lethe_naiad wrote:I think that is not a valid argument. Let's say we had a time machine and you went back in time to when your mum and dad were together BC (before children). Are they using protection? My god, that's killing a whole bunch of potential babies! What is your dad masturbated? Whole bunch of sperm gone, without the opportunity for life. Or your mother having a period. How dare she loose precious eggs that could have been fertilised? Or women who have miscarriages. Why, you should go right up to them and tell them that they are murderers.
There is a fundamental difference in the two scenarios. In yours, my parents are simply not
taking an action/actions that would have resulted in my existence (or taking actions that would result in my never existing at all; which, if time travel were really possible, would open up a whole other can of worms about morality of course... but that's not the point I'm trying to make here); in mine, your parents are taking a definite action that will stop
your development as a human being. If they do nothing at that point, the result will be that you will be born into this world. It is a subtle distinction, but it makes all the difference.
The miscarriage thing... opal pretty much nailed it, though I probably wouldn't have used the word 'fate.' People die in car crashes and from diseases and many other very unfortunate causes every year. But if a person who shot someone while they were committing a robbery, or murdered their spouse or some other thing tried to say, 'what, people die of diseases every year', that would be completely ridiculous. It's not a valid argument against someone who is against abortion. You wouldn't call someone whose live baby died of natural causes a murderer, obviously.
lethe_naiad wrote:I'm not self-deluded enough to think that the earth revolves around me. I don't believe in destiny, I'm not religious and I'm not 'spiritual'.
If you believe that, and you don't want to have an abortion, or masturbate, or have a period where you don't try and have sex, then that's your business. But as an individual, and as an adult woman in control of my own sex life and my own contraception, then I have the right to decide as well. I'm not sexually active at this present moment, but during my last relationship I was on the pill, and I always use condoms. If they both fail, then I should have the right to terminate a pregnancy that would destroy my way of life, my hopes and my dreams.
The earth doesn't revolve around you, but a pregnancy would destroy your
way of life, your
hopes, and your
dreams. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or snide here, but it would be a good idea to examine what you have just said. I understand that you believe that the fetus/baby is not a human being and does not have rights of his/her/its own, but because we do, that is not a valid argument in this case. It is akin to saying that one person's own comfort is more important than the life of another individual.
When I strongly advocate my beliefs against abortion, it is not about me. It is not about me or Opal or anyone else that is against abortion; in all honesty, whether other people get abortions or not is something that really doesn't affect us. In fact, it would be much easier for us to give in and say, 'yeah, let's all just do our own thing.' We're not trying to ruin anyone's life.
I am personally against homosexuality, but I do not advocate laws being made against it, because I think when laws become to stringent in enforcing morality, it becomes oppressive, and probably even more oppressive to those who aren't even involved in it.
But I do
advocate laws against abortion, because after careful consideration and thought, I've come to the conclusion that it is the only way I can be consistent in my beliefs. Back a few years ago, I went through a time where I sort of cringed at the way my grandparents railed against abortion, ALL abortion. I was always against abortion and would never consider getting one myself of course, but I thought to myself, 'one battle at a time. People should at least be able to say abortion is wrong in the later term when the child actually looks like a baby. But it's harder to argue that's it's not okay in the earlier term.'
But over the years, the more I tried to make an argument for that the more I found I couldn't quite make it, that I was being inconsistent. I eventually realized that this desire to compromise what I thought was the result of my desire to 'get along with everybody,' my tendency to shy away from confrontation.
I realized how wrong it was for me as an individual, considering that I believe that the fetus is a child and will grow into a person, to step aside and say 'I'll follow your beliefs and you can follow yours' when at the same time I would also tell other parents they don't have the right to abuse or murder their born children.
It occurred to me that it was not my grandparents who were being too strong (though I might not argue exactly in the same way they do), but I who was satisfying myself with a superficial response, because I preferred to be comfortable in my own protected world and not argue for what I thought was right because the deaths of the ones I saw as being wronged (the unborn children) did not affect me.
Sorry to talk so much about myself here, but I do that to emphasize the fact that my being against abortion is not
opalkoboi wrote:Yes, I want to be a scienctist, doesn't mean I can't be against abortion and believe it's killing a child for eff's sake!
opal, you also made a statement earlier about how 'even though you are a scientist, you are against abortion.' I want to point out that being against abortion certainly does not
make you less of a scientist in any way. What you have to understand about science is that just because the scientific community advocates a particular point of view certainly does not necessarily mean that you have to agree with that point of view in order to be 'more scientific.'
A scientist's job is not to toe the party line; a scientist examines the world around him and draws his own conclusions from what he sees. The true scientist is someone who evaluates critically everything he is told and chooses to either accept, reject, or, more often, withhold judgment on those things.
For instance, the scientific community used to pretty much advocate racism – they provided all kinds of apparently 'scientific' studies proving how black people were inferior to whites. The few scientists (I assume there had to be some) who really looked close and evaluated the evidence fairly, and identified the studies correctly as total garbage, would now be acknowledged as being the true scientists of their time, though they were probably attacked and their thoughts trampled on back then.
So basically, you're right to use your own logic. Your status as a 'scientist' can only be made stronger if you do that, as long as you always stop to evaluate your own opinions critically, even if no one will acknowledge you.
Sometimes you may ultimately end up drawing some conclusions that are incorrect, or you may find later you were incorrect to disagree with a commonly held notion, but never accept something solely on the premise that 'it's the scientific thing.' Because that it what religion does – you just accept things no matter how ludicrous, so that you can be 'religious.' (which, incidentally, is actually as incorrect a thing to do for a religious person who is supposed to be seeking truth as well, but the 'brainless sheep' thing is the stereotype of religion)
*edit: Not just saying you're doing any of that, opal, just wanted to point out that you're right and you can totally be a scientist and not agree with abortion. (: What's important is the logic of individual beliefs and issues, not the stereotyping and generalizations about things.