Abortion

Remove all ads!

Okay, I'll jump in again.

I'm curious, thus far I haven't seen anyone offer any in depth explanation regarding why abortion is wrong. I've only seen assertions that it is wrong. I've seen assertions that it is murder, that she got herself into it and now she just has to deal with it etc.

First, imagine that someone tells me that I need to buckle up while I drive. I refuse. I drive around unbuckled all of the time and one day I get in an accident. I break my arm. Can I have my arm operated on in order to repair the break or do I need to accept that I was warned and I knew what the consequences could be and went ahead and drove around irresponsibly anyways so now I just have to deal with the broken arm because it's my personal responsibility?

I anticipate someone stepping in and telling me why the analogy is awful, why it is that there is a big difference between a broken arm and a fetus. That's something no one has really tried to do yet. They've simply asserted that abortion is murder.

In order for an abortion to be immoral/wrong etc. it must be the case that a fetus has a right to life doesn't it? Putting aside that no one has argued why this is the case yet let's assume for a second that you believe the fetus has a right to life. Let me point out what that commits you to, which the Jesuits who first developed the philosophy of a fetus having a right to life realize:

If a fetus has a right to life:

1) It is immoral/evil etc to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest. If the fetus has a right to life it has a right to life and to abort a fetus conceived in rape is like killing a 10 year old child born of rape/incest etc.

2) It is immoral/evil to abort a fetus in order to save the mother's life. Imagine I'm in the hospital and need a kidney transplant or I will die. I can't kill the patient next to me to make that kidney available because that would be taking away the life of something with the right to life in order to save mine and that is immoral/evil etc. You may think to argue that the analogies don't work because the mother may be directly threatened by the pregnancy and the man in the hospital isn't directly threatened but I will point out that the right to life is the right to life and I will then point out that the threat to the mother may not be direct in cases revolving around cervical cancer or other similar threats to the mother's life which must be addressed quickly often times in order to save the mother's life and can only be addressed if the child is aborted. In cases like this it isn't the pregnancy that is the threat but the fetus must be aborted in order to treat the illness.

3) It is immoral/evil to abort a fetus to save the mother's life even when the fetus will die shortly anyways. This one hurts. Imagine a couple of eastern Jewish background who become pregnant and the child we know through genetic testing has Tay-Sachs. If you're unfamiliar with it, Tay-Sachs may be the most awful disease we know of and occurs as a disease in some cases when there are two parents of european jewish background. Recessive genes I believe. It is quite possibly the most painful disease we know of and results in the infants death usually shortly after birth though I do know of one instance where the child lasted longer (I believe 10 months or so, there may be others that lasted longer, I'm not aware of them though.) So, imagine a fetus with Tay-Sachs and a mother with cervical cancer that needs to be treated quickly or the cancer will spread and she will die. In this case aborting the fetus is immoral/evil etc. if the fetus has the right to life. If I'm in the hospital, need a kidney transplant within a week, and the man next to me is dying of a neural disease and will be dead within the month I still can't kill that man next to me for that kidney. To do so would be to violate that person's right to life.

These are the stances you are committed to if you believe a fetus has a right to life. They are upsetting to many who identify themselves as pro-life because they seem to many to be anti-intuitive.

If you wish to reject one of the beliefs above and remain pro-life you need to explain how it is that it okay to abort and destroy the right to life in one instance and not the others. FWIW the Jesuits tried for years and concluded it was impossible; if you argue that a fetus has a right to life you are committed to the above. The above is therefore the official Catholic belief.

If you want to say that abortion is immoral/evil for other reasons than a fetus has a right to life you need to explain why abortion is immoral/evil etc. That's something people haven't successfully done either.

It is quite the conundrum for the pro-life community.

I'm also still curious to hear people explain why my original analogy of the man with the broken arm driving the car is wrong.

Also, let me be honest. Appeals to the Bible or a god will be throughly uncompelling in my mind. If you are pro-life and want to help change things then I think you need an argument that can convince people and an appeal to the Bible won't convince atheists, Jews (many who believe not only that abortion is acceptable but indeed that for religious reasons it is occasionally REQUIRED), Buddhists etc. If you are sincere in your belief that abortion is wrong I'd think you would want to develop an argument for these people as well as people who already believe as you do. I'm not saying that you can't have your religious reasons, just pointing out that if that is all you have you are unlikely to convince the people you want to convince.

