NationStates Jolt Archive

Please read before posting
This is probally the sixth thread I've done in the "my thoughts on series" so the standard rules apply.
Namely:

This is only my personnel opinion, I'm entitled to it and you're entitled to your own.
Please donot post anything intentionally hurtful or mean-spirited.
This is a tender topic, please be considerate of others' feelings.
If you are offended by anything, please take a break before posting a reply. So as not to say anything out of anger.
Please behave respectfully

------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe in most cases abortion is wrong, in the same sense in most acses it is wrong to take human life.
I believe that certain exceptional circumstances warrant the taking of another's life.
I believe that a human becomes a human upon conception, not baecause they are a fully formed child, but because they have a soul.
I believe we cannot regulate how a person uses their body, but when a person holds another iside their body that cannot speak for itself we hold a duty to it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So, that's my personal position.

i'm just curious, if a soul is given at conception, does that mean that for every pair of identical twins, only one of them has a soul?

if a soul is given at conception, then 50% of all life with souls is destroyed before it is even implanted. this is naturally occuring in a woman's body. nothing to do with a medical procedure.

My view is even simpler. Abortion is a test of compassion.

this may or may not even belong in this topic but...what...in your opinion....comprises your soul?
I asked a friend of mine once and he basically described the functions of his nervous system...just wondering what you think.
and additionally, how do you know you have a soul?
I'm not necessarily arguing with the "abortions are usually wrong" viewpoint...I haven't yet set my thoughts in stone on that...(although I think they are always RIGHT if the mother is in danger....though it shouldn't be required legally)
so I'd like to post again later as this topic gets going...

Abortion is wrong even cases of rape and incest.
Some guy rapes a girl so you kill the baby cause of its father's crime.
And you call it justice?

i'm just curious, if a soul is given at conception, does that mean that for every pair of identical twins, only one of them has a soul?

if a soul is given at conception, then 50% of all life with souls is destroyed before it is even implanted. this is naturally occuring in a woman's body. nothing to do with a medical procedure.I don't believe the soul conforms to medical science, given that it is a spiritual being. I believe that every baby holds a soul given to them at the moment of conception.

Thank you for sharing. Allow me to also share my beliefs.

1. I believe that, in most cases, abortion is wrong.
2. I believe that, as this is my personal belief and the gray area on this issue is so significant, I can not in good conscience enforce my opinion on others.
3. I believe that women who have abortions, by and large, do not do so lightly or as a form of "birth control" and that these women should not be despised or referred to as "baby killers" because it shows a profound lack of compasion and empathy.
4. I believe that the problem is a society where women see an unplanned pregnancy as a burden due to family attitude, society attitudes, lack of services and lack of options. Until these are changed, banning abortions will have the same amount of success as Prohibition.
5. I believe women should have options and should recieve counciling to fully illustrate those options to them. However, after the counciling is said and done, I believe the choice is between the woman and whatever gods she pays hommage to. If it is wrong, the woman will atone for it in her own time and it is not my place to make her life any harder until then.

this may or may not even belong in this topic but...what...in your opinion....comprises your soul?
I asked a friend of mine once and he basically described the functions of his nervous system...just wondering what you think.
and additionally, how do you know you have a soul?
I'm not necessarily arguing with the "abortions are usually wrong" viewpoint...I haven't yet set my thoughts in stone on that...(although I think they are always RIGHT if the mother is in danger....though it shouldn't be required legally)
so I'd like to post again later as this topic gets going...I believe a soul isn't a physical being, but rather something spiritual and possibley beyond our understanding. I believe I posses a soul and this is what drives me to think, do good and feel compassion. I believe my soul excists after my physical body dies. I believe the sould is a symbol of everything good in humanity.

Abortion is wrong even cases of rape and incest.
Some guy rapes a girl so you kill the baby cause of its father's crime.
And you call it justice?You raise an intresting point. However we alos hold a duty to the future wellbeing of the child and mother.

My thoughts on abortion are as follows:
I don't think it's murder for several reasons. The first being that abortion is stopped at a certain trimester. This means that it is not truly 'alive' until the mother starts getting heavy cravings. This means that the baby is thinking and I think abortion after that point is wrong because it is murder.

Secondly aborted fetuses are often used for stem cell research. Stem cells are when there are no cells and it has to take form yet. That's another reason why it isn't 'alive' yet. Stem cell research may save millions of lives in the future.

