Is Abortion Ethical

[Moontanman]

1. I would absolutely love to see your evidence for that. Abortion rates have gone up as we increased the availability, which shows an opposite correlation. If suddenly it were made illegal your saying nothing would happen?

 

2. Forgive me, I try not to be a hard headed stubborn pain in the ass like some other OP's, and sometimes change my mind.

 

3. You can't possibly be serious. Did you even read ANY of my posts your quoting? I made it very clear, I'm against killing a fetus, because the said fetus will become a baby if IF IF IFFFFFFFFFFFFF NOTHING happens. I brought up this point long before anybody else brought it to mind, I made it perfectly clear I understand that miscarriages happen. How is it you still do not understand that.

 

4. Refer to #2.

 

5. Your just finding reasons to criticize without having read the post. Please reread the post, fully and completely before quoting. And refer to #4.

 

6. Quite often their talked into it against their will or they were forced to do it, at least from the people I do know who've done it. So you tell me. Also, you understand I was pointing out how stupid that was in the first place? Your basically arguing that I said something you agree with. That's like saying:

"I'm not arguing ethics here!"

"You know your not arguing ethics here right?"

Its stupid and entirely comical.

 

7. Oh come on, that's so completely ignorant that it isn't even non-sequitur its just random words typed out. There's modern day machines that can tell you, hey, the babies dead, we should remove it. Or, hey, this baby is completely malformed and is going to die. Or hey, this fetus has stopped growing. Or hey......

You get the point. And if you even read the entire post you would see I was referring to the point that SOMEONE ELSE made. So why don't you go arguing against them instead?

 

8. I spent 8 years in the system. Gee, let me think...... yes. Yes I do know something about foster care. And i'll tell you this, its better then being dead like so many others I know.

 

9. I'm not even going to answer this. refer to #7

 

10. You should listen to deltas advice and actually try to understand what we're arguing. Its clear from these few lines that you either never read a single post of mine, completely don't understand it, or never gave ANY thought what so ever into this. At all.

1. I have made it very clear that I understand what miscarriages are. So, just to make it clear to EVERYONE here, and who will ever post here again about this.

 

I understand completely that fetuses will not all become a baby, and that sometimes there are miscarriages. I understand that we cannot always predict it, but when we can, then the fetus is then dead. I am NOT saying we can always predict it, I am NOT saying we always know, I am NOT saying all fetuses will become babies. Any posts touching on this subject will be referred to here from here on out. Please, I am not ignoring miscarriages, I'm telling you that when the fetus is going to become a baby, that it is unethical to abort it. If a miscarriage happens, that is besides the point. I am not arguing anything about miscarriages and I'm tired of repeating this.

 

2. You understand I already covered this. Multiple times. "Health risks to the mother". Remember that?

 

3. You seemed to have overlooked most of my responses.

 

 

So, as a final note to everyone.

 

 

I understand what miscarriages are, I understand that they happen. I am not claiming that the fetus will ALWAYS make it, sometimes I forget to include the fact that miscarriages happen. Stop finding those times where I forgot to mention that and pointing them out. I understand what miscarriages are.

 

I understand how bad life can be, and I can tell you life over death is a true option. Claiming its better to kill someone because they will have a bad life means your now advocating for suicide as a legal thing.

 

So I ask Everyone here:

You say it's alright to kill a fetus because its not conscious.

A baby isn't conscious, so whats the difference between it and a fetus?

Why be allowed to kill a fetus because its unconscious, but not a baby?

You can't advocate for one with out the other, so where do you draw the line?

Either never, or not until the baby develops consciousness?

 

 

To avoid confusion can you define when a fertilized egg becomes a fetus?

[StringJunky]

 

 

To avoid confusion can you define when a fertilized egg becomes a fetus?

That's like saying: "When does green become blue in a rainbow" doesn't it? The demarcation only appears from a distance.

Edited November 8, 2016 by StringJunky

[Delta1212]

I know, but you provided facts to the discussion which is always welcome.

This is why I like having discussions with you even when we don't agree.

[Moontanman]

That's like saying: "When does green become blue in a rainbow" doesn't it? The demarcation only appears from a distance.

