"Right to Privacy" Abortion Analogy

[eric42434224]

So you would believe abortion immoral, and have a really tough time doing it, but would consider it the correct and necessary thing to do under the circumstances.  Right?

[Scheavo]

Then I'll have to ask why you're talking about a "right to privacy." That's a legal right, so I'm telling you why and where that legal right get's used, and how it pertains to this case.

This is true, Scheavo, yet idea of "rights" of any kind rest on various layers of philosophical underpinnings. Legal proceedings and laws are the mere authoritative manifestation of established meta-ethical principles employed by a competent body of authority to impose a moral order upon its populace. That said, though, the right to privacy isn't even expressly outlined in the Constitution.

Ya, it's never said, "you have a right to privacy," but we are given explicit rights which have been defined as our right to privacy. This is a very non-seriousness argument.

Because there's principle and ideology, and then there's pragmatic reality. The reason why women get abortions is various; so you can bring up some cases where I'm going to agree that it's pretty immoral to get an abortion. But how immoral? That becomes tricky. Just classifying something as immoral doesn't mean much. There are many other cases, though, where abortions are moral

When might an abortion be considered moral?

When the mother's life is in danger. When the mother was raped, especially incestuously - thereby nullifying your argument that it was a choice, and that the pregnancy is a responsibility. When the child would simply be born dead.

For you to step in and tell a woman what can or cannot happen to her body, via the government, is immoral. It violates certain rights we uphold in our society, and these ends do not justify these means.

I suppose a problem here is that if you believe that morality is not objective, then there's literally no reason to continue this discussion. If so, we are both equally right and wrong. In fact, if morality is not objective then there is no actual "right to privacy" and there is nothing objectively wrong with the government forcing a women to have a child. Not that I'm dying to get into that discussion again.

Actually, the fact that morality isn't objective is the reason why we have rights. Those rights were fought for, and agreed upon. It wasn't some objective feature of reality. To say anything else, is to be horrendously ahistorical.

A lot of abortions occur due to health complications - either the baby will die, or the mother will die, or both. It's not as if you have irresponsible people getting pregnant, and then having an abortion. You're example is but one, a very small minority of examples, and to use it to unilaterally ban abortions actually ends up harming everyone, including society in general, more.

In most cases, I'd argue that abortion is nothing but a selfish and immeasurably cruel action of "convenience" perpetrated by people who use abortion perversely as a simple birth-control procedure.

And I'd argue that you're horribly mistaken and the truth regarding abortions, who gets abortions, why they get abortions, etc. You're describing some people, and trying to force the exception to be the rule.

It would be like me saying all Christians are horrible immoral hypocrites, hell bent on violence, becuase some Pope a thousand years ago declared a crusade.

[Omega]

So you would believe abortion immoral, and have a really tough time doing it, but would consider it the correct and necessary thing to do under the circumstances.  Right?

I wouldn't say correct, but I'd imagine it would be the most reasonable route to take in a given situation. Still immoral, as well, yes.

[eric42434224]

So you would believe abortion immoral, and have a really tough time doing it, but would consider it the correct and necessary thing to do under the circumstances.  Right?

I wouldn't say correct, but I'd imagine it would be the most reasonable route to take in a given situation. Still immoral, as well, yes.

So is it "right" to kill an unborn child in certain circumstances, or is it always "wrong"?
If it is always "wrong", why are there circumstances where you yourself would do it, and say it is the most "reasonable route"? 

[Scheavo]

And I'd argue that you're horribly mistaken and the truth regarding abortions, who gets abortions, why they get abortions, etc. You're describing some people, and trying to force the exception to be the rule.

I felt like clarifying, because I realized I'm implying something factually incorrect.

What I'm objecting to is the level to which you call most abortions a result of simple irresponsibility. It's much more complicated than you make it out to be.

Also, remember that I do think we should make greater efforts to have good adoptions available. It wouldn't solve the entire issue, but it can also be extremely unfair to woman that they get pregnant, when it's the man being irresponsible.

[Omega]

And I'd argue that you're horribly mistaken and the truth regarding abortions, who gets abortions, why they get abortions, etc. You're describing some people, and trying to force the exception to be the rule.