Thirdly I think that if it was outlawed and called murder then you would have to charge mother's who had a miscarrige with manslaughter. Those are the double standards you would have to adopt.

The child is never alive at conception. It is a bunch of cells. Would you call my skin flakings alive? I wouldn't. Plus abortion is necessary in certain cases. Would you want to bring up a child in a world where it's mother is 14 years old, it's grandfather sexually abuses it, it's father is nowhere to be seen and has absolutley no place to go in life? I wouldn't. But then again adoption is probably the better altrenative there.

These are my thoughts...

My views on abortion:

First off, there is no such thing as a soul. Conciouness is due to a synergy of synampses and hormones.

A woman always has the right to remove a fetus from her body, but if the fetus is viable, or can be kept alive so that it can survive and develop then it must be removed in such a way that it is allowed to do so. Abortion is not 'good.' It can be quite traumatic. There should be more professional counseling provided for those seeking to undergo one.

If you are against abortion, then start adopting children and work towards a society where there is no need for abortion rather then trying to shackle women.

i'm just curious, if a soul is given at conception, does that mean that for every pair of identical twins, only one of them has a soul?

if a soul is given at conception, then 50% of all life with souls is destroyed before it is even implanted. this is naturally occuring in a woman's body. nothing to do with a medical procedure.I don't believe the soul conforms to medical science, given that it is a spiritual being. I believe that every baby holds a soul given to them at the moment of conception.

but that's the point...at the moment of conception, identical twins are only one "baby." there aren't two of them in there. identical twins are one sperm, one egg, just like any single baby, at the moment of conception. they don't become two "babies" until later on in the process. so at the moment of conception there is only one "baby," and therefore that "baby" gets one soul, which then...what, splits in half when the "baby" does? so each twin has half the soul?

and what about Dakini's point that 50% of ensouled humans will die, if your theory is true? roughly 35% of successful conceptions end naturally before the "baby" is large enough to be seen with the naked eye, and 10% more still end before the mother is even aware she is pregnant. there's even still others that are recognized as "miscarriages," but so mild that the woman pretty much just gets her period at an unexpected time. so 50% of the ensouled humans in the world simply die before differentiating far enough to be distinguished from frog larvae?

i know you say the soul doesn't jibe with medical science, but your vision of it doesn't seem to jibe with human reproduction either.

Abortion is wrong even cases of rape and incest.
Some guy rapes a girl so you kill the baby cause of its father's crime.
And you call it justice?No, its so that the woman, on top of having to suffer the most debilitating, painful and dehumanising act that someone can go through doesn't have to have another nine months of added suffering on top of that.

Abortion is wrong even cases of rape and incest.
Some guy rapes a girl so you kill the baby cause of its father's crime.
And you call it justice?

Ok, my feelings on this are that while it is not the baby's fault, it might ruin the mother's life. It might actually be more pragmatic to let her have an abortion. Let's say it's an 11 year old girl, and she's traumatized by the experience, and to her horror, finds that she's pregnant. A sentence of nine months that she didn't ask for or deserve, and at the end of it she might die. Although mortality rates for labor are dropping, it's still dangerous. Looking at the child, if she and it live, for the rest of her life, would be a life-sentence.

Maybe if she let it be adopted it might be somewhat better, but nowadays adopted children go looking for their mothers, and what if twenty years later she has to look this terrible incident in the face, even if it's not the fault or the knowledge of the person seeking her. What if she has to look into their face and see the shadow of the man who did it to her, and then try to explain why she did things as she did?

If the mother is pregnant with a child she does not want and cannot support because some idiot raped her, she should keep the child and wear the economic/social/emotional cost of a child which she cannot support and the father does not help (or want to)? It's up to the mother to me.

i believe it is wrong to kill sentient life... so if the fetus is still barely developed, and the measures are extraordinary (ie, 11 year old girl was raped, woman just diagnosed with disease which could either harm mother or child in childbirth, etc), i think abortion should be legal.

personally, i think we should just make contraception more available. condoms, birth control, morning after pills, etc- they should all be easily available. yeah, tahts what i think.

also, it makes me upset that men are the people making these decisions. all the men up making all the laws, they have no idea what its like to give birth, they have no idea what any of that is like. they will never, ever have to face these decisions in their own life, yet they think they can just run around with them, thinking they know best.
that is what i call dumb. let the women decide...

I totally agree with you Rotovia.

I only think that these cases warrant an abortion to take place:

1) Rape.
2) If the mother's life is in danger.

