Mikes Forum

Due to a request, I am starting this discussion thread on Abortion, an issue which is important to weigh up carefully.

Advocates of abortion often site personal choice while Christians site the right to life. In reality each case should be weighed up on its own merits. It is not reasonable, fair or intelligent to say abortion is either right or wrong. There are many cases when abortion is either desirable or necessary. However, there are many cases where abortion is an act of selfishness or carelessness.

As a humanist or a person that puts a heavy emphasis on human life, and all life for that matter, I believe that there is a profound importance in every life. Anyone who has studies "situational ethics" will be able to recognise some of the dilemmas in making hard and fast decisions. However, when it comes to a decision about either the life of the mother or the unborn child, I believe the life of the mother must take priority.

The unfortunate reality of many abortions in Australia is that abortion is used as a tool for unwanted pregnancy. I have a universal ethic which I often state as a test to many situations in life. It is:

Be selfish as long as it doesn't adversely effect others. I would even extend "others" to the planet.

If I use this to test many cases of abortion I will have to disagree with the practice as a means of contraception and stopping unwanted pregnancy. The issue is not in the spiritual viability of the zygote or foetus. The issue is in the protection of a venerable and fragile life. In some cases it has been described as the ultimate form of child abuse.

Some arguments discuss the viability of the foetus. My answer to that is that we don't devalue a human life because they are mentally impaired or disabled. Nor should we! I know atheists who view the abortion of an unborn child as similar to putting a dog down. Although all life is important, I would still prefer not to view a human life and a dog's life as the same.

As I stated earlier each case should be weighed on its own merits and it would be good to discuss a particular circumstance if anyone has one. There are many factors involved that determine the legitimacy of the practice.

Mike: Firstly, I don't think my site has set the web alight yet. The people who are responding are from a reasonably small pool of people, but growing steadily. A lot of people are a little confounded by what's on the site and find it intimidating too.

There is an interesting fact that Australia must boom or bust. This happened in the 50s where massive waves of migration were needed for Australia’s survival as a nation. Having more children is not the economic liability that people think it is. Economists are quick to point to the need for Australia’s population to still grow.

I think using this however, is not a good argument against the Abortion pill. We need to be teaching boys how to use condoms and girls how to use contraception. At the end of the day the unwanted pregnancy causes grief beyond what most can understand.

As for not having a say if you haven’t had an abortion. Does that mean I can’t have a say on drug regulation because I haven’t been a drug addict? Does that mean I can’t have a say on migration because I’m not a migrant?

The claim that we’ll be a Muslim country if we don’t stop aborting babies is so ridiculous it’s embarrassing. Abortions are never desirable, ask anyone who has had one. What is needed, are more responsible decisions with regard to choices about sex.

I don’t have a huge problem with giving money to irresponsibility. Let’s face it we sent millions to Sadaam irresponsibly and we have sent billions to prop up other oppressive regimes in the past. So I would rather spend this money to try and give the children more opportunity than what we do with other money. We live in a socialist society where people who can’t or don’t make good decisions are not penalised for their mistakes. That’s the beauty about Australia. Sadly in other parts of the world they would be treated terribly and left to die. My ethic doesn’t allow this to happen to anyone.

Mike: Let's see if we can get some comments for you by posting the topic on the front page of the site. When you say you fully agree with something, what do you mean. Personally I find a statement like that, with no boundaries, to be a little naive. So you should clarify what you really mean.

For example, if you fully agree with "abortion" you are saying you are fine with it as a method of birth control. You are saying also that there is no difference between a life at conception to a foetus at 9 months. In other words it doesn't matter if you have an abortion at 12 weeks or 9 months because abortion is fine full stop. You are saying that if you want to have a girl and the baby is found to be male that abortion is OK. You are also saying that the unborn should have no rights as do children and other people in society. You are saying that a mother should have total control over this independent entity (life) because it is reliant on the mother for sustenance, even though born children are totally reliant on their mother or carer??

Can you see why that need clarification? I'm tend to think that you have some opinions on some of those matters. Let's know where you stand and we might be able to generate some healthy discussion.

in this case I have to agree with Mike. This a complex issue, but I think that there are of course some basic principles that need to be upheld. I believe very strongly in the dignity of human life - ending a human life at any stage is a huge thing that needs to be considered carefully. I also believe in the need for people to be responsible for their actions - can we treat unwanted babies like we treat unwanted kittens? To what point does our selfishness have its limits? I think that Mikes point is right. Some years ago I did a human sexuality course and abortion was one of the subject units we studied. We brought a lady in from "planned parenthood" to supposedly give an unbiased "pro-choice" perspective, but we soon realised that by "choice" she really meant "pro". After the talk we had a big debate. Some of us wanted to present our ideas in a reasoned manner, but some of the pro-abortion people resorted to ridicule and verbal abuse - their main arguments were - but I want to do it so I don't have to live with the consequences of my irresponsible sexual behaviour. They actually suggested that they couldn't control their sexual desire enough in order to act responsibly!! They laughed at us because we wanted them to be more objective and stop using emotive statements.