I felt like clarifying, because I realized I'm implying something factually incorrect.

What I'm objecting to is the level to which you call most abortions a result of simple irresponsibility. It's much more complicated than you make it out to be.

Also, remember that I do think we should make greater efforts to have good adoptions available.

That is noble. No, this is not sarcasm.

It wouldn't solve the entire issue, but it can also be extremely unfair to woman that they get pregnant, when it's the man being irresponsible.

To be fair, it is most often both being irresponsible. Only in cases of rape is it the man who is responsible (yet, due to its inherent visceral nature, rape rarely leads to pregnancies). But you can't justify ending a human life just because someone made an irresponsible choice they now regret. Let's not kid ourselves here: when one has sex, one always, in principle, faces a chance of getting pregnant (I mean women. And, in some cases, Adami. That was a joke  ). So when women have sex, they are accepting the possibility that you will get pregnant. There's just no way to brush of your responsibility when that happens in this situation. And, no, your responsibility it not to kill the damn baby.

[Omega]

So is it "right" to kill an unborn child in certain circumstances, or is it always "wrong"?

No, again, I must say that it would still be wrong. Perhaps you are doing it to avoid two deaths instead of one, but ending one's life is still wrong, I would argue.

If it is always "wrong", why are there circumstances where you yourself would do it, and say it is the most "reasonable route"?

I'd say for emotional reasons. For example, in such a situation, I imagine my future wife as the woman in the situation who is about to die if she delivers a child who, too, is hypothetically facing a very premature death (let's say matter of days). I'd rather just lose a child who is destined to die in a couple days due to complications rather than lose the child and my wife (whomever that may be, but she is going to be smokin' hot). Reasonable in the sense that losing one life is perhaps quantitatively different than two. But there appears to be no correct choice in such an unfortunate situation.

[eric42434224]

What about losing just one.  The birth will kill your wife.  You already have one child.  Would you abort the child to save your wife?

[Omega]

What about losing just one.  The birth will kill your wife.  You already have one child.  Would you abort the child to save your wife?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I'm not sure what I would do in such a terrible situation.

[orcus116]

So you would believe abortion immoral, and have a really tough time doing it, but would consider it the correct and necessary thing to do under the circumstances.  Right?

I wouldn't say correct, but I'd imagine it would be the most reasonable route to take in a given situation. Still immoral, as well, yes.

How moral is it to continue the life of something you know will only suffer until it eventually dies on its own? You can pretend that it was a wise and correct decision to let someone live but is it not even acceptable when their only life experience will involve suffering and hardship? To me that is an incredibly cruel and unfair fate.

[tofee35]

So you would believe abortion immoral, and have a really tough time doing it, but would consider it the correct and necessary thing to do under the circumstances.  Right?

I wouldn't say correct, but I'd imagine it would be the most reasonable route to take in a given situation. Still immoral, as well, yes.

How moral is it to continue the life of something you know will only suffer until it eventually dies on its own? You can pretend that it was a wise and correct decision to let someone live but is it not even acceptable when their only life experience will involve suffering and hardship? To me that is an incredibly cruel and unfair fate.

It all comes down to each person's own moral compass in a given circumstance. If somebody wants to have an abortion, they have to deal with knowing they would have brought a baby into the world whether sick or healthy. It could leave them feeling either guilty or at peace.

[theseoafs]

I'll voice my opinion simply because -- well, for no reason, honestly. Discussion of the matter is rather useless and never ends up well, because this is one particular area where people never change their opinions no matter what. But I do like to hear myself talk, so off we go.

To me, there are legitimate defenses for abortion and illegitimate ones. Many defenses don't convince me -- the right to privacy, as I mentioned above, or that abortion makes for gender equality. However, we have to take the socioeconomic consequences of abortion seriously. These are what I'll detail here.

Emma

This example is based on the story of a friend of mine from high school. We will call her Emma.

Emma was a competent student, got fine grades, and was admitted to a fine college. However, a few months before her graduation, she became pregnant with twins. Her options were two: to carry the twins to term and devote the next few decades of her life to being a parent, or to abort and continue her life as planned. We should keep in mind that Emma, like the vast majority of people who get abortions, does not really have the resources to raise one child, let alone two.