I am totally against the idea that abortion should be allowed because it is a woman's body and she should be able to do as she wishes with it. That's total crap, the baby is a seperate being not the actual woman.

2) If the mother's life is in danger.

what if the baby's life is in danger? or if they can tell its going to be severly disfigured, retarded, etc?
i still havent made up my mind about how i feel in the last part of that, but im just curious about what you would think

2) If the mother's life is in danger.

what if the baby's life is in danger? or if they can tell its going to be severly disfigured, retarded, etc?

Well, what do you mean if the babies life is in danger? An abortion would make no difference. I suppose it would be up to BOTH parents as to whether they carried on with the pregnancy, knowing that their baby would die anyway.

Why should physical or mental disabilities be grounds for murdering a human being? Do you advocate the killing of all mentally and physically handicapped people? What's the difference?

I used to be pro-choice, but i'm starting to lean the other way.

(goddamn! I actually have a conservative opinion on something!!!)

In cases of rape or health concerns, I can understand it. Any girl under 16 should be entitled to a choice- they probably weren't mature enough to realise the consequences until they were pregnant (Doesn't apply to all under 16 year olds, so no young people get offended, here) and caring for the child will be out of their financial ability. If their parents are willing to help, or the child can be put up for adoption, that should be considered.

If the child is going to be severely and irreversibly disabled, I can understand it. (and i'm not talking missing a limb or something, I mean if they are going to be a vegetable)

Otherwise. If they didn't use contraceptives, then it is their own fault and they should take responsibility for their actions, and not deny the child a right to a life.

2) If the mother's life is in danger.

what if the baby's life is in danger? or if they can tell its going to be severly disfigured, retarded, etc?

Well, what do you mean if the babies life is in danger? An abortion would make no difference. I suppose it would be up to BOTH parents as to whether they carried on with the pregnancy, knowing that their baby would die anyway.

Why should physical or mental disabilities be grounds for murdering a human being? Do you advocate the killing of all mentally and physically handicapped people? What's the difference?

I once read a story about a baby who was born with a birth defect that would make it die within two months, tops, of being born. The nurses simply isolated it and did not feed it, and it starved to death. The irony of it was that if they had given it to the mother to nurse, the baby would have aspirated on the milk and died much quicker and without having to suffer for days.

I guess my point is not that we should practice eugenics and kill the physically handicapped, but that euthanasia has been practiced for thousands of years when the doctor knew that prolonging life was only prolonging suffering needlessly.

Sometimes I think people enjoy thinking they have the moral high ground without caring or realising that it's at the expense of other people and their lives. If someone suffers, it's ok. It's God's will that they should suffer, just don't allow abortion.

Is a mercy-killing murder?

[quote="Dakini"]i'm just curious, if a soul is given at conception, does that mean that for every pair of identical twins, only one of them has a soul?

I believe that that is two separate conceptions, albeit one birth.
Im pro-life, and even if you can't look after the kid, you can put him\her up for adoption.

Is a mercy-killing murder?

No. As long as it is done humanely.

Is a mercy-killing murder?

No. As long as it is done humanely.

I believe that everyone is entitled to life and mercy killing is destroying that right.

2) If the mother's life is in danger.

what if the baby's life is in danger? or if they can tell its going to be severly disfigured, retarded, etc?

Well, what do you mean if the babies life is in danger? An abortion would make no difference. I suppose it would be up to BOTH parents as to whether they carried on with the pregnancy, knowing that their baby would die anyway.

Why should physical or mental disabilities be grounds for murdering a human being? Do you advocate the killing of all mentally and physically handicapped people? What's the difference?

i definately do not advocate the killing of handicapped people, that is why i am undecided on that part...
and what i meant about the babies life in danger, like if there was a large chance that it could die in childbirth for one reason or another.
hmmm.. still not working... nevermind

i really think abortion should be used extremely sparingly, only in the most drastic cases.... i do know that my best friends boyfriend was almost aborted, but his mom changed her mind at the last minute.
and he's the best thing thats ever happened to my friend...

I believe that everyone is entitled to life and mercy killing is destroying that right.

I agree with you, although I believe that only in very exceptional circumstances may we take another human beings life.

Is a mercy-killing murder?

No. As long as it is done humanely.

I believe that everyone is entitled to life and mercy killing is destroying that right.

I'm thinking here though, that if they were going to die anyway. A babies brain isn't developed enough to make any distinction apart from the pain that it is in. Why should it be prolonged?

