Sensitive Question About Abortion

[darkkazier]

well i see it pretty simple, drinking period is not good for you, and when you drink while pregnant you're potentially harming the soon to be born child. And sure, you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, and drinking while prgenant could potentially harm someone other than yourself. Now abortion up to a point is perfectly fine as far as i'm concerned.

[In My Memory]

Newtonian,

 

This isnt a cryptic quiz,i find people have addressed your points quite well considering they are not privy to what is going on in your head.Unless you ask specific questions i fear nobody will provide what your looking for.

I can ask lots of questions, for example:

 

Does the prohibition of drinking while pregnant imply that the life or well-being of a fetus matters before it becomes a person?

 

If no, then how could drinking while pregnant be any more immoral than abortion? Others have mentioned that its immoral because a future person will be born disabled, but to me this reads like the fetus coming to personhood caused the past actions to become wrong - but how does that make sense (its like saying todays rainfall caused yesterdays whether to be humid). Either the womans actions were wrong at the time she had acted, or never wrong at all (you cannot have something be wrong at a later time than the action itself).

 

And if yes, then shouldnt acknowledging this fact imply that life is morally valuable at any stage of preganancy?

[Mart]

Originally Posted by atinymonkey

It's not what I wrote, nor what this thread is about. If you wish to discuss the points I've raised, please reference the points directly. If you wish to raise your own points, please don't do it by creating false quotes. Thanks.

 

You're right. My error. A slip of the mouse. The quote was from in My Memory

 

the one thing you never see anything bring up is exactly why life has any moral worth in the first place

 

Any thoughts!

[Newtonian]

Does the prohibition of drinking while pregnant imply that the life or well-being of a fetus matters before it becomes a person?

Yes it appears to .......If the women intends to carry the pregnancy full term.It is the potential of the fetus becoming a person that *matters* .But it can be contradictary as concern for the fetus development is more prominent as the pregnancy develops.Until this time one places no real moral value on the fetus(at least not our own....we are animals after all)

Others have mentioned that its immoral because a future person will be born disabled' date=' but to me this reads like the fetus coming to personhood caused the past actions to become wrong - but how does that make sense . Either the womans actions were wrong at the time she had acted, or never wrong at all [/quote']

I think you've misunderstood, i dont believe thats what people have been trying to say at all.Certainly not me!.A pregnant women has the choice to terminate,or have the child(many complicated issues and problems come into making that choice, which are private.Without knowledge of facts one must respect that).

Its not the fetus coming to personhood that makes the past actions wrong !!,its the intent to have the child from the very beginning of gestation.It is wrong from the beginning to abuse ones body that may harm development of the baby,that the mother intends to bring into this world..

 

And if yes, then shouldnt acknowledging this fact imply that life is morally valuable at any stage of preganancy?

In the early stages sorry but to be blunt No.....One cannot place moral value or have empathy for jello with potential! ....we are morally obligated to the wellbeing of the mother..thats the way it is until we can lay eggs.

Obviously in the latter stages of gestation value of life increases,but morally we are still obligated...

I think the present laws about abortion are correct....we dont want the state deciding and god forbid those ghastly pro-lifers.These people can have no morals when their concern is more for potential life, than that of a 12 year old pregnant rape victim.

 

EditOne should be thorough before posting,saves all the editing in choice of words.

[Madanthony]

So you want the streets to be full of 13 year old sexmad rampant irresponsible children pushing prams.....you have no problem with children caring for children or not as in many cases and the child suffering all the nasty after effects etc etc.....havent we enough of them already,they are approx 60,000 17yr old and under every year.

Put the kids up for adoption. As it stands, people are going to China to adopt kids. Or we could go your route: Kill 'em all. But why limit ourselves to unborn children, why not kill all children with any physical defects whenever the defects show up. This way, women could drink all they want while pregnant, and then kill the kid if he's affected by it. Post natal abortion. Why should a child be safe just because it's passed through a birth canal. It's a women's right to choose to kill her child.

 

PS. I'm kidding, but this argument was actually advanced by "bioethicist" Peter Singer.

[john5746]

 

I can ask lots of questions' date=' for example:

 

Does the prohibition of drinking while pregnant imply that the life or well-being of a fetus matters before it becomes a person? [/quote']

 

Yes, it will determine the heath of the person being born and the quality of their life for the rest of their lives. That's why we have prenatal care, etc.

