Jump to content

Is Abortion Ethical


  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Is abortion ethical

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      3
    • Depends
      11


Recommended Posts

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 think it is the general pro-choice consensus that contraception is preferably to abortion, even if sometimes the motivation is purely limiting the psychological and physical impact.

 

However, contraception does not always work and is not always used properly; people can be impulsive and make mistakes; and women get raped or manipulated into unsafe sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A few things before I go into some of the posts. Making abortion illegal doesn't reduce the rate of abortion, it just diverts the women (particularly poorer ones) seeking out these procedures to have

I doubt you would hesitate to murder a baby either.   And I answered your questions. The point where it becomes set in motion is where contraceptives and morning after pills will no longer do anythi

You seem to believe that you have addressed the points repeated by many posters regarding the the likelihood of miscarriage. I think you are confused about what it meas, as from your post it appears t

Posted Images

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 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.

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.

 

I would like to point out the slight contradictions here. You say you aren't interested in controlling women's bodies, but yet you are interested in forcing women to have a baby she doesn't want and adopt it out because she no longer has access to abortion. Let's ignore the fact that the world of foster care and adoption is overburdened and wrought with all kinds of problems, and the mental anguish experienced by the mother (and father, and child). Let's ignore the fact that forcing women into having illegal abortions, or backyard abortions, not only doesn't serve your cause, it puts further lives at risk. You might not raise the pro-life banner for the explicit cause of 'dominating the female body,' but that's what it comes down to implicitly, whether you recognise it or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is the general pro-choice consensus that contraception is preferably to abortion,

 

Thank you.

even if sometimes the motivation is purely limiting the psychological and physical impact.

 

And that is a good motivation, good enough, and part of mine as well but of course I would add sanctity of life to the list.

However, contraception does not always work and is not always used properly; people can be impulsive and make mistakes; and women get raped or manipulated into unsafe sex.

I covered the rape situation above it is a very small number 1%. I am willing to make exceptions in hardship cases.

 

And as I said before I'm not asking for a total ban but in 2013 we(USA) had 200 abortions per 1,000 live births. That is one in every five.

Of course if I had my way the number would be zero but I am not going to get my way.

I would like to point out the slight contradictions here. You say you aren't interested in controlling women's bodies, but yet you are interested in forcing women to have a baby she doesn't want and adopt it out because she no longer has access to abortion. Let's ignore the fact that the world of foster care and adoption is overburdened and wrought with all kinds of problems, and the mental anguish experienced by the mother (and father, and child). Let's ignore the fact that forcing women into having illegal abortions, or backyard abortions, not only doesn't serve your cause, it puts further lives at risk. You might not raise the pro-life banner for the explicit cause of 'dominating the female body,' but that's what it comes down to implicitly, whether you recognise it or not.

I have no interest in any of those things. I also have no interest in controlling men's bodies but if a man cannot control his alcohol intake and is out running over people in his car a decision has to be made by a responsible society.

I know that is a bit extreme but I think you are ignoring what Delta said, you see a bag of chemicals, an undetermined possibility and I see a helpless baby, a human like me.

 

You are also ignoring the fact that I never suggested a ban in any way. What I am asking for here is suggestions on how to make abortion a rare thing.

 

Is one in every five fetuses aborted acceptable to you?

 

I also don't think the whole responsibility should be placed on women. If I have unprotected sex knowing I am not in a situation to raise a child I am just as complicit as she is. Unfortunately it is so easy for me to sneak out the back door but then they make words for people like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

I have no interest in any of those things. I also have no interest in controlling men's bodies but if a man cannot control his alcohol intake and is out running over people in his car a decision has to be made by a responsible society.

I know that is a bit extreme but I think you are ignoring what Delta said, you see a bag of chemicals, an undetermined possibility and I see a helpless baby, a human like me.

 

You are also ignoring the fact that I never suggested a ban in any way. What I am asking for here is suggestions on how to make abortion a rare thing.

If you're not advocating a ban, then what are you advocating?

 

Furthermore, I was not replying to Delta, I was replying to you.

 

Your analogy is not a good one. You are essentially claiming that women who get pregnant when they do not wish to be are reckless and morally irresponsible (is that not what drunk drivers are?). Who are you to cast such aspersions? And what would you have them do instead? Not have sex unless for reproductive purposes? That seems to be logical conclusion based on your analogy. How is that not controlling their sexuality (which you claim not to be your purpose)?