Is a mercy-killing murder?

No. As long as it is done humanely.

i agree... if they know the child will just be suffering his/her whole life... as long as its a really extreme case and done humanely...
gosh, this really is a touchy situation..

I believe that everyone is entitled to life and mercy killing is destroying that right.

I agree with you, although I believe that only in very exceptional circumstances may we take another human beings life.

What if it would ultimately end in a painful, drawn out death for a baby? Do you believe that it is right that a baby should know a life of nothing but pain and suffering? Do you think that is what God would want? That's not a life. That's a tragedy.

What if it would ultimately end in a painful, drawn out death for a baby? Do you believe that it is right that a baby should know a life of nothing but pain and suffering? Do you think that is what God would want? That's not a life. That's a tragedy.

Well, these are very exceptional circumstances indeed. But if the parents knew that this was gonna happen then why didn't they abort it.

If they didn't know then I would be inclined to say not to kill the baby. I don't really know on this. I would have to experience it to make a decision as this really is something very exceptional.

I believe that everyone is entitled to life and mercy killing is destroying that right.

I agree with you, although I believe that only in very exceptional circumstances may we take another human beings life.

Yes. I think, if it is something that the child can live without, than keep it alive by all means.

If it is a severe brain injury that renders the child incapable of being anything more than a vegetable...well, I think that there is no reason to keep it alive. But then again, we never know what kinds of medical breakthroughs may be achieved in its lifetime.

What if it would ultimately end in a painful, drawn out death for a baby? Do you believe that it is right that a baby should know a life of nothing but pain and suffering? Do you think that is what God would want? That's not a life. That's a tragedy.

Well, these are very exceptional circumstances indeed. But if the parents knew that this was gonna happen then why didn't they abort it.

If they didn't know then I would be inclined to say not to kill the baby. I don't really know on this. I would have to experience it to make a decision as this really is something very exceptional.

Yeah. In this case I personally think euthanasia would be the best option for all concerned. It would be very hard on the parents seeing their newborn suffer as well...and the medical staff for being helpless in this situation.

If it is a severe brain injury that renders the child incapable of being anything more than a vegetable...well, I think that there is no reason to keep it alive. But then again, we never know what kinds of medical breakthroughs may be achieved in its lifetime.

I would most certainely not support Euthanasia in this case.

Anyway, we've gone from abortion to euthanasia. :?

I myself am against abortion when it is simply a form of expensive birth control. If I found myself in a position where I had no choice, it would be the hardest thing I'd ever be asked to do.

I once knew a girl whose boyfriend had pressured her into aborting their child, and to this day she counts how old her son would be now. I don't like that, and I don't like it that doctors can no longer tell parents which sex their child will be because some cultures would abort a female child. I don't like it that celebrities would have an abortion for the sake of their career, or that young women would do it rather than give the child up for adoption if the only reason they were doing it were for financial reasons.

I guess I accept that there are circumstances in which it should be allowed for the sake of being humane, though, and in principle I don't like the idea that anyone should have anything to say about it but the woman in that position. She's going to have a hard enough time without the gauntlet she must pass through to have access to this choice.

While I'm against abortion in most cases, I remain pro-choice.

If it is a severe brain injury that renders the child incapable of being anything more than a vegetable...well, I think that there is no reason to keep it alive. But then again, we never know what kinds of medical breakthroughs may be achieved in its lifetime.

I would most certainely not support Euthanasia in this case.

Anyway, we've gone from abortion to euthanasia. :?

They're very similar issues at their core though.

I sound heartless with what I said before, I realise...but I personally think it would be more compassionate to end the childs life in this case than let it live.

But...If there is even a tiny bit of sentient thought in its brain, then it should be entitled to a life.

They're very similar issues at their core though.

I sound heartless with what I said before, I realise...but I personally think it would be more compassionate to end the childs life in this case than let it live.

But...If there is even a tiny bit of sentient thought in its brain, then it should be entitled to a life.

i totally agree to that. killing sentient life is wrong... but if the child is going to have a miserable life through handicaps and retardation, and it isnt sentient yet.. yeah.

Before you dismiss my opinion because of my nation's name remember not to judge a book by it's cover.

I believe...
that abortion is really in the hands of the one carrying the child.
that being rigidily pro-life is rather stupid.
in the soul as a concept, but not as an actually thing.
if they wish to make abortion illegal than they should at least allow the general female population vote on it.
you can't judge someone as a evil with all the skeletons in your own closet.

