask you to show that it is an objective truth that ABORTION IS ALWAYS WRONG.  My own thoughts on the issue are irrelevant to your proof, should you produce one.

[QuestionMark]

And now you're defining what's intelligent and adult for me.

I don't hide behind political correctness. I live in a nation quickly becoming a nation of fools because we hide the truth behind what is correct and convenient and I am finished with it. Speak plainly.

If you think that abortion is wrong have the courage and conviction to SAY something, because if you can watch murders go on and not say something you are no different than a murderer.

It is not commendable to withhold judgment when your hesitance is based on personal gain rather than mercy.

I do not need to provide a proof if you already believe.

You believe that there is never a reason to kill your child. You personally have a child, and it is never alright to kill her. I imagine you'd give your life to defend her.

But behind the guise of political correctness you wouldn't even OPEN YOUR MOUTH to defend the unborn, who have their limbs cut off and their brain voided.

[JustMyron]

But behind the guise of political correctness you wouldn't even OPEN YOUR MOUTH to defend the unborn, who have their limbs cut off and their brain voided.

QM, with respect, you may wish to take a breath and reevaluate your approach. You might think that everything you are saying should be obvious to any right-thinking individual, and anyone who claims otherwise is cowardly or self-serving. And you might think that saying so honestly and plainly will expose the duplicity of the opposing view and allow you to win the argument.

The problem is, people here aren't being duplicitous, they believe what they're saying. And because you feel so strongly know that you're right on this, what will happen is that to people with opposing views you're going to come off as ranting and incoherent. As a result, you will fail to convince anyone of the correctness of your position who does not already agree with you, and end up feeling like your time was wasted in an incredibly frustrating way by people who are too selfish to acknowledge the truth. Whether you're right or not, this strategy is headed for disaster and you should take a different approach. I've seen it happen, and I'm  trying to help you make your point, so hopefully this gets through...

I'm not saying you're wrong, or that what you're saying makes no sense, but I am saying that it's not going to work, and you should choose a way of presenting your point that will.

[QuestionMark]

I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. :)

Societal change does not happen when people dispassionately conclude the logical course of action, it happens when they become uncomfortable with the inconsistency in their stated moral code and their actual moral code.

Or utter failure of their values to support their lifestyle.

Either way, we need to speak plainly, and this is something that makes me angry.

If I'm the only one that cares that people are lying through their teeth, then I have all the more reason to be angry and loud.

[JustMyron]

If I'm the only one that cares that people are lying through their teeth, then I have all the more reason to be angry and loud.

The problem is that people aren't lying. In order to be successful in changing their minds, you need to understand their actual positions. Stating as if it's fact that everyone who disagrees with you is lying demonstrates that you don't understand the people you're talking to, and aren't willing to try to do so, which will cause many of them to just ignore you.

Instead of calling them liars, work on the assumption that people who disagree with you are reasonable people, somehow, some way. If you don't understand how that's possible, say that and explain how it seems like the most likely explanation for their behaviour is that they're lying to protect their own egos/current positions on the issue of abortion. But there's a difference between saying that and acting as if the only explanation you can come up with = the only possible explanation for people's behaviour. Even if your position that abortion is always wrong is the correct one, that doesn't mean that everyone has the same understanding as you do and is lying if they pretend to disagree.

Questioning your own understanding of other people's reasons for their positions is not the same as questioning your understanding of the wrongness of abortion. And understanding the people you are talking to could allow you to convince one of them not to have an abortion. Being angry and loud may be the most personally satisfying thing you can do. But if you really want to make a difference in this discussion, you should put aside what's personally satisfying and do whatever is most likely to change people's minds, within the bounds of honesty and other moral considerations.

Putting aside your preconceptions about pro-abortion people will make you more effective, without compromising your integrity. While it may not be comfortable for you to question your own understanding, given what's at stake, what's comfortable to you is irrelevant.

[sopranette]

In the United States, abortions may be legal, but they are unconstitutional. 

The Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Nowhere does it state how old that person needs to be to have these rights.  Therefore, killing the unborn is murder.

love,

Sopranette

[QuestionMark]

Stating as if it's fact that everyone who disagrees with you is lying demonstrates that you don't understand the people you're talking to, and aren't willing to try to do so, which will cause many of them to just ignore you.

It's not someone who disagrees with me that is a liar, it's someone who says something they don't believe is true.

A liar says that abortion is wrong but not objectively wrong.
A liar says that killing an infant is wrong but killing the unborn is not wrong.

Incidentally, a liar says that nothing is objectively wrong and then is morally offended at the behaviors of others.

[JustMyron]

A liar says that abortion is wrong but not objectively wrong.

What about someone who says that abortion (even right at the moment of conception) is always objectively wrong, but sometimes there only other alternatives are more wrong? Is that person a liar?