 

Either the womans actions were wrong at the time she had acted' date=' or never wrong at all (you cannot have something be wrong at a later time than the action itself).[/quote']

 

Say you place a bomb in an empty subway to go off in one hour. It malfunctions and goes off six hours later during rush hour. At the time you planted it, it wouldn't have killed anyone. You are still guilty of mass murder. Or say it did go off correctly and weakened the ceiling. The next day, a piece falls off and kills a man. You murdered him, imo.

 

And if yes' date=' then shouldnt acknowledging this fact imply that life is morally valuable at any stage of preganancy?[/quote']

 

It is morally valuable at any stage. This is why only the mother can abort the child and should only do so in dire situations, imo. But, it is her body, her decision. This doesn't mean she can induce chronic suffering on the fetus.

[In My Memory]

Madanthony,

 

Put the kids up for adoption. As it stands' date=' people are going to China to adopt kids. Or we could go your route: Kill 'em all. But why limit ourselves to unborn children, why not kill all children with any physical defects whenever the defects show up. This way, women could drink all they want while pregnant, and then kill the kid if he's affected by it. Post natal abortion. Why should a child be safe just because it's passed through a birth canal. It's a women's right to choose to kill her child.

 

PS. I'm kidding, but this argument was actually advanced by "bioethicist" Peter Singer.[/quote']

Not in that context. Singer devoted an entire chapter to ethics of euthanizing severely disabled infants in his book Practical Ethics, and wrote another book "Should the Baby Live". The argument says in some circumstances, such as in the case of spina bifida, an infant may be born where it will be in a permanent coma state, or in some cases terminally ill and will die within months. He says that euthanasia is permissable because it relieves what would otherwise by tremendous suffering for the infant (and the secondary suffering of the parents as well). Here is a quick excerpt from an articlePulling Back the Curtains of Mercy Killing of Newborns:

The third group includes infants with a "hopeless prognosis" and who also are victims of "unbearable suffering." For example, in the third group was "a child with the most serious form of spina bifida," the failure of the spinal cord to form and close properly. Yet infants in group three may no longer be dependent on intensive care.

 

It is this third group that creates the controversy because their lives cannot be ended simply by withdrawing intensive care. Instead, at the University Medical Center Groningen, if suffering cannot be relieved and no improvement can be expected, the physicians will discuss with the parents whether this is a case in which death "would be more humane than continued life." If the parents agree that this is the case, and the team of physicians also agrees — as well as an independent physician not otherwise associated with the patient — the infant's life may be ended.

 

If you think he says kill all disabled people, you're wrong. Read about the ethics of taking human lives here.

 

Just had to get that out, because I felt "irked" reading it.

[BenSon]

In My Memory:

Between the time of conception and personhood, a preganant woman is just as well off as a non-pregnant one. But, when a fetus comes to personhood, it just so happens that the fetus came to personhood as a disabled person (a person cannot be abused if it doesnt exist) - you shouldnt be able to tell the difference between this and an accident.

I highlighted a sentence there because i'm not realy sure by what you mean well off? Accident? what someone accidently pours bourbon down their throstwhile pregnant? I think you need to clarify this point for me.

 

... or, another interpretation. If it is true that a woman does not have an obligation to protect the life or well-being of the fetus before personhood, then there isnt a conflict between drinking and abortion - you would say that deliberately bring an FAS baby to term is no more immoral than abortion.

No by bringing the FAS baby to term you have disabled a person but if you abort before a featus before personhood then you have not harmed a person.

 

... or, yet another interpretation, if it matters that the fetus has been damaged before it ever became a person, then two things become obvious: personhood has nothing but red herring relevance to the rightness or wrongness of abortion, and even more there is no longer anything that distinguishes damaging the fetus by alcohol and damaging (or destroying) the fetus by abortion.

It is not a red herring i assure you. It has total relevance to the moral correctness of abortiong. What i highlighted there, that is true while the it is still a fetus but they both become equally immoral once personhood has been achieved.

What you seem to have a problem is with the idea of the time line. Lets say if bash someone up and put them in a coma, then three months later is the original fight I got in still responsible for the mans death? I mean surely you can't be moraly obligated after the fact, right? Wrong....

 

~Scott