Is Abortion Ethical

[dimreepr]

 

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

 

 

I'm so pleased my words have got through to you and set you on the path to understanding, rather than the path too ignorance and the suffering that is dogmatic belief.

Edited January 28, 2017 by dimreepr

[MonDie]

 

 

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.

 

The fetus probably doesn't feel pain until very late in the pregnancy. The secular argument is that there is a loss of a life that otherwise would have been. From a strictly utilitarian standpoint this is most basic argument against murder, that living is lost. However, even utilitarianism cannot explain why the moment of fertilization is relevant, and it seems more rational to consider that abortion involves lost time, lost labor, lost investment, etc.

[dimreepr]

 

The fetus probably doesn't feel pain until very late in the pregnancy.

 

A citation would be useful.

 

 

The secular argument is that there is a loss of a life that otherwise would have been.

 

 

I'm confused, isn't that the pro-life argument, eg religious?

 

 

From a strictly utilitarian standpoint this is most basic argument against murder, that living is lost. However, even utilitarianism cannot explain why the moment of fertilization is relevant, and it seems more rational to consider that abortion involves lost time, lost labor, lost investment, etc.

 

Utilitarian meaning- designed to be useful or practical rather than attractive.

 

 

 

Again I'm confused, from a strictly utilitarian standpoint the words 'murder and lost' have no place in the argument, so I have to ask, on what side of the fence do you stand?

Edited January 29, 2017 by dimreepr

[Delta1212]

 

A citation would be useful.

 

 

I'm confused, isn't that the pro-life argument, eg religious?

 

 

 

 

Again I'm confused, from a strictly utilitarian standpoint the words 'murder and lost' have no place in the argument, so I have to ask, on what side of the fence do you stand?

He means the secular pro-life argument. The pro-life movement is very bound up with religion, but there is not complete overlap in either direction. The majority of the pro-life movement is religious, but it is a majority not a totality.

[dimreepr]

He means the secular pro-life argument. The pro-life movement is very bound up with religion, but there is not complete overlap in either direction. The majority of the pro-life movement is religious, but it is a majority not a totality.

 

 

Does he? Is there a secular pro-life argument?

[StringJunky]

 

 

Does he? Is there a secular pro-life argument?

You don't have to be religious to say "All human life is precious" and that abortion contravenes that sentiment. Not my view by the way. It's pulled out from the same place where people say it's wrong to execute people.

[dimreepr]

You don't have to be religious to say "All human life is precious" and that abortion contravenes that sentiment. Not my view by the way. It's pulled out from the same place where people say it's wrong to execute people.

 

But we both know the difference between not waking up and being executed.

[Raider5678]

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?

Murder through inaction, and premeditated murder. Since you could have EASILY prevented manslaughter since it was your fault, I would say yes. You should be forced to. It wouldn't kill you. You would be fine.

@ Raider

 

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

 

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

 

3. 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.

1. Because that unconscious unfeeling collection of cells, would wake up and become a life.

And if you were unconscious, you would be unfeeling. So what's the difference between it and an unconscious you? You're both an unconscious unfeeling collection of cells. What's the difference to you if you wake up or not? Also, that collection of cells has life. It's not a dead collection.

 

2. Because that choice is the choice to end a life. And we already established why I consider it a life, and honestly you can see it how ever you like. So to me, seeing as that I see it as a life, I'm against the choice of her to kill it.

 

3. Honestly an abortion would be just as traumatic as the rape, as many people who've had one have said, so I don't think I would have it. Imagine sitting on a table, someone forcing your legs apart because once you enter, you are not allowed to change your mind. Traumatic much for you? As well as the fact you're killing a life, that didn't do anything wrong. Most people feel extremely guilty about it naturally. Look it up. And no matter what I tell you I would choose to do, unless it's the choice you want me to say, you'll simply dismiss what I say because I'm a male and don't know what pregnancy is like. Which is true. So asking me to answer is like asking you to answer. You can't speak for them about the trauma of an abortion. But they have. Most pregnancies turn out fine. Most abortions are fricking reruns of being raped if you believe the people who've had them. So your choice.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Murder through inaction, and premeditated murder. Since you could have EASILY prevented manslaughter since it was your fault, I would say yes. You should be forced to. It wouldn't kill you. You would be fine.

1. Because that unconscious unfeeling collection of cells, would wake up and become a life.

And if you were unconscious, you would be unfeeling. So what's the difference between it and an unconscious you? You're both an unconscious unfeeling collection of cells. What's the difference to you if you wake up or not? Also, that collection of cells has life. It's not a dead collection.