 

 

Well yes, this would the direction I am trying to show Raider5678, if you go with the zygote as a person you are really stretching it, some even go past the fertilized egg and masterbation kills babies (Yes I have heard that argument) As HI said it's more about controlling women, poor things are only children after all... We "MEN" have to show them the way!

 

This debate is misogynist even if you do not realise it, in fact it started around the turn of the 19th and 20th century with a wave of anti birth control fervor. The fight was quite fierce and when the religious zealots realised they had lost they kept trying and failing to limit birth control in ever way they could. I remember trying to get condoms when i was a teenager, I had to go to truck stop bathroom vending machines!

 

I do not think anyone is advocating abortion as a recreational activity, nor is it done freely at any point during pregnancy. To me the life of the mother is paramount, abortion should be done before the fetus is viable unless the life of the mother is at risk JMHO but my wife and I have discussed this many times and I defer to her, of the two of us she is the only one who has to do the "work" of carrying a baby so she is the expert not me. But we both agree that abortion should not be taken lightly, to suggest it is or should be is ludicrous!

 

For me, abortion simply as birth control is simply not right. On the other hand making a woman or teenage girl give birth against their will comes close to being a heinous crime.

 

I doubt the number of abortions due to simple promiscuity is large and few women think to themselves I'll go ahead and have sex tonight, I can always get an abortion if need be...

[Raider5678]

 

 

Well yes, this would the direction I am trying to show Raider5678, if you go with the zygote as a person you are really stretching it, some even go past the fertilized egg and masterbation kills babies (Yes I have heard that argument) As HI said it's more about controlling women, poor things are only children after all... We "MEN" have to show them the way!

 

This debate is misogynist even if you do not realise it, in fact it started around the turn of the 19th and 20th century with a wave of anti birth control fervor. The fight was quite fierce and when the religious zealots realised they had lost they kept trying and failing to limit birth control in ever way they could. I remember trying to get condoms when i was a teenager, I had to go to truck stop bathroom vending machines!

 

I do not think anyone is advocating abortion as a recreational activity, nor is it done freely at any point during pregnancy. To me the life of the mother is paramount, abortion should be done before the fetus is viable unless the life of the mother is at risk JMHO but my wife and I have discussed this many times and I defer to her, of the two of us she is the only one who has to do the "work" of carrying a baby so she is the expert not me. But we both agree that abortion should not be taken lightly, to suggest it is or should be is ludicrous!

 

For me, abortion simply as birth control is simply not right. On the other hand making a woman or teenage girl give birth against their will comes close to being a heinous crime.

 

I doubt the number of abortions due to simple promiscuity is large and few women think to themselves I'll go ahead and have sex tonight, I can always get an abortion if need be...

Mostly agreed. Using it as a means of birth control IMO shouldn't be right or allowed, as there are other methods.

[StringJunky]

 

 

....some even go past the fertilized egg and masterbation kills babies (Yes I have heard that argument)

"Stringjunky, you stand before the court, because over the last forty years you have, by conservative estimates, willingly and wantonly misplaced and wasted the possible lives of 1500,000,000,000,000 of your children."

[Raider5678]

"Stringjunky, you stand before the court, because over the last forty years you have, by conservative estimates, willingly and wantonly misplaced and wasted the possible lives of 1,500,000,000,000,000 of your children."

Let's see, assuming every man on Earth is an average of half his age.

Half as many times per man,

750,000,000,000,000. (averaging about 41 billion ~ times a day, 476,190 times per second)

times 4 billion for every man on earth....

That's a lot of kids..

[CharonY]

 

 

3. You can't possibly be serious. Did you even read ANY of my posts your quoting? I made it very clear, I'm against killing a fetus, because the said fetus will become a baby if IF IF IFFFFFFFFFFFFF NOTHING happens. I brought up this point long before anybody else brought it to mind, I made it perfectly clear I understand that miscarriages happen. How is it you still do not understand that.

 

4.

I understand what miscarriages are, I understand that they happen. I am not claiming that the fetus will ALWAYS make it, sometimes I forget to include the fact that miscarriages happen. Stop finding those times where I forgot to mention that and pointing them out. I understand what miscarriages are.

