My mother was 19 when she got pregnant with my 22 year-old father. They had known each other for three months. They were both well on their way to becoming disbelieving inactives, but were still under the influence of their uber religious parents. Had it not been for familial pressure on both sides, they would have most likely had gotten an abortion and continued with their separate lives. They instead got married, got their act together, and built an incredibly solid marriage that has lasted until today. Honestly, their only regret was probably when I told them I was getting baptized.

For most of my life, I was anti-choice. I viewed myself as a posterchild against the idea that it was better to terminate a pregnancy than to bring up a child under non-ideal circumstances. All children deserved a chance, I told myself. I got my chance. I thanked my grandparents for intervening to SAVE MY LIFE.

It's only been a few years since my opinion completely flipped. I realized the absurdity of my argument. Had my father's friend not lent him the keys to his car; had my mother not accepted the invitation to the party; had my father waited 100 microseconds to plant his seed, I would also not be here. My grandparents didn't "save" me. They were just another factor of billions that led to the highly impropable outcome that would lead me to write this post today.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2015 08:41PM by levantlurker.

Contingency, serendipity, timing.

I stopped at 2 kids. What about the 20 I didn't have? I will never know.

Why aren't we feeling sorry of the million sperms that didn't hit gold?

If my friend had been 1 second before or after when she was in a traffic accident, she would still be alive.

I figure I should just be glad for every moment I have, because there are a lot of things that could have happened or still may. Life is not certain at any time.

The health of the mother is a valid reason for terminating an advanced pregnancy and so is finding out late in the pregnancy that the baby has serious problems. If for most other reasons, rape included, the woman waits until the fetus is viable to decide, then tough. Let her put it up for adoption. We are talking about a baby at that stage, not an embryo. It doesnt happen often,but a woman who waits that long and decides to terminate is an idiot. There may occasionally be other reasons such as not knowing you were pregnant or mental hygenie issues, but those and the health of the mother and baby are the only reasons I can think of. A viable baby has rights too

The above is a reply to a post in the closed thread.

Wow, you must really hate women. Someone who has been raped has already been violated once. You would force a woman who has been impregnated that way to bear the child, violating her all over again. I'm glad people like you don't make the rules.

I am a woman and a feminist,but a woman who has been raped and who is not mentally ill has had plenty of time to decide to abort before the fetus becomes viable. She could take the morning after pill,she can test for pregnancy as early as possible and then take her time to decide if she is unsure. If she has to wait until she is six to eight months along to make a decision then I have little sympathy. I would be very sympathetic if she decided to abort during the first trimester or even a bit later. I think the law would agree with me. There are restrictions on late term abortions and rightly so. Besides, it is seldom an issue. Very few women are going to go through morning sickness, weight gain, backaches, swollen feet and then decide to abort a healty baby at the last minute.If she decides at the last minute she doesnt want the kid,there is adoption. She has already carried the baby for along time. A few more weeks isnt the end of world.There is such a thing as being a responsible human being and making a timely decison

And what if she's too traumatized to address it right away? What if she doesn't even realize she's pregnant until 3-4 months in? Some women still bleed during pregnancy. What if she tries to get an abortion as soon as she finds out, but can't have it scheduled until months later? There aren't many clinics that perform abortions. Access to them can be very hard to get in some areas.

But enough of all that. I just don't understand why on Earth you would want to punish someone who is already suffering. I don't think any child should be born unless the woman carrying it is physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of giving birth. I don't think anyone can determine that other than the woman herself and her physician. Wrong or right, it's not my decision. Or yours. Nor should it be.

Which are already illegal unless there's a serious threat to the woman's health.

Hospitals offer morning after pills D&Cs,counseling even before a rape victim would know for sure she was prenant. Even if she waited three or four months, the fetus wouldnt be viable. I am talking six months or later. How long does she get decide? What if she decides the child was a mistake when it is two or three because it looks like the rapist? Maybe she should kill it because it is causing her pain. Get real A baby doesnt suddenly become human when it comes out. It has certain rights once it becomes viable.It doesnt go from a clump of cells to a human being when it pops out. BTW, I did say there should be exceptions for mental illness or not knowing you were pregnant which would take care of many of your objections.

A fetus becomes a baby when it is born, not before. Until then, it is part of a mother's body.

A fetus's rights should not supersede those of the mother. Ever. One is a human being. One is a potential, but not yet realized, human being.

Abortion is legal in the USA. Unless it's your body and your pregnancy, it is none of your business.