For Emma, abortion is a choice of no difference. The babies will not be born, not having ever experienced life, and Emma will continue with her life as planned. If she chooses to birth the babies, they will live, but the quality of life of everyone involved -- Emma, her children, her boyfriend, her parents -- will be significantly diminished. The fact of the matter is that if we forced all the people who are considering abortion not to get them, practically every child will be raised in less-than-ideal conditions. We return to the real-life Emma: she did give birth to two healthy children. However, she doesn't work and her boyfriend just lost his job. These two children would be suffering right now if Emma's parents chose not to help with the children (they fortunately did). Is it really ethical to force Emma to raise children if she will ultimately be unable to provide decent living conditions for them? There wouldn't be abortions if everyone who got pregnant was able to raise a child, and you can't justify forcing those unable to raise children to do so.

Let's modify Emma's situation a bit. Let's say she got pregnant as a result of rape. She should be able to abort the children, shouldn't she? If abortion is outlawed, the government is now forcing her to carry children she did not ask for to term, which is grueling in and of itself. Is that ethical? If Emma does not have the resources to raise the children, she can either attempt to raise them anyway or give them up, and, considering that adoption isn't always successful, neither option is very good.

Perhaps Emma's boyfriend chose not to stick around to father the children. Is it ethical to force children into life if they are not going to have a capable family? What if her life is in danger by the pregnancy? Can we really justify bringing two children into the world without parents, when we could have chosen the life of a competent adult who doesn't need anyone taking care of her?

Post-Abolition

Let's say you succeeded in your endeavor. Abortion is now criminalized. What does this world look like?

First of all, there are more children. As mentioned above, more children are now being raised under less-than-ideal conditions.

However, we'll find that there are still abortions. Obviously, some people will still believe that they are entitled to an abortion, and they will go ahead and do it themselves. In the best-case scenario, the abortion will be successful and the woman comes out unscathed. This is ideal and unrealistic. It is more likely that the woman will cripple herself or her child. In a world without safe abortion, more women and children are being hurt than before, even though this was the opposite of our intent.

Let's say Julia lives in the post-abolition world, got pregnant, and aborted her child. If the government finds out about this, what are they supposed to do? Does a fine or jail time really make sense here, when the woman has already been through the psychological torment of unplanned pregnancy and abortion?

If abortion is a crime, attempted abortion is also a crime. Maybe Julia tried to abort her child and failed, and the government found out about it. What's the proper punishment here? A fine doesn't make much sense -- that's just hurting the child unnecessarily. Imprisonment would also hurt the child. How on earth do we ethically punish the attempted aborter?

Conclusion

We notice that my arguments are not conclusive. They aren't meant to be, and no argument on the matter will ever be conclusive. I just mean to point out that it's fine to say "abortion is murder and it should be criminalized", but in reality, things are just not this black and white. If you want to reduce abortions, provide excellent, honest sex education and free contraception -- two things which conservatives, astoundingly, oppose.

I conclude with the words of Bill Clinton: "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare".

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

I don't like abortion as birth control.  I think most would agree.  I don't see the whole thing as black and white though, and I don't know enough about it scientifically either.  I know that my fiance works at a pregnancy clinic that helps women who seek either to have their child or to abort it, but this clinic does walk them through the consequences, favorable and unfavorable of the effects post-abortion.  Not in a "scare-tactics" way, but in a way that is matter of fact.

There are instance where I feel that abortion is not only an option, but a necessity.  I don't want my wife to get pregnant only to find out that having the baby my endanger her life.

Truly a hard question.  I don't think the right to privacy argument is a good one though.

[Sigz]

Are there any actual studies regarding the reasoning behind abortions?

[tofee35]

We notice that my arguments are not conclusive. They aren't meant to be, and no argument on the matter will ever be conclusive. I just mean to point out that it's fine to say "abortion is murder and it should be criminalized", but in reality, things are just not this black and white. If you want to reduce abortions, provide excellent, honest sex education and free contraception -- two things which conservatives, astoundingly, oppose.

I conclude with the words of Bill Clinton: "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare".

I'm fairly conservative and I think both of these points are important. But, I just don't think the fed gov't should have its hand in it. That's an important distinction.