 

 

I think you have are acknowledging the uncertainty but do not make it a part of your ethical argument. Let me see if I understand you. You say aborting a fetus is unethical as it should have the same right and protection as a newborn as it will become one if nothing happens.

However, during normal gestation things happen all the time and in an argument regarding ethics this has to be included. I.e. the uncertainty is always part of the process and cannot be summarily dismissed. Another issue is that all pregnancies place some degree of burden on the mother. Some more, some less. Again, we are dealing with various degrees of uncertainty here. As such, I do not think a binary answer is at all possible here.

 

To answer your latter question: I think it is more ethical to abort during early stages of the pregnancy than in the latter. I think it is more ethical to initiate an abortion the more the health of the mother (and child) are at risk. I think it is more ethical to allow a person to make choices regarding their body than have others make that choice. I think that mother should have all the choice of the beginning of the pregnancy, but with increasing gestation concerns have to be more and more balance with that of the newborn. I am unable to make a stringent cut off to make a binary answer that satisfies.

In cases of doubt I would defer to the wishes of those involved.

[Raider5678]

I'm sure many, many women (myself included) would love to know how exactly one simply chooses not to conceive. Do I have to buy a morning after pill after every time I have sex? At $30 a pop, that seems a bit unreasonable. What if that doesn't work?

What you seem to advocate, as so many other pro-lifers do, is the ability to control the sexuality of women.

So.

Rereading this now.

You would rather get an abortion, rather then pay $30 for a morning after pill or use a condom?

I'd choose the latter, but it's your body.

 

And no. I do not. You will repeatedly say we do, and maybe some of us do. But seriously, almost all of us are for saving a life. Not for controlling the sexuality of women.

[ecoli]

So.

Rereading this now.

You would rather get an abortion, rather then pay $30 for a morning after pill or use a condom?

I'd choose the latter, but it's your body.

 

You pose a false dilemma. If birth control fails, women should have abortion as an option. This should be an option even if protection was not used for another reason.

[Raider5678]

 

You pose a false dilemma. If birth control fails, women should have abortion as an option. This should be an option even if protection was not used for another reason.

And did you look at what she said? My reply was completely and only in response to what she said. I know it's a false dilemma, but so is the one she proposed as a logical argument.

[hypervalent_iodine]

And did you look at what she said? My reply was completely and only in response to what she said. I know it's a false dilemma, but so is the one she proposed as a logical argument.

Did you read what I said? No woman is buying a morning after pill every time that she has sex. I don't know about you, but I certainly can't afford $30 every single time. That being said, I never said I wouldn't or haven't ever used them, and I certainly never said anything about not using condoms. Not that it matters, since as you say, it's my body.

 

As for you other comment in your previous response, perhaps you could reply to the rest of the post you quoted, and then tell me how this isn't about controlling women's sexuality.

[Raider5678]

Did you read what I said? No woman is buying a morning after pill every time that she has sex. I don't know about you, but I certainly can't afford $30 every single time. That being said, I never said I wouldn't or haven't ever used them, and I certainly never said anything about not using condoms. Not that it matters, since as you say, it's my body.

 

As for you other comment in your previous response, perhaps you could reply to the rest of the post you quoted, and then tell me how this isn't about controlling women's sexuality.

Because it isn't. What makes you think it is?

 

The only reason we are against abortion is because it's taking a life. What about if a women is pro-life? Does that mean she's trying to control your sexuality? And her own? There's confusion there, because suddenly it's not longer "Old White Men"(Racist by the way) trying to control you, it's men and women trying to control women. Which doesn't make sense. What does make sense, is men and women against what they consider murder(Pro-life). And men and women supporting what they feel should be a choice(Pro-Choice).

Edited January 26, 2017 by Raider5678

[hypervalent_iodine]

Because it isn't. What makes you think it is?

 

The only reason we are against abortion is because it's taking a life. What about if a women is pro-life? Does that mean she's trying to control your sexuality? And her own? There's confusion there, because suddenly it's not longer "Old White Men"(Racist by the way) trying to control you, it's men and women trying to control women. Which doesn't make sense. What does make sense, is men and women against what they consider murder(Pro-life). And men and women supporting what they feel should be a choice(Pro-Choice).