Politicians have no right to dictate on this issue, it is a womans (very tough) decision to make, not them.

the Number of abortions have declined over the years, and I think would decline even more, if young women received the education they should (rather than abstinence only nonsense). But abortion, as tough of a decision it is, should be available.

As for late term abortions, they are less than 1% of all abortions, and not easy to get. Many of these are wanted pregnancies but with big problems. A link below, is a story of a 'pro life' woman that had an abortion because of very sad circumstances.

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/Stories/RahcelsStoryOI.aspx

No one should judge, it is sad, difficult, but should remain legal.

I agree. It isnt exactly a big problem. Woman dont put off elective abortions until the third trimester at least not often. I was speaking hypothetically to those in another thread who seem to feel that there is no difference between a first trimester abortion and a third trimester abortion. In the latter case there are restrictions because the fetus may be viable and they almost never happen without a good reason. No sane woman is going to go through the discomfort of pregnancy and then suddenly decide on a elective abortion in the 8th month. I was simply trying to make the point that abortion becomes more complicated the longer the pregnancy continues.

My wife and I were married 23 years ago.
We had a son in 1996, and a daughter in 2001. We considered ourselves "through." No more kids. Were using birth control.
Then last year, surprise -- wife (then 44) is pregnant. When they tell you birth control is 99% effective, watch out -- it's the 1% that'll get ya.

We had concerns -- rightly so. Pregnancies at my wife's age have a high risk of problems, including Down Syndrome and other abnormalities. We talked it over extensively. We decided to get all the tests, and if there was a high risk of defects, to consider aborting the fetus. We knew it would be a hard decision, but that it was ours to make.

In the end, the tests showed everything was fine, we decided to bring the fetus to term, and last June we had a wonderful, lovely baby girl.

To anyone who would have told us, "You can't have a abortion no matter what, or unless the mother's life is in danger," I say -- screw you. It was our choice to make. And it's none of your damn business.

Kolob: Sincere congratulations on the new addition.

It is nice to see that you apparently believe in genuine moral choices, and freewill. How does that fare with your steadfast scientific worldview, which denies both? (From your posts, it is quite clear that ALL beliefs require scientific evidence!)

If you insist that science somehow includes morality and genuine freewill, then please provide a viable scientific theory that explains each in scientific terms; i.e. scientific evidence that establishes morality, and scientific evidence that establishes freewill. (And don't forget to exclude human reports, and to insist upon scientific experiment with verification and replication, as you repeatedly do here.) If you can't do that--and you can't--maybe you should lighten up a bit on your unrelenting scientism in other contexts. From your post here, you and your wife freely made a hard moral choice based upon your own moral values. Perhaps your worldview should reflect the fact that such a choice was morally significant, and freely made, as implied from your post here; and regardless of what that choice actually turned out to be.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kolob: Sincere congratulations on the new
> addition.

Thank you :)

>
> It is nice to see that you apparently believe in
> genuine moral choices, and freewill. How does
> that fare with your steadfast scientific
> worldview, which denies both? (From your posts, it
> is quite clear that ALL beliefs require scientific
> evidence!)

Your premise is false; science (or a "scientific worldview," whatever that is) does not "deny" either morality or choice.

Your second premise is also false -- I don't do "beliefs." Claims of fact require evidence to be considered factual.
I made no claim of fact above.

> If you insist that science somehow includes
> morality and genuine freewill...

Science is a method for finding out facts. It doesn't "include" anything. It can inform us of facts. We determine what our subjective "morality" is, and we can make choices (that's a fact, backed up by the scientific method).
We can use the facts we learn from the scientific method to inform our choices, including "moral" ones (or not), but they're still our choices, and whatever "morality" we go by is still subjective.
And YOU seem to be the one "insisting" that science "includes" such things. Not me :)

> then please provide
> a viable scientific theory that explains each in
> scientific terms; i.e. scientific evidence that
> establishes morality, and scientific evidence that
> establishes freewill. (And don't forget to exclude
> human reports, and to insist upon scientific
> experiment with verification and replication, as
> you repeatedly do here.) If you can't do that--and
> you can't--maybe you should lighten up a bit on
> your unrelenting scientism in other contexts.

Hopefully you've understood your error by now. See above.

> From your post here, you and your wife freely made
> a hard moral choice based upon your own moral
> values.

Why is this a "moral choice?" What differentiates a "moral choice" from a regular choice?
We made our choice based on facts AND emotions. The facts, science provided. The emotions, we provided (based on our experiences, mostly).