[gmillerdrake]

That would work if Bill was a lump of cells.

(or in other words.. I think most of the discussion is whether/when you considerer a lump of cells 'life').

If the United States or any other country sent a probe/manned mission etc. to lets say Mars......they touched down.......turned over a rock......fixed thier microscope on the underbelly of the rock......then discovered a group of cells that were continually dividing and 'building' a greater 'body'......would they radio back and say "We've found life" or would they say "Oh, it's just a lump of little cells dividing and building a greater form of itself....it's nothing really. Let's step on it". I think you and I both know they'd be overjoyed and declare they've found life.....I mean they orgasm over finding a "possible" fossilized cell on a metorite here and there.
  The fact of the matter is that blastocyst or lump of cells is "life".....there is no denying that......

[lordxizor]

I don't like abortion as birth control.  I think most would agree.

I don't think most pro-choice people would agree. The only time abortion isn't basically birth control is when there is a risk to the mother or serious issues with the baby. Those situations lead to what's basically a "choosing the lesser of two evils" kind of choice.

Pretty much every other instance can fall into the (obviously simplified) realm of "I'm pregnant and I don't want the baby" which is really just birth control (preventing a birth from occuring). Situation involving rape are obviously times when the woman didn't have a choice to use alternate methods of birth control, but in all other circumstances (other than the health related instances mentioned above), either she chose not to use birth control during sex or the birth control she was using failed. No matter what the reasons for the abortion it's basically a situation in which abortion is either the primary method of birth control (she didn't use any to begin with) or the secondary method of birth control (she used it, but it failed). I don't really know any other way to look at it.

I don't mean to belittle the dificult choice having an abortion would be, nor do I say this to make abortion sound like a worse choice than it might have seemed otherwise. I'm just pointing out that in a ton of cases, abortion is essentially a birth control method.

[kirksnosehair]

Even pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood recognize the unfortunate reality that abortion is most often a matter of someone just not wanting a baby.  Here's a study (or actually data compiled from a group of studies) that is pretty convincing.

I'm with Bill Clinton in that I think abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."

I've always found the conservative reluctance to support contraception and birth control among young people to be kind of weird.  Given that both of those would result in less pregnancies, which in turn would result in less abortions, it's a pretty baffling mind-set from my perspective.

Anyway, just really wanted to post that group of studies above.  Carry on.

[rumborak]

On that topic: https://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/04/teen-birthrates-are-way-down-still-high-these-states/1735/

rumborak

[the Catfishman]

That would work if Bill was a lump of cells.

(or in other words.. I think most of the discussion is whether/when you considerer a lump of cells 'life').

If the United States or any other country sent a probe/manned mission etc. to lets say Mars......they touched down.......turned over a rock......fixed thier microscope on the underbelly of the rock......then discovered a group of cells that were continually dividing and 'building' a greater 'body'......would they radio back and say "We've found life" or would they say "Oh, it's just a lump of little cells dividing and building a greater form of itself....it's nothing really. Let's step on it". I think you and I both know they'd be overjoyed and declare they've found life.....I mean they orgasm over finding a "possible" fossilized cell on a metorite here and there.
  The fact of the matter is that blastocyst or lump of cells is "life".....there is no denying that......

yes, maybe switch the word 'life' for 'human' or something in that line, because if we give a lump of cells and humans the same rights we can't even kill tumours.
Plus, how do you reason with In vitro fertilisation, where we fertilize a much higher number of eggs to increase the change that one of them will survive... is that murder? approved by the mother?

[Ben_Jamin]

This is where having.some spiritual insight would be greatly helpful. First of all, Abortion is moral only when the mothers life is at risk. then, and only then, its the mothers choice wether she wants to sacrifice her life to let the child have a chance at life. Or, let the child be sacrificed. At the same time their spiritual mind would know the child would be given a second chance, reincarnating. While the mother knowing she wasn't in the wrong would have a place up,in the sky as she sacrificed her own life for her child to get that chance.

you can't ignore spiritual aspects when dealing with morality or life because your only getting a one sided.solution

[Ben_Jamin]

That would work if Bill was a lump of cells.