 

Laches, you seem to suggest that unless a right to foetal life can be proven, there's no argument against abortion, but I for one feel differently. How can you prove anyone has a right to live? I would turn it around and ask, why should anyone suffer or die if there is anything that the person's family or community can do to prevent it? I don't think the stray kittens in my shed, to give just one example, have any "rights", but I nonetheless give them food and warm blankets to help them through the winter, because I find intrinsic value in their little lives.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that a foetus is *not* alive, does *not* have any right to life- does that make abortion OK? Imagine that you own a beautiful and unique painting. Many people admire this painting and wish it was theirs. One day, you decide that you don't want it anymore, that you can't stand to look at it ever again. Is it more sensible and moral to destroy the painting, or to give it to someone who would be happy to have it? Or even, keep it in case your distaste proves a temporary whim, and that you'd regret having destroyed it?

If nothing else, abortion hurts every adult involved- certainly the mother, almost always the grandparents, and often the father if he ever hears about it. It's a very traumatic thing, and people who've been involved with it often feel lifelong sadness, regret, guilt, even if they were not participants in the decision to terminate the pregnancy. This is even more the case when the mother made the decision, despite actually wanting to keep the baby, because she couldn't get the financial or emotional help she would have needed to get through the pregancy. And as I said in my first post, it is also sad to see babies being destroyed when there are so many families that are desperate to adopt, who wait their whole lives for a baby and sometimes are told they are now too old to adopt before their number ever comes up. We as a society seem to view adoption as the more heartless choice, but from what I have observed that's just not true. Private adoptions, in particular, are often joyful for everyone involved. The mother can flip through albums of photographs and profiles of couples who want her baby, can meet the people whose dream she is making come true, can know that she is giving other people an opportunity to create a family.

Edit: In response to your analogies- I agree with #1, the circumstances of conception are not relevant to whether a mother should choose abortion or not. For #2, the flaw in the analogy is that the man who has the healthy kidney does not depend on the person who needs it. A better analogy would be, should siamese twins be separated if one of them will certainly die, but the other can be saved? I would say yes, and I would similarly say, if mother and unborn child would die without an abortion, then saving one (the mother) is unquestionably the better moral choice. For #3: Again, the analogy is flawed because it's assuming that self-interest is the motivation. Assume that you *don't* need the kidney of the person dying a horrible painful death. Assume that you just love him, and don't want him to suffer. It's really the same question as euthanasia. Most people who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to euthanasia, but I would break from the group here (presumably because my pro-life stance is not religious in basis) and say protection from suffering is more important to me than life, so it would be preferable to terminate a pregnancy or euthanise an adult in agony.

[ December 04, 2002, 17:49: Message edited by: Sprite ]

 

I have heard the adoption point before and it completely moot. There are already millions of children in this world without parents that just waits for someone to adopt them. Or is it so that those poor parents that have waited their whole life dont want a *foreign* and *different* child? Is it in someway offensive to their tastes to take a child of a different ethnicity so the prefer to wait a few decades in the hope for some poor girl to get pregnant but not wanting abortion nor take care of the child?

 

rallymama:

Okay, I will admit that there is no good specific, raw, data that backs up my assertment that most of abortions come from one-night stands. While that may not be the case, I would definitely say that only a small fraction of abortions come from married couples. Most sensible married couples would have the reason and maturity to consider the risks of unprotected sex and the choice of having a baby.

Laches:

Not necessarily. While I myself would say that killing a fetus destroys the possibily of life, there are also other reasons people believe abortion is immoral. I have heard other girls say that if they ever did get pregnant of their own consent, they would go through with having the baby, because they would take responsibility of having sex. That seems pretty sensible to me.

And if you believed that abortion was wrong because one should take responsibility for one's actions, clearly rape and incest can be an excuse for abortion. I'm not too sure on the notion of dying giving birth to your child - but likewise, responsibility should be taken; the couple/woman should use their/her best judgement. And on the idea of having a baby who will most definitely die soon after being born - well, I can't say I know what I would say to that. Those are definitely some enlightening thoughts on pro-life/anti-choice stances.

 

Kinda an odd perspective ....

What do you think a group of heros would be more into saving ... the lifes of millions of unborn children, or the right for women to be "free with their bodies"???

(only 1/2 serious here, but its a point to ponder)

 

I'd pretty much work it on second strike, and you're out.

Regardless of the little fantasy world that some of these "women" live in, there is the rest of the Planet as well as them.

Resources better used in prevention, rather then crisises.

There's a point, at which you climb out of your fantasy world long enough to address the rest of the Planet.

Then once that's taken care of, you are obviously freed-up to climb right back in your fantasy world.

 

To all of you propagating for contraception that is very good but no contraceptive measure short of sterilization is foolproof. Condoms can break, the pill isnt 100% save etc etc. So even if you have made all the possible measures you could still be pregnant, sure the chance is small but it is there.