The only thing making abortions illegal does is get rid of legal abortions. Moreover, I would suggest that you are not saving any lives by doing so anyway. I have addressed your comment in my original response in this thread. Please respond to that.

[MonDie]

I had this thought for the first time. If there are ways to induce abortion against the mother's will, it might be easier to get away with this under pro-life laws.

 

Google

https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=slipping+hte+morning+after+pill&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

She would be more reluctant to report it since she could be found guilty. She would be more likely to deny it whether she did it or not. Unorthodox methods would be more common without specialized clinics. /EDIT/ She might intentionally make it look like somebody else did it to get away with it.

Edited January 27, 2017 by MonDie

[StringJunky]

As for you other comment in your previous response, perhaps you could reply to the rest of the post you quoted, and then tell me how this isn't about controlling women's sexuality.

I think that's an unfortunate and incidental, collateral effect rather than a primary desire to control a woman's sexuality. It's a very difficult conundrum.

Edited January 27, 2017 by StringJunky

[MonDie]

The only thing making abortions illegal does is get rid of legal abortions. Moreover, I would suggest that you are not saving any lives by doing so anyway. I have addressed your comment in my original response in this thread. Please respond to that.

 

It might prevent some abortions in cases where the female is uncertain she wants one, but late-term abortions would probably increase as access to such services becomes more difficult.

 

It would probably prevent some abortion cases wherein the female is uncertain she wants one, but more and more abortions would be late-term abortions as access to services becomes more difficult, so late-term abortions could go up or down.

 

For those seeking an intuitive, discrete marker for the beginning of life, the time of conception actually does have one equally appealing contender:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377672/

 

 

Goldenring, who originally proposed the "brain-life theory", based his view on evidence that the subcortical brain comes into being as an organized unit at five weeks, with cerebral hemispheres differentiating at seven weeks, and EEG activity commencing at eight weeks.

 

The problematic symmetry between brain birth and brain death, D Gareth Jones 1998

Edited January 27, 2017 by MonDie

[Ten oz]

 

 

Well yes, this would the direction I am trying to show Raider5678, if you go with the zygote as a person you are really stretching it, some even go past the fertilized egg and masterbation kills babies (Yes I have heard that argument) As HI said it's more about controlling women, poor things are only children after all... We "MEN" have to show them the way!

 

This debate is misogynist even if you do not realise it, in fact it started around the turn of the 19th and 20th century with a wave of anti birth control fervor. The fight was quite fierce and when the religious zealots realised they had lost they kept trying and failing to limit birth control in ever way they could. I remember trying to get condoms when i was a teenager, I had to go to truck stop bathroom vending machines!

 

I do not think anyone is advocating abortion as a recreational activity, nor is it done freely at any point during pregnancy. To me the life of the mother is paramount, abortion should be done before the fetus is viable unless the life of the mother is at risk JMHO but my wife and I have discussed this many times and I defer to her, of the two of us she is the only one who has to do the "work" of carrying a baby so she is the expert not me. But we both agree that abortion should not be taken lightly, to suggest it is or should be is ludicrous!

 

For me, abortion simply as birth control is simply not right. On the other hand making a woman or teenage girl give birth against their will comes close to being a heinous crime.

 

I doubt the number of abortions due to simple promiscuity is large and few women think to themselves I'll go ahead and have sex tonight, I can always get an abortion if need be...

What constitutes a viable fetus changes with technology. To say you agree "should it be before the fetus is viable" opens to door to a scale that ultimately errors towards the moments just prior to conception.

 

In nature this choice is overwhelmingly made by mothers. Be it Lions or Mice mothers decide to abondon new borns at birth, allow siblings to strive other siblings, and etc. Fortunately humans are not so dispassionate. I am not implying we should be. Rather I am pointing out that in nature all begun attempts at reprodcution do not result in a successful life. And it is the mothers who ultimately make the tough choice for themselves and their species without communal input. I am sure male Loins want Lioness to keep and nurture all their offspring but ultimately they have no say.