 

(Also worth noting that half of the women who form those abortion statistics were using other forms of birth control, though I maintain that it does not matter)

 

Is one in every five fetuses aborted acceptable to you?

The question of, 'Is one in every five fetuses aborted acceptable to you?" is a silly one to me, and one which obviously tries to paint myself and other of my persuasion into an ethical corner. Is it acceptable to me that the women who had these abortions had access to them and were able to make use of their right to have one? Absolutely it is. Do I want the number of abortions to decrease? Of course I do. Who doesn't want that?

 

I've said this already. No one is getting abortions for fun. No one wants to have to go through the trauma, nor the fallout from having to make what is a very difficult decision. Acceptable would be women having full access to all forms of birth control and sexual education. Over half of all women getting abortions in the US (according to the same CDC stats you cite) are from people living under the poverty line. People who might not be able to afford to get birth control, or who have the luxury of being able to take the time out to educate themselves on what is available to them. Acceptable to me would be these women having unfettered access to sexual education and birth control in order to prevent the need for an abortion in the first place.

 

 

Correction: 51% of the 2008 statistics had been using other forms of birth control. I can't imagine that changed much in the 5 years following.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're not advocating a ban, then what are you advocating?

 

My first request was aimed at pro life advocates, please assist in better sex education and more contraception availability.

My second was for everyone to look for better ways of dealing with the problem of unwanted pregnancy.

My third was to the pro choice members, admit there is a problem which you have done more than once and try to understand my point of view which I'm not sure you have.

Furthermore, I was not replying to Delta, I was replying to you.

 

Early in the thread Delta brought up the problem of these two camps understanding each other. I quoted this above in the hope that we would all try a little harder.

Your analogy is not a good one. You are essentially claiming that women who get pregnant when they do not wish to be are reckless and morally irresponsible (is that not what drunk drivers are?). Who are you to cast such aspersions? And what would you have them do instead? Not have sex unless for reproductive purposes? That seems to be logical conclusion based on your analogy. How is that not controlling their sexuality (which you claim not to be your purpose)?(Also worth noting that half of the women who form those abortion statistics were using other forms of birth control, though I maintain that it does not matter)

 

You read me about right. I can drink all I want as long as I stay put but as soon as I crank up the car I have crossed a line. This can be caused by ignorance as well.

As I said before I don't only think the woman is being irresponsible but the man as well. Yes I know it is all to easy for him to shirk his responsibility and that is often exactly what happens. I cannot change the circumstances anymore than I can give the unborn a voice.

Did you read the survey of reasons given?

Beyond their control accounted for less than 2%.

The question of, 'Is one in every five fetuses aborted acceptable to you?" is a silly one to me, and one which obviously tries to paint myself and other of my persuasion into an ethical corner. Is it acceptable to me that the women who had these abortions had access to them and were able to make use of their right to have one? Absolutely it is. Do I want the number of abortions to decrease? Of course I do. Who doesn't want that?I've said this already.

Thank you. It was not a trick question. The motives you assigned to me are incorrect.

It was important for me to hear you say abortion isn't just one of many options rather it is the last option. I have talked to more than a few pro choice advocates who do not take that position.

Again thank you.

No one is getting abortions for fun. No one wants to have to go through the trauma, nor the fallout from having to make what is a very difficult decision. Acceptable would be women having full access to all forms of birth control and sexual education. Over half of all women getting abortions in the US (according to the same CDC stats you cite) are from people living under the poverty line. People who might not be able to afford to get birth control, or who have the luxury of being able to take the time out to educate themselves on what is available to them. Acceptable to me would be these women having unfettered access to sexual education and birth control in order to prevent the need for an abortion in the first place.Correction: 51% of the 2008 statistics had been using other forms of birth control. I can't imagine that changed much in the 5 years following.

I looked through the CDC report and did not find your claim that 51% were using birth control at the time of contraception.

Please provide a cite while I contemplate how this might change some of my views.

Edited by Outrider
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I had conflated my sources.

 

http://jfprhc.bmj.com/content/39/1/36

 

Associations between contraceptive use and disruptions were less straightforward in the quantitative survey. Just over half (51%) of abortion patients surveyed in the USA reported using a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant (Table 3). Most commonly, 27% had been using condoms, 17% reported using a hormonal method, 6% had been relying on withdrawal and 2% were using some other method (data not shown). While contraceptive non-use and number of disruptions were statistically associated, there was no clear pattern. Levels of contraceptive use were highest for women who reported no disruptions or two disruptions (52% and 53%, respectively), but were not substantially different for women who reported one or three or more disruptions (49%).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

I read through the entire link and found it very informative but also heart-rending. For anyone out there who thinks this is a simple cut and dried issue please go to the link and read some of these girls stories.