Whether you want to consider the life created at conception to be a human being (and thus murder-able) or not is one thing. But it's life (and if you want to value life based on genetic potential, the fact that it's human life matters as well), and killing it is wrong. But forcing someone who has been raped to carry the baby of their rapist to term is also wrong. Forcing a child who has gotten pregnant while genuinely not understanding how pregnancy works to go through a pregnancy is wrong. And, although I am an amputee as a result of a congenital birth defect, after careful consideration I must also say that forcing somene to bring a baby to term with serious birth defects is wrong (although choosing freely to take care of such a baby is a noble choice which I fully support). So the question is, in these difficult situations, which is the least wrong thing to do? I honestly think there are times in life when there is no objectively right option, and it becomes legitimate to argue about which of the available options is the least objectively wrong.

[QuestionMark]

But forcing someone who has been raped to carry the baby of their rapist to term is also wrong.

Why? AND (These are two things) since when do we commit crimes to make up for other crimes? You stole my car so I don't have to pay taxes?

Forcing a child who has gotten pregnant while genuinely not understanding how pregnancy works to go through a pregnancy is wrong.

Why? I doubt that any individual who has ever had a child has comprehensively understood what it means to be a parent. How does not understanding what's happening to you make murdering a baby acceptable?

And, although I am an amputee as a result of a congenital birth defect, after careful consideration I must also say that forcing someone to bring a baby to term with serious birth defects is wrong (although choosing freely to take care of such a baby is a noble choice which I fully support).

Why? Do you think that those with birth defects are of no value? Should we add the very old and infirm to this list?

If caring for the poor, disadvantaged, and oppressed is the noble thing to do, then you already know the answer to your question. Do what is noble and don't permit evil because someone is selfish.

If you were in a dangerous and remote situation and you saw a young child alone or injured and you did not care for the child you are a monster, and you are negligent. Abortion is worse. Put aside not helping the child, those who abort children are taking a life they should be helping.

[sopranette]

Carrying a baby to term after a rape would be a terrible test for the mother, but it is still the right thing to do.  The child she is carrying is completely innocent of the crime, and has as much a right to life as any newborn.  The child should not have to pay with his life for the sins of his father.  I'm not saying the mother must keep the child and raise him, but she should still give his life a chance.  He could grow up to do wonderful things, and never have to know how he was conceived.

love,

Sopranette

[Traveler]

...Nowhere does it state how old that person needs to be to have these rights.  Therefore, killing the unborn is murder...

Nonsense. Legally, an unborn person does not yet exist. The birth date, the day they come out of the womb, is the day they become a legal person, entitled to the rights of the constitution. Now. Before you panic and attack, most of us would not abort a fetus the day before it would be born. MOST abortions are performed in the first trimester.

+1 to JustMyron and Sweetling for excellent and clear discussion.

[sopranette]

An unborn child most definitely is human, with full rights.  He has a body, a mind, and a soul.  Any pregnant woman will tell you that "thing" in her belly is a human child.  Paperwork and a stamp does not create human life. Whether the fetus is eight weeks old or eight months, the life is there.

love,

Sopranette

[JustMyron]

The responses to these questions are my personal viewpoint. Others may well have different answers. But here you go.

But forcing someone who has been raped to carry the baby of their rapist to term is also wrong.

Why?

If you judge the wrongness of an act by the extent to which life (in the most general sense) is negatively impacted by that act, then the victim of rape has equal claim on our sympathy as does any life created through that rape. However, you can argue based on a concept of suffering involving pain and awareness that since in the time very close to conception the group of cells which will (probably) eventually grow into a baby (if all goes well and the gestation process is successful) that group of cells has no awareness, its "suffering" through being removed from the womb and discarded (in the words of pro-choice people) or murdered (in the words of pro-life people. Either way, the act is the same) is less than that of the mother who must endure a pregnancy she does not want, and a constant reminder of the viscious acts perpetrated against her. She is then faced with the choice of keeping and raising a child who represents a person who has deeply harmed her, or abandoning a life which she has nurtured within her for 9 months. Forcing that kind of a decision on a person who has done nothing to deserve it seems to me to be objectively wrong. As a society, our sympathy and support should be extended to such a person, and prioritizing an undeveloped group of cells which may never develop into a baby over the interests of someone we know for a fact has been harmed makes little sense to me. It's difficult, because ideally rape would never happen. But in a sense forcing a woman to live with something created out of an act of violence is like punishing someone who has already been victimized, and the exact opposite of what we as a society should be doing.

AND (These are two things) since when do we commit crimes to make up for other crimes? You stole my car so I don't have to pay taxes?

I hope the above paragraph explains how I see forcing a woman to carry a child fathered by a rapist to term differently from allowing her not to pay taxes. But frankly, if someone stole my car and I lived in a state which prioritized the interest of victims, I couldn't see why it would be wrong to give the victim a tax break in the amount of the value of the stolen car (provided some system was put in place such that the genuninnes of the crime was verified, so people couldn't just have friends "steal" their car for money).