> Perhaps your worldview should reflect the
> fact that such a choice was morally significant,
> and freely made, as implied from your post here;
> and regardless of what that choice actually turned
> out to be.

I don't have a "worldview."
Once again, I don't see why this was a "moral choice." Are you calling it that just because it involved a topic that some people consider to be "owned" by some imagined god-thing?
This was a choice about our lives, and the potential life of our potential child. It was a practical decision. It was also our decision to make, and nobody's else's business, no matter what "morality" they claimed to have or follow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2015 06:16PM by ificouldhietokolob.

KOLOB: Your premise is false; science (or a "scientific worldview," whatever that is) does not "deny" either morality or choice.

COMMENT: Science is mechanistic; i.e. it is based upon physical law and related facts, and physical causal relationships, as opposed to metaphysical facts, statements, or beliefs. There are no physical facts that explain either morality or genuine freewill. One needs mental facts and psychology. What is "morally right" or "morally wrong" cannot be explained through scientific evidence. Neither can science explain what "morality" is through physical facts. Moreover, genuine freewill transcends physical cause and effect relationships, so it is also not explainable in scientific terms. Thus, science proper denies that these "facts" are within the realm of science, i.e. that they are explainable in scientific terms and by scientific evidence. Your posts consistently insist that beliefs must be based upon scientific evidence to have validity, and you dismiss any such beliefs that do not.

__________________________________________

KOLOB: Your second premise is also false -- I don't do "beliefs." Claims of fact require evidence to be considered factual. I made no claim of fact above.

COMMENT: Does that mean you have no beliefs? So, your moral choice as described in your post does not involve a belief in any facts as related to either morality or freewill? Upon what then, was this "hard" moral choice based upon?

___________________________________________

KOLOB: We determine what our subjective "morality" is, and we can make choices (that's a fact, backed up by the scientific method).

COMMENT: So your "subjective morality" does not involve objective scientific facts. O.K. then why is it so hard? Why not just flip a coin? Why deliberate over moral choices at all? If morality is scientifically meaningful, it must involve objective facts, such that some actions are morally right, and others morally wrong. The problem is that there are no objective scientific facts, based upon scientific evidence, to support such moral facts. (No moral ought from a physical is!)

KOLOB: We can use the facts we learn from the scientific method to inform our choices, including "moral" ones (or not), but they're still our choices, and whatever "morality" we go by is still subjective.

COMMENT: Where are the scientific facts that support "our choices" (genuine freewill)? According to science, the brain is deterministic and mechanistic. We are solely products of the brain. Our choices are nothing more than algorithms of the brain that are instantiated by causal relationships between neurons (however complex). There is no room for genuine freewill in this scenario. Thus, genuine freewill is entirely a metaphysical concept, outside of science and scientific evidence. There is no such thing in science as "our choices" except in the practical or psychological sense.

KOLOB: And YOU seem to be the one "insisting" that science "includes" such things. Not me :)

COMMENT: No. I am telling you what you have insisted that science is about, physical facts and evidence. Therefore, to the extent you believe in objective morality and/or genuine freewill you are outside of science, and scientific evidence, and are engaged in metaphysics. I personally do not find that objectionable. But your posts have repeatedly denigrated any beliefs that are not strictly scientifically supportable. Yet, you yourself have at least two such beliefs, i.e. morality and freewill--unless you are merely feigning such beliefs to get through daily life.

KOLOB: Hopefully you've understood your error by now. See above.

COMMENT: The error is yours, as I have demonstrated with clear language. And to repeat, you cannot provide me with ANY scientific facts that support either a belief in morality per se, or a belief in genuine freewill. Yet, you clearly believe in both. Apparently there are some beliefs that are justified even though they are not supported by scientific evidence. (Which I would agree, and think is quite obvious.)

KOLOB: Why is this a "moral choice?" What differentiates a "moral choice" from a regular choice?
We made our choice based on facts AND emotions. The facts, science provided. The emotions, we provided (based on our experiences, mostly).

COMMENT: So, it was not a moral choice, just a regular choice? You did not consider what the "morally right" decision would be? It was all about pragmatic effects? Other than your non-morally-related emotions (brain states), morality was entirely irrelevant? O.K. So, then why was the choice so hard?

KOLOB: I don't have a "worldview."