If I ever implied in any way that this was an easy decision I am sorry it was never my intention.

 

Two other things I got from the link.

1) Fixing poverty will go a long way towards fixing this problem.

 

2) The cases of abortion due to rape are underreported. Reading some of the girls stories it was obvious they were being abused and didn't think of it as rape but it was or same as.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If you're not advocating a ban, then what are you advocating?

 

2. Your analogy is not a good one. You are essentially claiming that women who get pregnant when they do not wish to be are reckless and morally irresponsible (is that not what drunk drivers are?). Who are you to cast such aspersions? And what would you have them do instead? Not have sex unless for reproductive purposes? That seems to be logical conclusion based on your analogy. How is that not controlling their sexuality (which you claim not to be your purpose)?

 

3. The question of, 'Is one in every five fetuses aborted acceptable to you?" is a silly one to me, and one which obviously tries to paint myself and other of my persuasion into an ethical corner. Is it acceptable to me that the women who had these abortions had access to them and were able to make use of their right to have one? Absolutely it is. Do I want the number of abortions to decrease? Of course I do. Who doesn't want that?

1. If I'm not mistaken, he made his point very clear:

"I would hope we can work together to at least make it a very rare thing."

From that there, you can easily tell just by reading it he's not calling for a total ban, but rather to simply make it a very rare thing.

Any questions on that?

 

2. Perhaps, might I say, that if a women and a man aren't in a good position to have a Baby, they should both take some extra precaution?

I know. I'm a sick psycho monster trying to control and suppress women's sexuality, but honestly. Taking a few extra precautions in an attempt to not have a baby should be something you try to do if you don't want a baby. I would assume it's easier then getting an abortion, so why shouldn't you? I'm not asking why wouldn't you, I'm asking why SHOULDN'T you. As in, what reasons are there for NOT taking precaution? I'm sure you have some as you've claimed multiple times.

 

3. And yet, when someone asks to help make abortions rarer, you start accusing him of trying to control your sexuality. And honestly, reread your posts. This is CLEARLY what you did. This who paragraph contradicts your entire argument. So are you going to drop your argument or drop this paragraph as having meaning?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If I'm not mistaken, he made his point very clear:

"I would hope we can work together to at least make it a very rare thing."

From that there, you can easily tell just by reading it he's not calling for a total ban, but rather to simply make it a very rare thing.

Any questions on that?

 

I believe we covered that. How do you propose we make it a "very rare thing", out of curiosity?

 

 

2. Perhaps, might I say, that if a women and a man aren't in a good position to have a Baby, they should both take some extra precaution?

I know. I'm a sick psycho monster trying to control and suppress women's sexuality, but honestly. Taking a few extra precautions in an attempt to not have a baby should be something you try to do if you don't want a baby. I would assume it's easier then getting an abortion, so why shouldn't you? I'm not asking why wouldn't you, I'm asking why SHOULDN'T you. As in, what reasons are there for NOT taking precaution? I'm sure you have some as you've claimed multiple times.

I don't believe I have ever called you, nor anyone else who holds you opinion, a, 'sick psycho monster.' I would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth, and try and aim for less misleading means of discussion.

 

Of course one should take precautions. Where have I said that you shouldn't? My opinion has always been that a person should, but that they also should not be punished if they don't, or if those precautions fail. Did you read the paper I linked above? What about those people who do take precaution and wind up pregnant anyway? Do you believe that stopping people from getting an abortion is the right way to go here? Do you think it would be effective?

 

The precautions I may or may not take myself are none of your business, and I am not going to disclose them. Furthermore, I hardly think they are relevant to my position, or to this discussion generally.

 

 

3. And yet, when someone asks to help make abortions rarer, you start accusing him of trying to control your sexuality. And honestly, reread your posts. This is CLEARLY what you did. This who paragraph contradicts your entire argument. So are you going to drop your argument or drop this paragraph as having meaning?

Because that's how much of it reads in the context of the discussion we were having, and the posts I was responding to. I stand by it, but I am happy to concede that Outrider and I probably agree more than we disagree on how to approach the situation (that is, tackle the need for women to get abortions through education and availability of contraceptives rather than making legal abortions unavailable).

 

Also,

 

#93

 

In reply to post #90

My reason for requesting further comment on this post was because:

 

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.

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.