I have other opinions, but they're really just along the same line as the ones above.

Before you dismiss my opinion because of my nation's name remember not to judge a book by it's cover.

I believe...
that abortion is really in the hands of the one carrying the child.
that being rigidily pro-life is rather stupid.
in the soul as a concept, but not as an actually thing.
if they wish to make abortion illegal than they should at least allow the general female population vote on it.
you can't judge someone as a evil with all the skeletons in your own closet.

I have other opinions, but they're really just along the same line as the ones above.

I don't believe in a soul, but I still feel that the child is being denied life through abortion, and if it is only done for reasons of convenience, than it is clearly wrong.

I wanted to reply to the idea that "you can't have two souls at conception, because what about twins?"

If you believe in the existence of souls, there is a good chance you believe in the existence of God. Maybe not my god, the Christian God, but some God or God-like thing. If you believe in the existence of souls, you probably also believe in some sort of 'reason to the madness', so to speak.

Given these, the answer is simple. Twins may be of one body in the beginning. It is easily deduced, however, that God (or destiny, or whatever) knew it was going to be a pair. Therefore, the one body would be gifted two souls, one for each eventual human being.

Alternatively, it could also be argued that this God, or destiny, or whatever (hereafter refered to as GDW :-) ) does not know the future. In this case, GDW would simply gift another soul as soon as the branch took place.

Either way, the question of two souls for twins is not a difficult one at all.

I believe that everyone is entitled to life and mercy killing is destroying that right.

I agree with you, although I believe that only in very exceptional circumstances may we take another human beings life.

What if it would ultimately end in a painful, drawn out death for a baby? Do you believe that it is right that a baby should know a life of nothing but pain and suffering? Do you think that is what God would want? That's not a life. That's a tragedy.
I dont want to bring God into this as it is not really fair to mee\mbers of other religions, but if He didn't want it, he wouldnt have let the baby be born. And anyway, the after-life might not better.

I dont want to bring God into this as it is not really fair to mee\mbers of other religions, but if He didn't want it, he wouldnt have let the baby be born. And anyway, the after-life might not better.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."

--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

When I refer to "God", I refer to whatever higher power you believe in.

Before you dismiss my opinion because of my nation's name remember not to judge a book by it's cover.

I believe...
that abortion is really in the hands of the one carrying the child.
that being rigidily pro-life is rather stupid.
in the soul as a concept, but not as an actually thing.
if they wish to make abortion illegal than they should at least allow the general female population vote on it.
you can't judge someone as a evil with all the skeletons in your own closet.

I have other opinions, but they're really just along the same line as the ones above.
I take the part about rigidly pro- life as an insult. Im entitled to my beliefs. :shock:

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."

--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

When I refer to "God", I refer to whatever higher power you believe in.[/quote]
I know Shakespeare :x . This is off subject, but what about Athiests? :?

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."

--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

When I refer to "God", I refer to whatever higher power you believe in.
I know Shakespeare :x . This is off subject, but what about Athiests? :?

I don't think atheists would really care to take part in this discussion, being awfully pragmatic and not wanting to think about things like souls, not believing in them.

if they wish to make abortion illegal than they should at least allow the general female population vote on it.

Which, ironically, would produce a more Pro-Life result than a general population vote, although only by a few percentage points.

On the subject of brain damage: what if a lunatic is actually a genius, but can't communicat proporly?

I don't think atheists would really care to take part in this discussion, being awfully pragmatic and not wanting to think about things like souls, not believing in them.[/quote]
You dont know that.

Better to abort it and kill it off if it will be born into a family where it is not wanted.

I don't think atheists would really care to take part in this discussion, being awfully pragmatic and not wanting to think about things like souls, not believing in them.
You dont know that.

Yes I do. I know that they don't believe in souls because "Atheist" by definition means that they don't believe in faith or religion as we speak of it now.

One entry found for atheist.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

You're right, though. This is off-topic and if it needs to be discussed, start another thread. Besides, it's just splitting hairs and avoiding the real topic of abortion and your feelings concerning it.

I don't think atheists would really care to take part in this discussion, being awfully pragmatic and not wanting to think about things like souls, not believing in them.
You dont know that.

Yes I do. I know that they don't believe in souls because "Atheist" by definition means that they don't believe in faith or religion as we speak of it now.