 

Humans are obvious unique. Our intelligence makes of different that other animals. So clearly a direct comparison it absurd. Women shouldn't be able to starve infants the way a bear may allow a cub to starve to the benifit ofother cubs. However the basic child to give birth in the first place, in my opinion, lays with them. How I feel about it is less important to me than their right to it and as such I haven't created a cloudy standard where I imagine individual circamstances and stand judgement overthem. For me it is either they choice or it isn't and I have decided that in my opinion it is.

[Delta1212]

So.

Rereading this now.

You would rather get an abortion, rather then pay $30 for a morning after pill or use a condom?

I'd choose the latter, but it's your body.

 

And no. I do not. You will repeatedly say we do, and maybe some of us do. But seriously, almost all of us are for saving a life. Not for controlling the sexuality of women.

I was going to write up a post about how, while I am pro-choice, I understand the perspective of both sides based on some fundamental differences in perception of how the world works rather than even a difference in values or goals. However, I've posted that before and I think I'll throw up a thought experiment instead.

 

This is meant to be food for thought more than it is a definitive argument meant to change anyone's mind. I've found that the more angles I look at this issue from, the better equipped I am to talk about it reasonably, and this is mostly meant to help with that:

 

 

Let's say that you hit a pedestrian with your car. You are both taken to a local hospital. The person you hit sustained severe damage to their liver and will soon die without a transplant. They have a rare blood type and, by coincidence, the only match that can be and that is likely to be found in time to save them is you.

 

Should the government legally require you to donate part of your liver to save their life?

[dimreepr]

@ Raider

 

Why does it matter so much, to you, that an unconscious unfeeling collection of cells, doesn't wake up?

 

Why do you care so much that a woman gets to decide for herself what mistakes she chooses change?

 

I can't help thinking what you'd think if it was you that was forced accept responsibility/risk for your mistakes; even when those mistakes were made by others; imagine if you were raped and find out it's you that has to pay the price of his crime.

[rangerx]

@ Raider

 

Why does it matter so much, to you, that an unconscious unfeeling collection of cells, doesn't wake up?

 

Why do you care so much that a woman gets to decide for herself what mistakes she chooses change?

 

I'll further these questions by asking... if it's unethical to abort a fetus and force a burial then is it ethical to unearth the burial grounds of indigenous people to build a pipeline?

[dimreepr]

 

I'll further these questions by asking... if it's unethical to abort a fetus and force a burial then is it ethical to unearth the burial grounds of indigenous people to build a pipeline?

 

 

That's a non-sequitur, besides it doesn't answer my questions.

 

 

But in the spirit of answering questions I'll answer yours, 'I don't think it's unethical to abort a fetus and it's burial is a decision for the parents and it's unethical to dig up their property'.

 

You're turn.

Edited January 28, 2017 by dimreepr

[rangerx]

 

 

That's a non-sequitur, besides it doesn't answer my questions.

 

 

In the spirit of answering questions I'll answer yours, 'I don't think it's unethical to abort a fetus and the burial is a decision for the parents and yes it's unethical to dig up their property'.

 

You're turn.

 

 

Thank you. Ethics often involve overlapping issues.

 

I asked the question because republicans on one hand deride government involvement into the personal lives of citizens, but on the other hand deride Roe v Wade, essentially giving the government authority over women's health issues and forcing them to be incubators for the state. Likewise VP Pense has been a proponent of burials for fetuses, but upholds his president's executive order dig up graves.

[dimreepr]

 

 

Thank you. Ethics often involve overlapping issues.

 

 

Ethics is a balance between the light and dark side; at one end of the spectrum is, every fetus deserves to be carried to term whatever the circumstance, and the other end is a woman desperate enough to use a coat hanger to abort the fetus, however far gone she is.

 

So the ethical balance is obviously in the middle where the life and suffering of both is carefully considered.

Edited January 28, 2017 by dimreepr

[rangerx]

 

 

Ethics is a balance between the light and dark side; at one end of the spectrum is, every fetus deserves to be carried to term whatever the circumstance, and the other end is a woman desperate enough to use a coat hanger to abort the fetus, however far gone she is.

 

So the ethical balance is obviously in the middle where the life and suffering of both is carefully considered.

 

I could not agree more. The extremes of light and dark may be unconscionable to their followers, but not ethical.