(or in other words.. I think most of the discussion is whether/when you considerer a lump of cells 'life').

If the United States or any other country sent a probe/manned mission etc. to lets say Mars......they touched down.......turned over a rock......fixed thier microscope on the underbelly of the rock......then discovered a group of cells that were continually dividing and 'building' a greater 'body'......would they radio back and say "We've found life" or would they say "Oh, it's just a lump of little cells dividing and building a greater form of itself....it's nothing really. Let's step on it". I think you and I both know they'd be overjoyed and declare they've found life.....I mean they orgasm over finding a "possible" fossilized cell on a metorite here and there.
  The fact of the matter is that blastocyst or lump of cells is "life".....there is no denying that......

yes, maybe switch the word 'life' for 'human' or something in that line, because if we give a lump of cells and humans the same rights we can't even kill tumours.
Plus, how do you reason with In vitro fertilisation, where we fertilize a much higher number of eggs to increase the change that one of the will survive... is that murder? approved by the mother?

That is playing god and twisting fate. When you should adopt from the many that have been neglected.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

@xizor Yeah, I think I'm trying to pretend that the whole thing just isn't real.  Its too hard for me to even think about.

[rumborak]

I would think you realize that alluding to offending a certain deity isn't going to be a great argument outside your own religious circle, Ben_Jamin.

rumborak

[Ben_Jamin]

Not really as you wouldn't be having so many useless arguments over what is moral. As I see is the saddest aspect of modern humanity and the cause of the wheel lopsiding. plus, you guys are doing the same.with science as science always.changes.

But I digress and said what I had to say so I swear I'll go away but I can't promise you'll enjoy the noise.

[gmillerdrake]

That would work if Bill was a lump of cells.

(or in other words.. I think most of the discussion is whether/when you considerer a lump of cells 'life').

If the United States or any other country sent a probe/manned mission etc. to lets say Mars......they touched down.......turned over a rock......fixed thier microscope on the underbelly of the rock......then discovered a group of cells that were continually dividing and 'building' a greater 'body'......would they radio back and say "We've found life" or would they say "Oh, it's just a lump of little cells dividing and building a greater form of itself....it's nothing really. Let's step on it". I think you and I both know they'd be overjoyed and declare they've found life.....I mean they orgasm over finding a "possible" fossilized cell on a metorite here and there.
  The fact of the matter is that blastocyst or lump of cells is "life".....there is no denying that......

yes, maybe switch the word 'life' for 'human' or something in that line, because if we give a lump of cells and humans the same rights we can't even kill tumours.
Plus, how do you reason with In vitro fertilisation, where we fertilize a much higher number of eggs to increase the change that one of them will survive... is that murder? approved by the mother?

I don't think comparing a blastocyst....which if allowed to fulfill it's purpose...would be birthed as a complex human lifeform, and a lump of cells that is a tumor is even comparable. Tumors may grow but they don't develop a heartbeat, a brain to think....lungs to breath....eyes to see....ears to hear..... and so on. Destroying tumors and destroying human life even at it's simplest form are not comparable at all.
In vitro fertilisation and it's "morality" is a completely different thread, topic and discussion.   

[the Catfishman]

Why?  You guys say that life begins with a fertilized egg.. that's exactly what happens with ivf, yet I've only seen (US) Christians get upset over abortion.

[Ryzee]

I'll voice my opinion simply because -- well, for no reason, honestly. Discussion of the matter is rather useless and never ends up well, because this is one particular area where people never change their opinions no matter what. But I do like to hear myself talk, so off we go.

To me, there are legitimate defenses for abortion and illegitimate ones. Many defenses don't convince me -- the right to privacy, as I mentioned above, or that abortion makes for gender equality. However, we have to take the socioeconomic consequences of abortion seriously. These are what I'll detail here.

Emma

This example is based on the story of a friend of mine from high school. We will call her Emma.

Emma was a competent student, got fine grades, and was admitted to a fine college. However, a few months before her graduation, she became pregnant with twins. Her options were two: to carry the twins to term and devote the next few decades of her life to being a parent, or to abort and continue her life as planned. We should keep in mind that Emma, like the vast majority of people who get abortions, does not really have the resources to raise one child, let alone two.