One entry found for atheist.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

You're right, though. This is off-topic and if it needs to be discussed, start another thread. Besides, it's just splitting hairs and avoiding the real topic of abortion and your feelings concerning it.

I'm an atheist and I am involved in this discussion...Just because I don't believe in a soul doesn't mean I don't respect life.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."

--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

When I refer to "God", I refer to whatever higher power you believe in.
I know Shakespeare :x . This is off subject, but what about Athiests? :?

I don't think atheists would really care to take part in this discussion, being awfully pragmatic and not wanting to think about things like souls, not believing in them.

I'm an atheist.

I didn't say that you weren't welcome to be a part of this discussion as atheists or otherwise, I just happen to believe in a higher power, albeit as a Unitarian. I express myself according to this, not in exclusion of others. I respect your faith or lack of it as much as I respect your opinion, but I sincerely believe that faith doesn't really come into this discussion.

I didn't say that you weren't welcome to be a part of this discussion as atheists or otherwise, I just happen to believe in a higher power, albeit as a Unitarian. I express myself according to this, not in exclusion of others. I respect your faith or lack of it as much as I respect your opinion, but I sincerely believe that faith doesn't really come into this discussion.

Fair enough, but it was really in response to your comment:


I don't think atheists would really care to take part in this discussion, being awfully pragmatic and not wanting to think about things like souls, not believing in them.

I didn't say that you weren't welcome to be a part of this discussion as atheists or otherwise, I just happen to believe in a higher power, albeit as a Unitarian. I express myself according to this, not in exclusion of others. I respect your faith or lack of it as much as I respect your opinion, but I sincerely believe that faith doesn't really come into this discussion.

Fair enough, but it was really in response to your comment:


I don't think atheists would really care to take part in this discussion, being awfully pragmatic and not wanting to think about things like souls, not believing in them.

What do you know. I think I might have been wrong. Atheists DO care to take part in this discussion. ;)

I'm curious as to how many of the people posting on this thread are actually female?

...and how many of the people with the hard-line pro-life stance are like that because "god" tells them to be like that?

I'm curious as to how many of the people posting on this thread are actually female?
*waves* over here, yeah, female

I don't think atheists would really care to take part in this discussion, being awfully pragmatic and not wanting to think about things like souls, not believing in them.
You dont know that.

Yes I do. I know that they don't believe in souls because "Atheist" by definition means that they don't believe in faith or religion as we speak of it now.

One entry found for atheist.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

You're right, though. This is off-topic and if it needs to be discussed, start another thread. Besides, it's just splitting hairs and avoiding the real topic of abortion and your feelings concerning it.

I'm an atheist and I am involved in this discussion...Just because I don't believe in a soul doesn't mean I don't respect life.
yeah me too...atheist (ok well, agnostic, and I don't believe in a soul) and female

this is such a thoughtful thread

my thoughts

abortion is a tragedy.

no one wakes up one morning and says "i have nothing better to do, i think ill go get an abortion" its always a gut wrenching decision.

many men are anti abortion up to the day when their girlfriend (or one-night-stand) announces that she is pregnant and they try to pass off responsiblity by offering to pay for an abortion. we all know a few men who have wondered why they have to pay child support when they had been willing to pay for an abortion

abortion has always been practiced and it always will. the question is will it be safe.

yeah a fertilized egg is "alive" but if its not important to "god" (since he lets at least half of them die) why should it be so important to me that i would outlaw abortion?

i have a good friend who has a horrible wasting disease that will kill him by the time he is 40. he is 32 now. 32 years ago it was untreatable. today they have a treatment. the treatment is early detection and abortion. i look at my friend and am so glad that they dint have that treatment before he was born. his life is worth so much more than that.

I'm very impressed that this thread hasn't turned into a flamewar. Perhaps this means there's hope for rational, intelligent discussion on highly sensitive issues such as this.

I'd like to speak on the soul for a minute, though, even though it's pseudo-off topic. At the risk of being flip, I think Lisa Simpson said it best: Whether or not the soul is physically real...it's the symbol of everything fine inside of us. This, I think, is the only fundamentally true thing we can say about the soul. Regardless of it's physical existance, it has come to be known as a conceptualization of all the good we as living beings are capable of doing and a respectful acknolwedgement of the fact that, for whatever reasons and by whatever causes, we are here, now, sharing in this amazing existance. After one states the obvious symbolisim of the soul, though, it all becomes speculation and faith.