 

2. Because that choice is the choice to end a life. And we already established why I consider it a life, and honestly you can see it how ever you like. So to me, seeing as that I see it as a life, I'm against the choice of her to kill it.

 

3. Honestly an abortion would be just as traumatic as the rape, as many people who've had one have said, so I don't think I would have it. Imagine sitting on a table, someone forcing your legs apart because once you enter, you are not allowed to change your mind. Traumatic much for you? As well as the fact you're killing a life, that didn't do anything wrong. Most people feel extremely guilty about it naturally. Look it up. And no matter what I tell you I would choose to do, unless it's the choice you want me to say, you'll simply dismiss what I say because I'm a male and don't know what pregnancy is like. Which is true. So asking me to answer is like asking you to answer. You can't speak for them about the trauma of an abortion. But they have. Most pregnancies turn out fine. Most abortions are fricking reruns of being raped if you believe the people who've had them. So your choice.

Still waiting for a response to my post.

[Raider5678]

Still waiting for a response to my post.

#93

 

In reply to post #90

[Delta1212]

Murder through inaction, and premeditated murder. Since you could have EASILY prevented manslaughter since it was your fault, I would say yes. You should be forced to. It wouldn't kill you. You would be fine.

 

A liver donor has approximately a 1 in 500 chance of dying as the result of the donation.

 

(And the mortality rate in the US for women undergoing childbirth in 2015 was close to 1 in 5,000 for comparison's sake).

 

1. Because that unconscious unfeeling collection of cells, would wake up and become a life.

And if you were unconscious, you would be unfeeling. So what's the difference between it and an unconscious you? You're both an unconscious unfeeling collection of cells. What's the difference to you if you wake up or not? Also, that collection of cells has life. It's not a dead collection.

 

2. Because that choice is the choice to end a life. And we already established why I consider it a life, and honestly you can see it how ever you like. So to me, seeing as that I see it as a life, I'm against the choice of her to kill it.

 

3. Honestly an abortion would be just as traumatic as the rape, as many people who've had one have said, so I don't think I would have it. Imagine sitting on a table, someone forcing your legs apart because once you enter, you are not allowed to change your mind. Traumatic much for you? As well as the fact you're killing a life, that didn't do anything wrong. Most people feel extremely guilty about it naturally. Look it up. And no matter what I tell you I would choose to do, unless it's the choice you want me to say, you'll simply dismiss what I say because I'm a male and don't know what pregnancy is like. Which is true. So asking me to answer is like asking you to answer. You can't speak for them about the trauma of an abortion. But they have. Most pregnancies turn out fine. Most abortions are fricking reruns of being raped if you believe the people who've had them. So your choice.

Could you source where you are getting reports of people's experiences getting an abortion?

[Bender]

Pro-choice: religious people have no business oppressing their opinions on others.

 

As a side note, how come there seems to be a correlation between "pro-life" and "favouring death penalty"? Seems contradictory to me. (I seriously dislike the term "pro-life", btw, as it suggests the other side is "counter-life"; "pro-choice" vs "counter-choice" would cover the issue much more accurately, since I also consider myself to be "pro-life")

 

 

I feel the argument of "they could have been great people" needs proper addressing: letting an unwanted or handicapped child be born is a great burden on the mother and she might decide not to get another child afterwards. That potential life is smothered before it is even conceived, and some of those would certainly have become great people, if only the mother had aborted the previous fetus.

 

The line is, in my eyes, not important. I think putting it after birth would be a bad idea, because of the psychological implications of killing a baby to everyone involved. You simply need to make it late enough to be able detect possible defects and to give the parents time to consider the options.

 

Finally on a religious note: if a fetus is so precious, why has God killed such a large amount of them before birth. If you also take into account the 43% child mortality rate for most of human history, God sure killed a lot of precious, innocent and potentially glorious lives; more than he allowed to live even.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Bender

[dimreepr]

Murder through inaction, and premeditated murder. Since you could have EASILY prevented manslaughter since it was your fault, I would say yes. You should be forced to. It wouldn't kill you. You would be fine.

1. Because that unconscious unfeeling collection of cells, would wake up and become a life.

And if you were unconscious, you would be unfeeling. So what's the difference between it and an unconscious you? You're both an unconscious unfeeling collection of cells. What's the difference to you if you wake up or not? Also, that collection of cells has life. It's not a dead collection.

 

2. Because that choice is the choice to end a life. And we already established why I consider it a life, and honestly you can see it how ever you like. So to me, seeing as that I see it as a life, I'm against the choice of her to kill it.

