Flowerfaeiry

Radical Opinion on Abortion?

77 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Bodigger said:

Please correct me if I am getting this incorrect; what @Hatfort and @Serotoninluv are saying is, it is okay to choose for ourselves to end life inside our own bodies but not if it is outside our bodies.

This is not what I'm saying. This is still within the dynamic of positions - a pro-life position or pro-choice position. I am pointing a meta view of both positions.

The term "okay" is a relative term. What is "okay" is relative to a perspective. From the perspective of an ardent pro-life position, it is not okay to end life in our own bodies. A pro-life position would place the life of a human biological organism over allowing the woman to choose. From a pro-life position, it is not "okay" for a woman to end the life of the human organism inside her. However, this pro-life position is limited to human life. Pro-lifers are not marching to protect mouse life or fly larvae life. It is conditional to human life. . . In contrast, an ardent pro-choice position would be to prioritize allowing the mother to choose over protecting the life of the biological organism inside her. From this position it is "okay" for a woman to choose to end the life of a human organism inside her. . . Whether or not it is "okay" is relative to the perspective. There is no external, objective, universal "okay" - it is relative. 

From a pro-choice perspective, a woman has a right to choose whether to carry a human biological organism inside her or to end it. Choice is a higher priority than "life". To understand this position, one needs to understand that choice is the higher priority in this example. If we shift to the life of a biological organism outside of the body, it is a completely different context. Now the highest priority of choice is no longer relevant. It is a new context. Now that "choice is irrelevant" the person is no longer considered "pro-choice"because from this perspective there is no "choice" (whether to terminate a pregnancy in their body). Whether to protect the lives of non-human biological organisms would be a new question.

A pro-life perspective would be very different. From this perspective protecting the life of a human biological organism is higher than allowing a woman to choose whether to carry it. From this perspective, the pro-choice position seems hypocritical. A pro-choicer may say it is "okay" to end the life of a human embryo, yet not the life of a sea turtle embryo. This seems hypocritical to a pro-lifer because they do not understand a pro-choice position due to their attachment/identification to their pro-life position. However, from a pro-choice position, it is not hypocritical - it is consistent to their position. 

This would be considered a high green or yellow view because it includes relativism. If a person held this meta view and believed it was the right view, that is high green. If a person was aware that this relativistic meta view itself is relative, that is stage yellow. 

Blue, Orange and Green tend to hold different views on abortion due to their underlying value system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bodigger said:

Please correct me if I am getting this incorrect; what @Hatfort and @Serotoninluv are saying is, it is okay to choose for ourselves to end life inside our own bodies but not if it is outside our bodies.

As I do more self work I find myself revering all life in all its expressions, no matter what, even if I don't understand it.

No, that is not what I said, you can read what i said in my comments. I didn't speak on that terms, but you can if you want to.

Edited by Hatfort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bodigger said:

Would you mind pointing me in a direction where I may find these polls or percentages you are talking about?  I have been unsuccessful in finding anything like the 75% you have been saying. 

Google around for polling on abortion and Roe v Wade.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 5:01 PM, Hatfort said:

Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, and pro-choicers at birth.

Nah, not at all. I am pro-choice and I believe life starts at conception. I just DGAF if you wanna kill your own (beautiful) baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Arcangelo said:

Nah, not at all. I am pro-choice and I believe life starts at conception. I just DGAF if you wanna kill your own (beautiful) baby.

@Arcangelo By "life", do you mean human cells that are living? By that definition, the placenta is "alive" also. Do you feel there are ethical obligations to the placenta?

If you believe that life is defined as anything other than a physical manifestation of consciousness, it creates cognitive dissonance. If you believe human life is synonymous with human consciousness, it cannot be argued that there are any moral implications prior to the fetus developing the physical mechanisms necessary for consciousness.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am trying to say is that IDGAF if someone has an abortion for whatever reason, at any time. Actually IDGAF if you kill your own 3yo son for whatever reason.

So you probably can tell by now how i feel about the placenta.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2020 at 11:27 PM, Flowerfaeiry said:

I don't want to stir anything up, I simply have a thought I wanted to share with you. From what I've seen, pro-choice arguments seem to stem from the idea that a baby in a womb is not a life, and as such, aborting it is not killing a life. Then pro-life says that it is indeed a life, and that we cannot excuse murder, no matter what. 