Personally, I believe in the soul, although I don't really know what it is. Even as an atheist I felt there was rational reason and evidence pointing to a continuation of existence of some essential part of everything currently alive. At that time, I tried to conceive of it energistically, that the day to day existance of all living things leaves an endellible, energistic impression on the warp and weft of reality and this empression, which can not be undone, is the essence of the soul. As one lives, experiences and grows, the impression takes on new forms and dimensions. Thus, the soul, or perhaps the infinite potential of the soul, is in existance at birth, but it is not necessarily the same soul that continues after death. I thought Dylan Thomas came very close to not only defining the soul but the paradox of existance it represents in his poem:


The force that drives the green fuse drives the flower
Drives my green age; that blasts the roots of trees
Is my destroyer.
And I am dumb to tell the crooked rose
My youth is bent by the same wintry fever.
The force that drives the water through the rocks
Drives my red blood; that dries the morning streams
Turns mine to wax.
And I am dumb to mouth unto my veins
How at the morning spring the same mouth sucks.
The hand that whirls the water in the pool
Stirs the quicksand; that ropes the blowing wind
Hauls my shroud sail.
And I am dumb to tell the hanging man
How of my clay is made the hangman's lime.
The lips of time leech to the fountain head;
Love drips and gathers, but the fallen blood
Shall calm her sores.
And I am dumb to tell a weather's wind
How time has ticked a heaven round the stars.
And I am dumb to tell the lover's tomb
How at my sheet goes the same crooked worm.


The "soul" may be no more than a desperate attempt to forestall an eventual "non-existance", but in and of itself, that attempt may be enough to justify the continued existance of the soul. The fact that we can see death and mortality and rage against it may provide the necessary energistic key to unlock it's door and our perceptions may form the ultimate basis of whatever part of us perpetuates beyond death. During my time as an athiest, I was startled by the number of other atheists who also believed in a continuation after death and I was both humbled and inspired by thier belief.

Eventually, I stumbled back into theistic thought, were the idea of the soul is a lot more at home. Religion provided the basic tool set to explore the concept of the soul. I know I've talked about my faith before, and if you're bored by it, feel free to skip this message, but in the Religious Society of Friends, one of our central tennants is "That of God" in all things. All living creatures contain some portion of divinity ("The Force That Through The Green Fuse Drives The Flower"). If we are quiet and introspective enough, we can commune directly with this holy presence. Even if we don't, though, it is not only part of God, but also uniquely our own. We have the charge of caring for it, both in ourself and others. Nurturing it with experience, growing it with knowledge, tempering it with humility and, possibly, creating it with our actions.

This spark of divinity is why life must be respected. Hence, my belief that abortion is wrong, but my unwillingness to force that belief on others. Council, yes. Advise, yes. Mandate, never. And, in those situations, whatever choice is ultimately made, my compelling duty is then to support the one who made that choice. I don't believe there are many abortions which are simply a later form of birth control. I don't think women who undergo this questioning do it lightly. I don't think they can and, should they have a mindset that can make this decision lightly, I don't think they'll have a mindset that is receptive to some form of legal binding. There are other issues at work there that a simple law will not solve for (although, as the West loves it's "quick fixes", many good people have convinced themselves it would).

Back to the nature of the soul, though. I now like to think I have found a synthesis for my belief in it's existance, an argument on both rational and faith-based terms. It is the force that binds us together, both as individuals, and as entities sharing the marvelous gift of existance. It can be directly developed and nurtured, or indirectly affected, through our actions and beliefs. As much as our souls make us who we are, we create our souls and they link us together in a way we can not currently comprehend. Perhaps like paired particles in quantum physics. A change in one provokes a change in the other, no matter how much physical distance seperates them.

Our souls are what we make of them. Some don't feel they exist at all and this is a perfectly valid conclusion to reach based on an individual interpretation of the facts and conjecture of their meanings. Others feel that they are some sort of ghostly presence that hovers behind our eyes and physically inhabits our bodies. This is also possible, although it requires a more faith-based acceptance of the world and reality. Whatever the true nature of the soul, holy spark or desperate denial, it's true power lies in the symbolisim that we grant it.

I guess I said it before when I said that although I don't approve of abortion for myself, I accept that sometimes it's necessary and even the right thing to do.

In most cases, though, I think all life is a miracle. It's been pointed out that 50% of fertilized eggs are killed for one reason or another, usually because they wouldn't be viable fetuses. This said, that makes it even more of a miracle when two people conceive and carry a baby to term, and that baby becomes a person with hopes and a future and feelings and yes, I guess I'd call that a soul.