Forcing a child who has gotten pregnant while genuinely not understanding how pregnancy works to go through a pregnancy is wrong.

Why? I doubt that any individual who has ever had a child has comprehensively understood what it means to be a parent.

I guess it wasn't clear what I meant by "genuinely not understanding how pregnancy works". "How pregnancy works" = the fact that having sex leads to pregnancy. You can say it's silly to say people don't understand this, but if they're not talked to about sex, people can have all kinds of beliefs about how they can avoid getting pregnant. My personal favorite was when the former president of South Africa said on public television that taking a shower immediately after sex was enough to prevent pregnancy and HIV.

What it comes down to is culpability. If you don't understand the consequences of your actions, holding you accountable for those consequences is unfair. It's very difficult to make that case in modern society, but not completely outside of the realm of possibility.

And, although I am an amputee as a result of a congenital birth defect, after careful consideration I must also say that forcing someone to bring a baby to term with serious birth defects is wrong (although choosing freely to take care of such a baby is a noble choice which I fully support).

Why? Do you think that those with birth defects are of no value?[/quote]

No, I don't think anyone is of no value. However, I would not say that all people are of equal value, either, and it is possible that some people will contribute less to society than they take from it, and in a sense be of negative value. As cold as it may seem, the truth is that society as a whole would be better off if those people never existed. On the other hand, I think judging a person's value is an extremely difficult thing to do, and it is far, far, FAR too easy to say that someone who is not like you is of less value than you when this is not the case. Ideally, I would avoid making value judgements about people altogether, and let everyone live. However, if pressed, I would be willing to make a judgement call about who should live and who should be sacrificed for the greater good. I would most likely be among those sacrificed, but I would make the call if I had to. I would do my best to preserve those I considered of greatest value. In extreme situations, this would include prioritizing those with rare or otherwise valuable knowledge, children whose potential is less well known but whose ability to contribute will last the longest, and I'm sure others. To answer your question, if pressed, I would be willing to murder the very old or infirm to preserve society as a whole. I would do everything I could to avoid this situation, however, and as someone who has less physical ability than average, I expect I would be on my own list of those people who would not survive.

If you were in a dangerous and remote situation and you saw a young child alone or injured and you did not care for the child you are a monster, and you are negligent. Abortion is worse.

Not always so.

One of the problems I have (please understand I don't have your religious framework, where humans are distinct from all other life on earth by virtue of having an immortal soul. I see no evidence that such a soul exists, and view humans basically as animals that are more intelligent than average) is that I see very little reason why a group of cells with human DNA should be treated much differently than an embryo of a non-human species. Arguments based on potential future development can be made, but those arguments run into difficulty when weighing them against the certainty of harm to the person carrying the pregnancy. A human embryo (not sure of the exact time an embryo becomes an embryo as distinct from a blastocyst, fetus, etc - what I mean is a minimally developed group of cells with no self-awareness) has no awareness, and yet we are willing to kill and eat animals which we know suffer by our actions. If I was to oppose abortion in all instances simply because life is being killed I could not be morally consistent and eat even vegetables. They're life too. The only way I can take your view is if I am convinced that human life is fundamentally different from all other life. With that, it becomes sensible to protect human life from the moment of conception, but without that belief, the conclusion that abortion is not right but less wrong than harming a mother can be reached in a 100% honest manner.

The discussion then moves on to the truth of the statement that human life is unique/your religion is true/we have immortal souls, all of which are more properly discussed outside of this thread.

Sopranette, the human mind develops in the womb. You can argue that an embryo immediately after conception has a soul if you like, but it most certainly does not have a mind. To me, the mind is an important element of what makes a human being distinct from human life (life with human DNA). And murder (this could merely be a subjective definition, but it's how I define murder, we can argue about it if you like) is the killing of a human being.

[JustMyron]

Carrying a baby to term after a rape would be a terrible test for the mother, but it is still the right thing to do.  The child she is carrying is completely innocent of the crime, and has as much a right to life as any newborn.  The child should not have to pay with his life for the sins of his father.  I'm not saying the mother must keep the child and raise him, but she should still give his life a chance.  He could grow up to do wonderful things, and never have to know how he was conceived.

love,

Sopranette

In principle, I broadly agree with this paragraph. However, having talked (in considerable depth in some cases) to those who have been raped and sexually assaulted, I am unwilling to force them to carry a reminder of that act inside of themselves for 9 months against their will. Do I think it would be good if babies from rape were kept and raised? Yes. Am I willing to force people who have been raped to keep their babies, or to judge them for making a decision different from the one I hope I would make in their place? No. Sorry, but sometimes sympathy for the victim overrides sympathy for a group of cells that doesn't even understand it's there.