I don't think that it is debatable whether or not a baby is a life inside of the womb. When actually looked at deeply it becomes obvious that abortion is indeed, killing a life. I think instead, we need to start accepting that abortion is a type of killing that is acceptable to some people. While pro-life side will still continue to argue that this murder of unborn babies is wrong, at least pro-choice will not be riding their argument on a falsity. 

Abortion is killing a life, a killing that society is generally okay with for a variety of reasons. 

I think that if pro-choice would simply accept the fact that abortion is killing instead of taking some round about way of looking at it, we may start to see more peace around the issue. 

I've always been uncomfortable with the abortion debate because it's all very difficult to reconcile. I think both sides really suck, and there is no part of the issue that doesn't.

That said, I'm very pro-choice. And I always had this intuition that it would be really dystopian and oppressive if the government came in and banned abortion. You'd see a rise in back-alley abortions, suicide, infanticide, and child abuse to force women to carry a child and give birth. And it would also lead to lots of abandoned children and children given up for adoption, which would add further weight to the foster care system which is already packed with unadopted kids.

So, even though I agree that a fetus is a life in the general sense of the word, I think it's a much better solution to let women make their own decisions with their bodies. And that's because death really isn't the worst thing in the world. Suffering is. So, I think banning abortion would lead to more suffering... and likely just as many, if not more, deaths.

 


Enrollment now open for my Shadow Work Group Class! Limited spots available. 

Click here to learn more!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every woman does what she considers morally acceptable for herself. One, can have abortions, which he considers normal. And the second - thinks ahead. And he does everything to prevent an abortion. Uses methods of birth control. Or, if unprotected intercourse has already taken place, take emergency contraception https://birthcontrol.com/options/after-morning-pill/ .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this:

The child never chose to get born. You chose to create it.

So because of that, logically, you should also be allowed to not give birth to it (abortion), since it's not even conscious yet for a long time inside the vomb, so it doesn't have any free will. So it doesn't matter whether you end it's life or not while it's still unconscious inside the vomb.

It would be like crushing a stone or whatever dead object, because the child was never conscious anyway. What is the difference? (From its point of view. It doesn't have any point of view.)

The point where it's wrong to kill it would be when it becomes conscious and experiences (possibly the illusion) of free will.

Edited by Blackhawk

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."   — Robert A. Heinlein

"I'm allergic to stupidity."   — Chris Colfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2020 at 10:01 AM, Hatfort said:

they put the boundary in the moment the spermatozoid fertilizes the ovule

Yeah that's where I put the boundary, however I am pro-choice. IDGAF if anyone kills their beautiful baby.

But I will have a problem with someone killing their (beautiful) baby when it's 30+ weeks pregnancy.

The interval for me will be 29 weeks and below.

That's what's cool about a democracy we can vote and decide which is the number that most people agree on.

I used to be and extreme (stage blue I guess) pro-lifer. People change...

 

 

Arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2020 at 0:22 PM, Arcangelo said:

Actually IDGAF if you kill your own 3yo son for whatever reason.

I retract from this. I retract because I have a 3 year old brother that I love very very much. I now live with him.

Direct experience is king.

My dad told my stepmom to kill him while he was inside of her but she didn't.

I am glad she didn't

Love you lil' bro!

Edited by Arcangelo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gripe with the pro life movement is that they are utterly ignorant of the concepts of net positive (for society) and net negative. They throw this out to defend human life in the most barbaric and destructive way possible.


لا إله إلا الله، وليو رسول الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has always amazed (or really amused) me that so many "Christians" say they support conservatives because conservatives oppose abortion which Christ never said a word about but conservatives openly support  greed which Christ spoke out against repeatedly and  they will tell you their Christian faith is behind their support of conservatives.

Edited by Jake Johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The horrors of illegal abortion far outweigh the so called ethical grey area of legal abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree with the nondual perspective Leo is describing.

But i would mention another (dualistic) point of view.

Some people, who have  had regresotherapy, are saying that the soul is becoming more attached to the fetus later during the pregnancy, never at the time of conception. But idk.

I am certainly pro-choice and abortion is not a murder.

If men could get pregnant, there would be abortions like on a conveyor belt.

The abortion should be celebrated, not judged.

Is this to radical for some of you?

Edited by Bojan V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now