The same could go for the anti-abortion lobby as well who allow no exceptions, who assault doctors who perform abortions and then do nothing at all to help the women and children that are left behind. Here is where I stand I suppose - we need to love and have compassion. My wife and I have often reached out to help single mothers we know and been there to help them with often difficult domestic situations. I am willing to do the right thing to help people. That includes help when childless couples want to adopt and care for those unwanted children. But I nevertheless understand that abortion is necessary in some cases where medical issues are involved. As for the abortion pill, it only acts upon pre implantation fertilised ovum and because it is given to the patient virtually immediately (in the case of rape etc.) them we are not dealing with a foetus at all. It should be noted that most fertilisations fail to implant anyway and pass from the body with the next menstrual period. The bottom line is how we value or do not value human life? If we value humans by the economic contribution they make, their level of intelligence, their age or gender or ability to defend themselves or not, then we are committing an act of violence.

You see we have all been in these states at some time in our life. The Nazis used this kind of reasoning to exterminate "unwanted people", but if all humans are granted the right of an eternal value - that is each individual is unique and irreplaceable - of infinite worth in their own right, then have an ethic that values life and protects the weak from those who would destroy life because it was convenient or expedient to do so. As I said before, ending human life is a huge thing. Sometimes it has to be done where that individuals' existence threatens others. We all have to live with the choices we make - but I think we should err on the side of love.

I must say ive always been against the taking of any life whatsoever- but in the case - if its the mothers life that is put at risk due to the pregnancy . well I must say I do agree with your comment mike........ in the case of rape.. i personally wouldnt have an abortion...i couldnt take the life of the innocent unborn child ,especially when it is not the unborn childs fault..-i strongly believe that if we harm another we only harm ourselves..... cause and effect (karma)... thanks mike...

I'd like to reply to RNUT. I don't know how long it has been since the entry was made, but there are some things here that I think that I must answer. First of all, thanks for your appreciation. Above all I want to be a compasionate commentator and have some understanding of those who don't necessarilly agree with me. Of course it is nice when we do aggree with each other, but that can give us a false sense of security - we still need to challenge the ideas and press forward. We mustn't just assume things about each other. For example, I know all about poverty and "disabled and less fortunate people". I have lived in some of the poorest suburbs in Brisbane. I am myself a carer of a disabled wife. I have lived in places with large aboriginal and migrant populations and also unemployed people who have been on welfare all their lives. I have worked as a teacher in these places, I have been an unemployed pensioner in these same places. All along I have tried to not let my circumstances drag my family and I down. Instead we have always done our best to help others, to be the kind of family that "takes people in" and be hospitable. When it comes to abortion, we are not just dealing with ideas. These "disabled and less fortunate people" are not abstractions, they are real people with feelings, with dreams, with desires. Some of them will rise up out of their circumstances and others will not. The question here is how exactly do we "take a stand on reproduction"? There are a couple of assumptions here that I would like to challenge. First of all - do we have the right to make decisions for other people? Who is the "we" who makes such decisions? How do we decide who deserves to reproduce and who does not deserve to do so? What will the criteria be and who will determine those criteria? How do we enforce such decisions? Do we sterilise people against their will? At risk here is the nightmare of a totalitarian solution similar to that seen in the movie Gattica. What we have created is a genetic elite who are "better" than those defined as genetically "faulty". The implications for this new class of people could be huge - in terms of their employment limitations, their ability to move upward in social status. Abortion in this case becomes a political tool of social engineering and the control of people. To talk about such eugenics with animals like dogs or horses, really isn't appropriate for comparison with humans. People can own animals but people can not and should not own other people. It is one thing to use genetics to treat and heal genetic disorders, but medical treatment exists to help people not harm them (according to the Hypocratic Oath). At the heart of our concerns though should be the desire to help people. These less fortunate people are not our enemies. Most of them are good people all just trying to make their way in life. You say the following ...

I am not talking about abnormalities requiring extra teaching,

vision impairment, deafness, etc - I am speaking of those abnormalities

where the child has no quality nor wellbeing....

such situations have nothing to do with "breeding", but rather are social conditions that can be changed with a hand up (not hand outs!). The answer is to tackle poverty and to build community life where social capital can be built up - where people can have opportunity to care for each other more. That is where I would put my concern and energy.

Hope that you think that is the best way to go, blessings,

Ecclesian

As far as this goes I'd have to weigh in with the people who said (more or less) that abortion should only be considered in cases where killing a human, for no fault of his/her own, would be acceptable. Which situations are these though? Unfortunately, modern abortion laws were not founded on the basis that an unborn child is a "valid" human life. Anyone can do it for any reason. So let's bring this discussion back to reality.

What we need are laws that describe when and in what manner people can be killed though no fault or wish of their own. Once we, as a society, have worked out these laws we can then easily modify them to suit the issues raised by abortion. Then everyone can be happy and sleep better at night knowing that we, as a people, have settled the problem of when innocents can be killed and applied it practically to modern life.

It is important to note that I mentioned, and not in vain, it should be decided "what manner" innocents can be killed. It's one thing to O.D. on a pleasant drug of choice and spend the rest of your (now very short) life happy! Quite another to have your skull fractured and brains sucked out. Various other popular tactics for mass slaughter of innocents may need to be reconsidered. Hitler's gas chambers probably wouldn't be considered humanitarian by todays standards. The popular "round'em up and shoot'em" tactic of South African warlords would likely need revision too. Anyway, the point is, unborn children *DO* have fully functional nervous systems after a certain point, this should be taken into consideration.

So, let's make some practical steps towards progress! In general, when is it practical to slaughter innocents. Don't get distracted by "what if they become a great...", keep in mind that more than likely they're going to grow up to be normal people just like you and me.

--
Theodore E. Jensen
"An open mind is like an open wound. You're more likely to die from it in countries that have poor health care."
-me