 

3. Honestly an abortion would be just as traumatic as the rape, as many people who've had one have said, so I don't think I would have it. Imagine sitting on a table, someone forcing your legs apart because once you enter, you are not allowed to change your mind. Traumatic much for you? As well as the fact you're killing a life, that didn't do anything wrong. Most people feel extremely guilty about it naturally. Look it up. And no matter what I tell you I would choose to do, unless it's the choice you want me to say, you'll simply dismiss what I say because I'm a male and don't know what pregnancy is like. Which is true. So asking me to answer is like asking you to answer. You can't speak for them about the trauma of an abortion. But they have. Most pregnancies turn out fine. Most abortions are fricking reruns of being raped if you believe the people who've had them. So your choice.

 

 

Do you hunt or fish?

[Raider5678]

 

 

Do you hunt or fish?

No, but everyone around me does.

[dimreepr]

No, but everyone around me does.

 

Are you a vegan?

[Raider5678]

 

Are you a vegan?

No.

[dimreepr]

No.

 

Didn't think so; you sir are the one person on this planet that kills nothing; how does it feel, being perfect?

[Raider5678]

 

Didn't think so; you sir are the one person on this planet that kills nothing; how does it feel, being perfect?

With this statement, I am confused.

Please explain.

[dimreepr]

With this statement, I am confused.

Please explain.

 

Just answer the question and your confusion will evaporate.

[Raider5678]

 

Just answer the question and your confusion will evaporate.

I'm not perfect. If I was, it would feel lousy as I would be despised.

[StringJunky]

I'm not perfect. If I was, it would feel lousy as I would be despised.

You get used to it.

[Raider5678]

You get used to it.

[Outrider]

I have been through this thread a couple of times today and I feel the need to say that you have all done a really good job considering the subject. Particularly Raider who has fought a good and clean fight. I am going to revisit Delta's words of guidence given early in the thread here in a few but first I want to put some numbers out there to help us all see where we have been and where we are headed.

 

Over 51 million abortions in 47 years in the U.S. alone and that's just what's been reported. Anyone want to guess at a more global number? Not me. But it any case it is not acceptable.

BTW these numbers are from the Center of Disease Control via Wiki who started keeping tabs in 1970. The numbers grew rapidly peaking in 1987 at 356 per 1,000 live births. Well over a third. Since then the numbers have declined significantly.

2013 - 200 per 1,000. So some good news apparently education and contraception do work and we need to continue to grow in that regard and I know a lot of us on the pro life side have pushed back against these things and I am sorry. Those of us who did were wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

 

In the U.S. abortion is legal up to the 24th week. However most abortions occur far before that. I did not know this till today and while I still don't agree with abortion I do think earlier is less horrible.

In 2013 - 66% were before the 8 week mark and 91% before the 13th week.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/ss/ss6512a1.htm

 

As usual in these debates some of the justification for legal abortion have been the hardship cases such as rape but this is statistically such a small number I think it should be divorced from the primary debate. I will let my personal feelings known in due course. But first let's look at a study done in why this choice is sometimes made. I urge you to look up all the studies done on this so you can see they line up fairly well.

BTW rape victims more often then not keep their baby.

By the Numbers - Statistical Breakdown of Reasons

 

In a study released by the Guttmacher Institute in 2005, women were asked to provide reasons why they chose to have an abortion (multiple responses were permissible). Of those who gave at least one reason:

89% gave at least two

72% gave at least three

 

Below is a breakdown of women's responses that specified reasons that led to their abortion decision (percentage total will not add up to 100% as multiple answers were permitted.

 

73% felt they "can't afford a baby now" (due to various reasons such as being unmarried, being a student, inability to afford childcare or basic needs of life, etc.)

48% "don't want to be a single mother or [were] having relationship problem"

38% "have completed [their] childbearing"

32% were "not ready for a(nother) child"

25% "don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant"

22% "don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child"

14% felt their "husband or partner wants me to have an abortion"

13% said there were "possible problems affecting the health of the fetus"

12% said there were "physical problems with my health"

6% felt their "parents want me to have an abortion"

1% said they were "a victim of rape"

<0.5% "became pregnant as a result of incest

 

This has certainly been educating for me and I hope for you as well.

 

And no I don't think abortion is the first option for any of you and I would hope we can work together to at least make it a very rare thing.

Is there a secular pro-life argument?

Very much alive and well. This is a moral question not a religious one.

If you don't know who Christopher Hutchins was you need to find. He was pro life.

 

You really need to read this article and educate yourself.