COMMENT: NONSENSE: A worldview is essentially how one views the world (universe) and one's place in it, and how one formulates beliefs and determines appropriate actions. You most certainly do have a worldview which is expressed repeatedly on this Board. It is a hardcore scientific worldview, which leaves little room for intuitive beliefs about metaphysical facts--except now we know that the exception is morality and freewill.

KOLOB: Once again, I don't see why this was a "moral choice." Are you calling it that just because it involved a topic that some people consider to be "owned" by some imagined god-thing?
This was a choice about our lives, and the potential life of our potential child. It was a practical decision. It was also our decision to make, and nobody's else's business, no matter what "morality" they claimed to have or follow.

COMMENT: Forget the "god-thing" reference. This post is not about God. The whole post was about moral judgments in the context of abortion, which in general is what the whole abortion debate is about. Your reference to "the potential life of our potential child" is laden with moral values which clearly affected your decision. Now, maybe that is only about practical effects and emotions, and does not translate into what may be "right" and "wrong" from an objective moral perspective. But, it appears to me that your consideration of a "potential child" suggests that such a consideration has moral implications over and above what you and your wife happen to feel, or happen to deem is in your own best interest. It seems you are invoking moral value in a non-existent life, and inquiring about the right moral choice given such value. That consideration assumes objective morality in some sense. But there is no science here.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
(ignoring most of the above, I have neither time nor patience to deal with it at the moment)

> It
> seems you are invoking moral value in a
> non-existent life, and inquiring about the right
> moral choice given such value. That consideration
> assumes objective morality in some sense. But
> there is no science here.

Interesting how despite what I SAY, you re-form my own statements (using "it seems," when it doesn't) in your own terms. That's rather sad, actually.

Despite the mass of words above, you never did get around to explaining why this involves a "moral choice." If I consider it just a practical matter (can I and do I want to raise a child that's severely handicapped or not?), then frankly you don't get to simply insist it's a "moral choice" because you want to.
And the "right choice" is the "right choice" for myself and my family. That's entirely subjective, and doesn't assume anything objective. Once again, you've missed the point I made, and insisted on framing MY ideas and words in YOUR (subjective, yet demanding objectivity) viewpoint.

Finally, you simply ignored both my explanation of science, and everyone else's (who practices it). Facts we learn through the scientific method can (and do) inform our choices. It doesn't make (or demand) choices for us. It's a method for finding out facts.

Finally, we've gone over this before, but it bears repeating again, because you seem to be insisting that "metaphysics" owns "morality;" "metaphysics" is something that (some) philosophers and theologians flail around playing at, but it ain't science, and it ain't anything other than, largely, baseless (and worthless) speculation. Appealing to it doesn't win you any points when it comes to facts and evidence.

Peace.

"It's only been a few years since my opinion completely flipped. I realized the absurdity of my argument. Had my father's friend not lent him the keys to his car; had my mother not accepted the invitation to the party; had my father waited 100 microseconds to plant his seed, I would also not be here. My grandparents didn't "save" me. They were just another factor of billions that led to the highly impropable outcome that would lead me to write this post today."

COMMENT: First, let me say that I believe in free choice. Having said that, the moral dilemma you describe here, and the various moral positions implied by this dilemma, are not dismissed by an appeal to chance, or random events. Your grandparents pressed their own moral values which indeed "saved your life." Of course, had such values not been expressed, and your parents decided to get an abortion, you would not be here. That is just a fact. But that does NOT imply that your parents choice would have been immoral or wrong. It would just be one of the consequences of their moral values and choice. Whether one position is "morally right" and another "morally wrong" is not determined by whether you would or would not have been born. That determination itself requires a further consideration of moral values, as well as presumably a consideration of projected consequences taken as a whole.

"Contingency, serendipity, timing" have nothing essentially to do with it when a moral dilemma surfaces in the context of a free choice. Human values and moral choices, if we take them seriously, are not random. They are choices that are freely made; hopefully through the application of rationality to our existing values.

Yes, "random" causal events do happen, as well as mundane human actions, sometimes resulting in consequences we cannot anticipate or control. But that is not the same as applying our moral values to facts and circumstances that we can control, which is the situation you describe.

I disagree in the sense that I felt a degree of gratitude and indebtedness to my grandparents and the other moral crusaders.

That's the part I later found to be absurd.

To thank my grandparents for saving my life would also mean I should also thank my ancestors for their genocide of the North American natives and the enslavement of Africans which ultimately led their posterity to thrive, prosper, and multiply. I should also thank a certain fortune teller for creating a religion that provided a common bond for my two parents to meet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2015 06:00AM by levantlurker.