For Emma, abortion is a choice of no difference. The babies will not be born, not having ever experienced life, and Emma will continue with her life as planned. If she chooses to birth the babies, they will live, but the quality of life of everyone involved -- Emma, her children, her boyfriend, her parents -- will be significantly diminished. The fact of the matter is that if we forced all the people who are considering abortion not to get them, practically every child will be raised in less-than-ideal conditions. We return to the real-life Emma: she did give birth to two healthy children. However, she doesn't work and her boyfriend just lost his job. These two children would be suffering right now if Emma's parents chose not to help with the children (they fortunately did). Is it really ethical to force Emma to raise children if she will ultimately be unable to provide decent living conditions for them? There wouldn't be abortions if everyone who got pregnant was able to raise a child, and you can't justify forcing those unable to raise children to do so.

Let's modify Emma's situation a bit. Let's say she got pregnant as a result of rape. She should be able to abort the children, shouldn't she? If abortion is outlawed, the government is now forcing her to carry children she did not ask for to term, which is grueling in and of itself. Is that ethical? If Emma does not have the resources to raise the children, she can either attempt to raise them anyway or give them up, and, considering that adoption isn't always successful, neither option is very good.

Perhaps Emma's boyfriend chose not to stick around to father the children. Is it ethical to force children into life if they are not going to have a capable family? What if her life is in danger by the pregnancy? Can we really justify bringing two children into the world without parents, when we could have chosen the life of a competent adult who doesn't need anyone taking care of her?

Post-Abolition

Let's say you succeeded in your endeavor. Abortion is now criminalized. What does this world look like?

First of all, there are more children. As mentioned above, more children are now being raised under less-than-ideal conditions.

However, we'll find that there are still abortions. Obviously, some people will still believe that they are entitled to an abortion, and they will go ahead and do it themselves. In the best-case scenario, the abortion will be successful and the woman comes out unscathed. This is ideal and unrealistic. It is more likely that the woman will cripple herself or her child. In a world without safe abortion, more women and children are being hurt than before, even though this was the opposite of our intent.

Let's say Julia lives in the post-abolition world, got pregnant, and aborted her child. If the government finds out about this, what are they supposed to do? Does a fine or jail time really make sense here, when the woman has already been through the psychological torment of unplanned pregnancy and abortion?

If abortion is a crime, attempted abortion is also a crime. Maybe Julia tried to abort her child and failed, and the government found out about it. What's the proper punishment here? A fine doesn't make much sense -- that's just hurting the child unnecessarily. Imprisonment would also hurt the child. How on earth do we ethically punish the attempted aborter?

Conclusion

We notice that my arguments are not conclusive. They aren't meant to be, and no argument on the matter will ever be conclusive. I just mean to point out that it's fine to say "abortion is murder and it should be criminalized", but in reality, things are just not this black and white. If you want to reduce abortions, provide excellent, honest sex education and free contraception -- two things which conservatives, astoundingly, oppose.

I conclude with the words of Bill Clinton: "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare".

This is a lovely, lovely post.  I haven't really seen a strong counter to the arguments presented here.


Also, I'd just like to say that (in my opinion) the "abortion debate" is something manufactured by politicians to rile up the bases/divide people.  Similar to the "gun control" debate.  I don't believe that there will ever be (in my lifetime anyway) a president/administration that overturns Roe v. Wade, just as I don't believe that we'll ever see the second amendment abolished.  Those things are just thrown around, especially during election seasons, to scare people into voting.  Pro-life people need deal with the fact that legal abortion is here to stay in this country, just as anti-gun people need to deal with the fact that people walking around strapped all of the time is here to stay in this county.  All my opinion, of course (but I'm pretty sure I'm right). 

[gmillerdrake]

Why?  You guys say that life begins with a fertilized egg.. that's exactly what happens with ivf, yet I've only seen (US) Christians get upset over abortion.