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

Similarly, consciousness and self-awareness, often proposed as fair markers for personhood, merely identify stages in human development. Consciousness doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists only as part of the greater whole of a living entity. To say that an entity does not yet have consciousness is to nonetheless speak of that entity within which lies the inherent capacity for consciousness, and without which consciousness could never develop.

As atheist Nat Hentoff points out, “It misses a crucial point to say that the extermination can take place because the brain has not yet functioned or because that thing is not yet a ‘person’. Whether the life is cut off in the fourth week or the fourteenth, the victim is one of our species, and has been from the start.”

Please read the article.

 

Also

http://www.plagal.org/geninfo.html

We, the members of PLAGAL, have this to declare and bear witness to, regarding the appalling violence surrounding the abortion issue.

Let it be it known, that we value the lives of ALL involved: mother, father, child, doctor, nurse, lover, BORN and UNBORN.

We utterly reject as False the notion that abortion will be stopped by killing the abortionists and/or those who work/volunteer at abortion clinics. Furthermore, we believe that those who carry out such violent acts are doing so in direct opposition to the spirit and ideals of the pro-life movement, and have neither home nor refuge with us.

We stand united in the knowledge that abortion, like all bad ideas, cannot be stopped with bombs and bullets, and perhaps not even ballots, but must instead be replaced with better alternatives.

Towards this end PLAGAL was formed: to challenge the notion of abortion as acceptable, to bear witness to the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Trangendered (GLBT) community that abortion rights and GLBT rights are not one and the same, and to work towards those alternatives that are life-affirming as well as pro-woman.

 

I will say that, if someone thinks abortion is murder, that making exceptions for rape and incest is horrifyingly inconsistent and I don't see how that can be justified ethically. You are either admitting that an abortion isn't really murder, but you're going to ban it anyway, which falls afoul of the second ethical problem I brought up. Or else you are saying that it is ok to murder children for the actions of their parent or parents. It's an ethical half-way point that places itself in the worst position from both viewpoints.

I don't really think so. It's a compromise. Yes I think that it is murder of an innocent for the actions of the guilty on the face of it. But yet I will never be in that situation and can hardly know what the victim goes through. I just don't feel qualified to look a rape victim in the eye and tell her what she must or must not do. It's not an easy question to answer.

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.

I wonder how taking that many pills would be for you health wise never mind the cost. But there are several different forms of contraception available to you and I would hope you can find one that works for you. I really don't have a good answer for this now but I wanted you to know I read it and am thinking about your point.

As for the second part sure some pro lifers are mysoginists but certainly not all. See the links I left for Dimreeper above. I have no wish to control you.

 

That's it for tonight I am tired but as promised a few words from Delta that I hope we all take to heart.

This is one of those things where I perfectly understand both perspectives and don't see any means of resolving them, because they were each founded on fundamentally different assumptions about the nature of the world and value judgments that don't, I think, have an objectively discoverable answer.

 

If a fetus/zygote/whatever stage abortion is allowed at for the sake of conversation is a person, then abortion is murder and it is a monstrous practice to allow it.

 

If it is not a person, then preventing women from having access to the procedure and instead forcing them to have a child against their will, with profound consequences for their health and future well-being, is a monstrous practice.

 

There is not really a middle ground, and I don't think there exists a point where you can point to a developing human and say "Yeah, it's definitely a human with rights that override the aforementioned concerns of the mother."

You said it so much better than I ever could and I wish more people understood that being on the other side of this argument does not make you a monster.

[dimreepr]

You said it so much better than I ever could and I wish more people understood that being on the other side of this argument does not make you a monster.

 

I, pretty much, agree with everything in your post, but it doesn't address the elephant in the room; if abortions aren't legal, they'll be done illegally (the potential for suffering and corruption, increases).

[Outrider]

I, pretty much, agree with everything in your post, but it doesn't address the elephant in the room; if abortions aren't legal, they'll be done illegally (the potential for suffering and corruption, increases).

 

As a long time pro lifer I can understand your confusion. Yes a total ban used to be my position but I realized the futility of that sometime ago.

What I am asking for here and now is for the pro life bunch to get over their aversion to readily available contraception and the pro choice group to quit acting like all we want is to dominate the female body.

 

I would also like the admission that it is a barbaric practice and a shame on us all that up to this point we haven't been able to do any better.

 

More and better education and more readily available contraception is what I think the pro life movement should concentrate on since we screwed this up so bad in the past.

...

I forgot to address your point. Yes illegal abortions would surely rise but I also think that more women would opt for adoption.

It is impossible to say what percentage would do what.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Outrider