You cherry picked snippets from my earlier post and then made up what you thought my conclusion was (a habit, apparently). I asked for further response to post #90 on that basis, because you either hadn't read it or were confused by it. Your subsequent posts have done nothing but illustrate my point, which is that much of the pro life position comes down to controlling women's sexuality. I never called you names, or insulted you on the basis of your ideas. I ask only that you consider what it is that you want, and the practical / moral implications of how one might achieve it. You might wish to reread some of Outrider's posts yourself. Do you agree with his position?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I've always found curious about the question of "when is a person a person" is that people who are pro choice and people who are anti-abortion react in strikingly similar ways to miscarriage. When a positive pregnancy test a few weeks after conception suddenly turns negative, no one attempts to salvage the embryo, buy a headstone, dress in black, put a an obituary in the paper, have a funeral. Even loss at the end of the first trimester might be sad or disappointing, but is not generally regarded as a "death". Which should be surprising if many genuinely believe a fertilized egg is every bit a person as full term baby. Both groups tend to respond to a loss of a fetus as if it were a death the closer one gets to viability or full term. This strangely seems to imply that the two groups are actually more alike in their philosophical beliefs than their political stances would suggest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I've always found curious about the question of "when is a person a person" is that people who are pro choice and people who are anti-abortion react in strikingly similar ways to miscarriage. When a positive pregnancy test a few weeks after conception suddenly turns negative, no one attempts to salvage the embryo, buy a headstone, dress in black, put a an obituary in the paper, have a funeral. Even loss at the end of the first trimester might be sad or disappointing, but is not generally regarded as a "death". Which should be surprising if many genuinely believe a fertilized egg is every bit a person as full term baby. Both groups tend to respond to a loss of a fetus as if it were a death the closer one gets to viability or full term. This strangely seems to imply that the two groups are actually more alike in their philosophical beliefs than their political stances would suggest.

 

That's because both sides believe in the sanctity of life and that a fetus of whatever age is alive.

 

As hypervalent-iodine points out, the wish to control is the only difference between the sides, because when you look at the issue ethically/logically and both parties potential for suffering is considered, the currant legal position is (largely) correct.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. I believe we covered that. How do you propose we make it a "very rare thing", out of curiosity?

2. I don't believe I have ever called you, nor anyone else who holds you opinion, a, 'sick psycho monster.' I would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth, and try and aim for less misleading means of discussion.

 

3. Of course one should take precautions. Where have I said that you shouldn't? My opinion has always been that a person should, but that they also should not be punished if they don't, or if those precautions fail. Did you read the paper I linked above? What about those people who do take precaution and wind up pregnant anyway? Do you believe that stopping people from getting an abortion is the right way to go here? Do you think it would be effective?

 

4. The precautions I may or may not take myself are none of your business, and I am not going to disclose them. Furthermore, I hardly think they are relevant to my position, or to this discussion generally.

 

5. Because that's how much of it reads in the context of the discussion we were having, and the posts I was responding to. I stand by it, but I am happy to concede that Outrider and I probably agree more than we disagree on how to approach the situation (that is, tackle the need for women to get abortions through education and availability of contraceptives rather than making legal abortions unavailable).

 

6. Also,

 

6. My reason for requesting further comment on this post was because:

6. You cherry picked snippets from my earlier post and then made up what you thought my conclusion was (a habit, apparently). I asked for further response to post #90 on that basis, because you either hadn't read it or were confused by it. Your subsequent posts have done nothing but illustrate my point, which is that much of the pro life position comes down to controlling women's sexuality. I never called you names, or insulted you on the basis of your ideas. I ask only that you consider what it is that you want, and the practical / moral implications of how one might achieve it. You might wish to reread some of Outrider's posts yourself. Do you agree with his position?

1. That's what we're discussing isn't it? I would, propose that you make adoption seem more appealing then an abortion, as well as decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies with contraceptives. Obviously, that won't stop all, but hopefully it will help.

 

2. Didn't say you called me that and wasn't attempting to put words in your mouth, I was, however, expressing my views on how the pro-choice argument seems to view pro-life. If you remember just a few weeks ago inside the profile feed MonDie had a very interesting opinion towards pro-life that seemed to fall in line with "sick psycho monsters."

 

3. As you've already said, stopping people from getting abortions wouldn't work, and I'm willing to take your word for that. So, we just have to make it seem a lot less appealing, and make more appealing options readily available.

 

4. I don't recall asking for them, but okay.

 

5. You(plural) probably do agree more then you disagree. But I still say, your response was responding to what you believed to be the general pro-life argument rather then his actual post?