For this reason, I'd have a hard time even considering abortion as an option if I became pregnant and couldn't keep the baby. I'm adopted, and I feel that someone at least gave me a chance. Maybe they couldn't have given me a life that a child should have, and so they gave me the greatest gift in their power. They gave me up so that someone else who could would have the chance.

This isn't always an option, it isn't always possible. I consider myself lucky, though, and if I became pregnant I would do everything short of moving the earth to give my child a chance.

i'm just curious, if a soul is given at conception, does that mean that for every pair of identical twins, only one of them has a soul?

if a soul is given at conception, then 50% of all life with souls is destroyed before it is even implanted. this is naturally occuring in a woman's body. nothing to do with a medical procedure.I don't believe the soul conforms to medical science, given that it is a spiritual being. I believe that every baby holds a soul given to them at the moment of conception.

but 50% of fertilized ovum simply pass through a woman's body without implanting. note that conception refers to fertilization...
if a soul is given at conception, then half of all those souls are put into bodies that die before they have a chance.

with identical twins, they start as one fertilized egg. then they divide into two cell clusters... since the soul is awarded at conception, there would only be one soul. therefore they either share a soul or one of them doesn't have one.

i'm just curious, if a soul is given at conception, does that mean that for every pair of identical twins, only one of them has a soul?

if a soul is given at conception, then 50% of all life with souls is destroyed before it is even implanted. this is naturally occuring in a woman's body. nothing to do with a medical procedure.I don't believe the soul conforms to medical science, given that it is a spiritual being. I believe that every baby holds a soul given to them at the moment of conception.

but that's the point...at the moment of conception, identical twins are only one "baby." there aren't two of them in there. identical twins are one sperm, one egg, just like any single baby, at the moment of conception. they don't become two "babies" until later on in the process. so at the moment of conception there is only one "baby," and therefore that "baby" gets one soul, which then...what, splits in half when the "baby" does? so each twin has half the soul?

and what about Dakini's point that 50% of ensouled humans will die, if your theory is true? roughly 35% of successful conceptions end naturally before the "baby" is large enough to be seen with the naked eye, and 10% more still end before the mother is even aware she is pregnant. there's even still others that are recognized as "miscarriages," but so mild that the woman pretty much just gets her period at an unexpected time. so 50% of the ensouled humans in the world simply die before differentiating far enough to be distinguished from frog larvae?

i know you say the soul doesn't jibe with medical science, but your vision of it doesn't seem to jibe with human reproduction either.You're missing my point, it has nothing to do with science or medicine. The soul is given upon conception to every human being, in the case of identical twins I'm sure a God who is all-knowing could handle it.

i'm just curious, if a soul is given at conception, does that mean that for every pair of identical twins, only one of them has a soul?

if a soul is given at conception, then 50% of all life with souls is destroyed before it is even implanted. this is naturally occuring in a woman's body. nothing to do with a medical procedure.I don't believe the soul conforms to medical science, given that it is a spiritual being. I believe that every baby holds a soul given to them at the moment of conception.

but 50% of fertilized ovum simply pass through a woman's body without implanting. note that conception refers to fertilization...
if a soul is given at conception, then half of all those souls are put into bodies that die before they have a chance.
And? Just because a human with a soul has a high chance of dying doesn't mean they don't have a soul.

My views on abortion:

First off, there is no such thing as a soul. Conciouness is due to a synergy of synampses and hormones.

A woman always has the right to remove a fetus from her body, but if the fetus is viable, or can be kept alive so that it can survive and develop then it must be removed in such a way that it is allowed to do so. Abortion is not 'good.' It can be quite traumatic. There should be more professional counseling provided for those seeking to undergo one.

If you are against abortion, then start adopting children and work towards a society where there is no need for abortion rather then trying to shackle women.
Keep your "synampses and hormones" away from MY soul.

Yeah a soul isnt physical. Its spiratual. Call it your humanity if you want.

also, it makes me upset that men are the people making these decisions. all the men up making all the laws, they have no idea what its like to give birth, they have no idea what any of that is like. they will never, ever have to face these decisions in their own life, yet they think they can just run around with them, thinking they know best.
that is what i call dumb. let the women decide...

Agreed. That's why I say that women should be allowed to abort if they want.

Thank god I will never have to give birth.