I personally don't nescessarily agree with IVF.....but have two very good friends who were only able to become Fathers due to that science. I am so happy for them and thier wives that they were able to have kids thanks to IVF....I love thier children....it's an amazing thing, reallly, No less of a miracle if you ask me. But I find myself in quite a 'spiritual' battle over IVF. On one hand I beleive that God has indeed given man the wisdom to create the technology and science involved in making IVF available....and along the same lines to cure disease and so forth.
  On the other hand I do have an issue with the 'left over' fertilized eggs that are 'otherwise discarded'...how that 'life' is tossed away or how it becomes a lab rat so to speak...honestly I haven't really reconciled a rock solid opinion or belief concerning IVF....as I said it is a conflict of interest of sorts given how 'close' it became to me.

[Ben_Jamin]

Why?  You guys say that life begins with a fertilized egg.. that's exactly what happens with ivf, yet I've only seen (US) Christians get upset over abortion.

I personally don't nescessarily agree with IVF.....but have two very good friends who were only able to become Fathers due to that science. I am so happy for them and thier wives that they were able to have kids thanks to IVF....I love thier children....it's an amazing thing, reallly, No less of a miracle if you ask me. But I find myself in quite a 'spiritual' battle over IVF. On one hand I beleive that God has indeed given man the wisdom to create the technology and science involved in making IVF available....and along the same lines to cure disease and so forth.
  On the other hand I do have an issue with the 'left over' fertilized eggs that are 'otherwise discarded'...how that 'life' is tossed away or how it becomes a lab rat so to speak...honestly I haven't really reconciled a rock solid opinion or belief concerning IVF....as I said it is a conflict of interest of sorts given how 'close' it became to me.

But that feels unnatural.

Also, its Emmas own fault she got pregnant. She should know how much goes into raising children. You basically sacrifice your life and time for that.child.

[lordxizor]

Her options were two: to carry the twins to term and devote the next few decades of her life to being a parent, or to abort and continue her life as planned.

I hate how giving the babies up for adoption is never mentioned as an option.

[rumborak]

Why?  You guys say that life begins with a fertilized egg.. that's exactly what happens with ivf, yet I've only seen (US) Christians get upset over abortion.

I personally don't nescessarily agree with IVF.....but have two very good friends who were only able to become Fathers due to that science. I am so happy for them and thier wives that they were able to have kids thanks to IVF....I love thier children....it's an amazing thing, reallly, No less of a miracle if you ask me. But I find myself in quite a 'spiritual' battle over IVF. On one hand I beleive that God has indeed given man the wisdom to create the technology and science involved in making IVF available....and along the same lines to cure disease and so forth.
  On the other hand I do have an issue with the 'left over' fertilized eggs that are 'otherwise discarded'...how that 'life' is tossed away or how it becomes a lab rat so to speak...honestly I haven't really reconciled a rock solid opinion or belief concerning IVF....as I said it is a conflict of interest of sorts given how 'close' it became to me.

But that feels unnatural.

I have to make a general comment here: I think people are often woefully ignorant what science and manipulation goes these days into a regular pregnancy and childbirth. By default, i.e. without medical intervention, the child and mother death rate is massive for humans. Saying that IVF is "unnatural" ignores the many "unnatural" aspects of regular birth.

rumborak

[theseoafs]

Her options were two: to carry the twins to term and devote the next few decades of her life to being a parent, or to abort and continue her life as planned.

I hate how giving the babies up for adoption is never mentioned as an option.

You're right; I would've done well to mention it there (although I did mention it with regard to Emma in a later paragraph).

[kirksnosehair]

Also, I'd just like to say that (in my opinion) the "abortion debate" is something manufactured by politicians to rile up the bases/divide people.  Similar to the "gun control" debate.  I don't believe that there will ever be (in my lifetime anyway) a president/administration that overturns Roe v. Wade, just as I don't believe that we'll ever see the second amendment abolished.  Those things are just thrown around, especially during election seasons, to scare people into voting.  Pro-life people need deal with the fact that legal abortion is here to stay in this country, just as anti-gun people need to deal with the fact that people walking around strapped all of the time is here to stay in this county.  All my opinion, of course (but I'm pretty sure I'm right).

TRUTH

[yeshaberto]

yet I've only seen (US) Christians get upset over abortion.

Assuming that is representative of reality, this is sad indeed.
The core of Christianity is the glory of the underdog and the defenseless, so US Christians are apparently on the right track.