 

Ok, I didn't have the patience to read all the posts in this topic, but here's what I think about abortion:

It's good. A fetus is not a humam being (and don't even start with the "but it has a soul" stuff), it's a project. And besides it's not conscious, so it doesn't miss anything, it doesn't know anything. So for the fetus is no problem.
Second, people should be allowed to choose if they want or not to have children. Even if they get preagnent.
Third, some of you guys live in countries where abortion is legal, but here in Brazil, it ain't. So what happens? women try to have abortions by sticking stuff into their wombs. Is that nice? Shouldn't they be allowed to simply abort, instead of dying because of an unwanted child?

Abortion has too many sides to be considered. But if you don't like abortion, don't abort. But allow people who want to, to do so.

 

I do not belive the government has the right to legislate morality. Period. So I think it needs to remain legal, no matter how distasteful I find it personally.

 

-If the fetus obviously will be handicapped, then it is a selfish act, far worse than murder, that the mother should have him/her.

-Abortion because of rape is acceptable because it was not the choice of the mother to become pregnant.

-Abortion because the mother was too drunk/drugged etc is also acceptable, because it protects the interests of the would-be human (probably wouldn't grant too good a life). But also punishable because of this act of irresponsibility.

-I do not find it acceptable to deny abortion because of religious reasons. This should only apply to those would-be mothers who wish to uphold their own religion by doing so. But never should this be forced upon another because of a difference of religion against their will.

2 sides of the same coin:
-Psychological birth happens some time after the external birth. Before that the "awareness" of a baby does not really exist, and thus it is not spiritually/mentally alive.
-On the other hand, the "awareness" of the fetus of a human can easily be seen as greater in itself / simply more important, than the awareness of any smaller animal. And their slaughter is not allowed either.

The line is hard to draw. Probably because like with so many other things, there isn't any. It all depends on the situation. Of course, that simply isn't enough as you can hardly put it in the books of law just like that. But the zealous attitude of never allowing an abortion brings nothing but useless harm to many. Completely allowing it under all circumstances would be the opposite, far too many women would use this as a "condom" of sorts (yes it isn't that simple thanks to the shiftings in the hormonal balance of a woman's body I know, but first-timers do not think like this).
What can I say? Lucky I'm not the guy who has to come up with the laws and directives.

A whole lot more to say as well, but I'll bring it up later on when someone gives me the arguments. Assuming I care at the time.

 

I'm not sure if I agree with that statement, because you say it would be a selfish act but you are looking at one perspective, you only see it from the mothers but what kind of life awaits someone with a handicap. This ofcourse all depends on what kind of handicap, physical or mentally.

I think that the mother is the only one to make that decision. She is the one to raise the child and the one who will fill in a big part of what kind of person the child will be when becoming an adult. If the mother is unsuitable than what?

 

Handicaps shouldn't be a reason to do an abortion.
Handicapped people are humans as well and our equals. We are both worthy to live.

Why would the mother be the only one to make the decision? Fathers dont count as a parent anymore?
Wake up! Men are no animals who shoot their part and leave. (at least not what they are ment to be, some may think however). Both parents are responsible for the new life they created.

One man I know: He had a fling with a girl and she got pregnant, but she didnt want to have the child. This man said he would care for it, since it's his child too. He married now with an other woman and has 2 other kids. They are all equal to him

IMO, Wilfully stopping the progress of life, is murder. Wether already born, or not.

 

It is precisely what I do not do. I do NOT see it from the mother's point of view. And I do NOT see it as an nazistic move to purify the human race of the less important, less equal. I see it as a way to prevent a beign to be born with the sheer purpose of suffering.
I cannot know what it is to be handicapped, nor can any of you "normal" humans (by normal, I mean healthy, physically and mentally.. don't cling to it in hopes of blaming me for racism or such like). Even the opinion of a handicapped person himself cannot be trusted for the sake of the psychological treatment many of them receive with the purpose of making them feel better by blinding from them the truth for what it is. So all I can do is believe in my own views on this. As long as it doesn't become a law (I don't consider myself as smart and responsible enough to be allowed that honour).
And I know, that I would suffer for the rest of my life were I to bring in life a child who I knew would be seriously handicapped. It is the worst of curses. To see what all others can do, to be mentally equal but physically unable to ever fit in (or vice versa). To see and know what the life of another is, what yours could be, but never will.

Of course handicapped people are expensive for the society in many ways which I will not list here. But it is of little consequence. My thoughs are purely on the life of the person him/herself. I would like to point out that I am familiar with handicapped people. I'm not saying they're all begging me for death, but they have made it quite clear how hard it is each and every day, even will after 20 years of life.