 

6. I'm honestly confused, but I'll just concede I probably ended up arguing back into myself or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's because both sides believe in the sanctity of life and that a fetus of whatever age is alive.

 

As hypervalent-iodine points out, the wish to control is the only difference between the sides, because when you look at the issue ethically/logically and both parties potential for suffering is considered, the currant legal position is (largely) correct.

 

It does seem to me as well that the current legal position is largely correct and corresponds to how people actually behave in the real world. I think the conumdrum for religious people is also the lack of a perfect demarcation - if 20 weeks is your cut off, then what about 20 weeks and 1 day? People are not comfortable with processes that are a continuum, and resort to saying a fertilized egg is a person, because it seems more precise and just easier. And it probably seemed more precise and clearcut to people like Vice President Spence who argued that no birth defect, no matter how severe, justifies abortion at any time, rather than to allow a physician or patient to judge each situation individually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a difference between ethics and righteousness. For eg: An employee of a food company can steel some food to feed his starving children. There is nothing wrong about it. But I believe that it is not ethical.

Similarly there maybe many cases where abortion seems right thing to do, but never ethical. Correct me If I am wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a difference between ethics and righteousness. For eg: An employee of a food company can steel some food to feed his starving children. There is nothing wrong about it. But I believe that it is not ethical.

Similarly there maybe many cases where abortion seems right thing to do, but never ethical. Correct me If I am wrong.

 

Ethics represents a balance between good and bad; along a continuum/spectrum in which the ethical argument is mostly central.

 

Righteousness represents a reason to judge/control no matter who suffers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. That's what we're discussing isn't it? I would, propose that you make adoption seem more appealing then an abortion, as well as decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies with contraceptives. Obviously, that won't stop all, but hopefully it will help.

I'm sorry, but that first suggestion is ridiculous. Make adoption more appealing? How exactly do you propose to do that? What would that mythical future look like in your ideal scenario?

 

2. Didn't say you called me that and wasn't attempting to put words in your mouth, I was, however, expressing my views on how the pro-choice argument seems to view pro-life. If you remember just a few weeks ago inside the profile feed MonDie had a very interesting opinion towards pro-life that seemed to fall in line with "sick psycho monsters."

Right, but you'll notice that I'm not MonDie, and I don't represent the entirety of the pro-choice movement. And for the record:

 

I know. I'm a sick psycho monster trying to control and suppress women's sexuality, but honestly.

The implication is pretty clear there since the quote was directed explicitly to me (not MonDie, and not the pro-choice movement), and assuming that is what my response would be to you is putting words in my mouth.

 

 

4. I don't recall asking for them, but okay.

 

I misread a word in one of your sentences, so that was my mistake.

 

In any case, I'm glad you seem to be coming away from your initial opinion that it shouldn't be legal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were I able to conceive a baby, I believe I would not have an abortion.

But that is a personal choice based on morality I choose for myself.

I don't think its my place to set ethical and moral standards for others.

My rights stop when they start to infringe on the rights of others.

 

That being said, I'm safe knowing I can never get pregnant so the decision is purely hypothetical and not one I'll have to make anytime soon.

 

And yes, I know my stance is a non-committal 'cop-out'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If it's ethical in certain circumstances, then it's de facto ethical.

What? In all circumstances just because it's ethical in some? It's considered not ethical post-24 weeks as a routine procedure; A foetus has 'person rights beyond this figure and has a funeral; in the UK anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What? In all circumstances just because it's ethical in some? It's considered not ethical post-24 weeks as a routine procedure; A foetus has 'person rights beyond this figure and has a funeral; in the UK anyway.

 

You're missing the point, abortion is either ethical or not, limitations is a different question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're missing the point, abortion is either ethical or not, limitations is a different question.

How about killing?

Killing someone because they were about to do something extremely evil that would hurt millions, or killing someone for kicks.

One is ethical, one isn't.

But does that make both ethical?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends: if they are in insufferable, endless pain and ask for it, killing them could be ethical.

 

Possibly but we're talking about abortion (just heading off a potential tangent :) ).

Although it does illustrate my point; when suffering is taken into account, the ethical position changes for example the potential pain and suffering by both parties, if abortions are unavailable, against potential pain and suffering by both parties, if abortion's are available.

 

If abortion is outlawed then the potential for a lot of pain and suffering exists, for both parties.

 

An aborted fetus has no potential for any suffering.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.