Of course this all depends on the base-question: when is a person born? If one would see the birth being at exactly the same time the fertilization happens, then I can understand why one would think that abortion under all circumstances is wrong. But I cannot see it as simple as that.
I do not believe in "birth" before the psychological birth takes place. I believe that a baby that has just been given birth to is far too under-evolved to understand and experience death as anything synonymous to suffering or evil. Because of this, I believe that a fetus that is "killed" when it is still inside the mothers womb will effectively be unaware of this event. And quite frankly I believe that the will of other people to "do good" by preventing this in the face of an unrealistic ideal, which they will not have to take the pain from, will only result in more "evil" in the end.

I will say now that I've got 38c fever and I'm still working. So although I'm putting a lot more concentration on this than I normaly would, be aware of the possibility that I might say something hilarious or furiating without the intent of doing so.

 

I'm a Christian (protestant)and to my opinion there is only One who should decide over life and death. Since He's the only one who can create life, He also is the only to end it.

Humans turned this world into a planet of hatred, selfishness, death, and materialism.
' Everything should be perfect'. Well, this life is not perfect. We all suffer, handicaped or not.
Of course it isnt nice to see someone is suffering, but that doesn't give us, mortal fools, the right to end lives. We must help people, but not by ending their lives.

But if someone wants to do an abortion, go ahead, as long as you can justify it.

 

Oh here we go.

So basically medicines, surgery and other methods of preventing illnesses, curing diseases and such all step in the way of Him? Surely they were meant to die afterall, but humans intervened.

My roommate actually thinks similarly on that "we are meant to suffer" thing, and I just simply can't figure out why. If you get a terminal disease, you know you will die of it and you know you will suffer incredibly. Both mentally and physically. Still you cannot end your life because "suffering is meant to be"?

I'm just so sick of that zealous one-sided thinking where people see themselves as good and holy for just upholding the stupid trend that life must be over all else. Always life, it doesn't matter how much of that life is left. But as long as the heart is pumping, lungs breathing and brains still keep sending some nerve-signals (probably just the ones upkeeping those last bodyfunctions) he must be alive. We have no right to decide wether people should live? Then what is delaying ones death through suffering mean to you, if not deciding wether he should live. No matter how much pain, loss and suffering was involved.

If such a god exists that wishes for that, then I reject him outright. If the god does exist and rejects me as well, then I willingly accept the consequences for such a being can be no true god, not good anyway. And if such a god exists but does so because of his god-like understanding of what I cannot perceive, then he will understand my reasoning and not punish me for it.

 

Is making murder illegal legislating morality? Many would say that murder is a useful tool and should be applied in many cases. So should the murder of those already born be legal?

[ December 05, 2002, 16:09: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

 

That is exactly what I meant.

Mistake on my part, I meant both parents.

If that were true, there is A LOT MORE murder in this world then you account. Let's talk about all the animals who get slaughtered for meat, let's talk about all the plants and trees cut down, they are also 'alive'

What I meant that a fetus isn't a conscieus being yet. I also mentioned the difference between physically and mentally handicapped and the severity of the handicap, and if they find out when it is still a fetus the 'parents' should be able to decide if they want it or not.
They are still the ones who created the child.

Let's say that happens to someone who is addicted to drugs or lives on the street, is that humanly to have a child who will be raised by a drugs addict or without a house.

Let's just say I don't follow your line of reason (or religion). But IMHO the ones who create life are the parents and not 'HIM'

[ December 05, 2002, 16:38: Message edited by: Apeman ]

 

Should we kill the children of drug addicts and the homeless who didn't choose abortion? If a woman is a homeless drug addict and has a 2 year old that she no longer wants, should she be allowed to kill the child?

 

*That is a very interesting aproach to solve the social problems in urban troublespots. Kids of people who earn less then $ 1.000,- a month should be generally aborted, if born perhaps shot, or maybe taken away to be given to more responsible parents, responsible meaning beeing able to afford and raise a child properly. Yay!*

Is it just me or does that sound a little pervert?

Life of an unborn child is an important thing, it deserves the same protection like born life. A handicapped child as a reason for an abortion? Say a child is mongoloid - who can be so presumptous to claim their lifes are not worth living? They love and live, feel happiness and grief - maybe on a child's level - but anyway. As human beeings they deserve protection.
Of course a woman has the right to decide on her own life, but it isn't so that she has no influence on the issue (I'm not fixing responsibilities here ) of getting pregnant or not. Birth control is reality today.

Of course there are cases when the life of a woman is endangered by the birth of a child - an abortion may be necessary to save a mother's life, or for example after a rape ...

However you decide on when a human live starts to exist - the decision to abort or not to abort is a matter of conscience, so the least thing that can be expected is that weman seriously think about the decision they are going to do.
Only claiming the unlimited right of a woman to abort is thought too short, there are two lifes to consider. They weigh *self-determination* against *value of a human life*, and it is not a decision of *you or me*.

[ December 05, 2002, 18:27: Message edited by: Ragusa ]