Is Abortion Immoral?

[centauri]

I do have a question though, is good and bad arbitrary? Are there no absolutes? I am asking honestly, I really don't know anymore.....

I tend to think the evaluation of good and bad are more dependent on the consequences than an absolutist black and white definition.

For example, when listening to the fundamentalist evangelicals denouncing abortion in black and white terms, I keep in mind that the Bible does not condemn it.

In the little known passage of Num 5:11-31, according to the law of God, a woman must submit to a trial by ordeal if her husband suspects her of adultery.

If she's pregnant with another man's child, the fetus is aborted.

There is no condemnation of the husband for destroying the fetus his wife was carrying.

In fact, the text says the husband will not be guilty of any wrongdoing.

Where's the outrage from evangelicals about the law of God giving husbands the right to put their wives to a test and if they fail, a fetus might be destroyed?

This is a male only right, females have no option to test their husbands in this manner.

Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

[Guest wester]

Anti-abortionists practice situationaly relative morality. The entire circumstances and environment that contribute to the unfortunate situation don't seem to matter at all to them. It is all about people with low self confidence being able to attack an ultra-easy target (poor, under-educated, single women) in their moment of crisis and weakness.

 

Anti-Abortionists never under any circumstances seek to address the economic, cultural or social conditions that bring about these choices. It is all about the Fallacy of Attribution, a cowardly cop-out of attacking the individual's character rather than the toxic system and poison environments that produce these problems.

[Noggy]

Some people think a fetus is a person.

 

Some people think a fetus is not a person.

 

I haven't seen anyone in the first category be for abortion, or anyone in the second category be against it. Unfortunately "person" and "potential persons" etc, isn't a very well defined term. This argument over abortion needs to change to when to define someone as a person. Obviously, conception is a retarded place to call something a person. But being out of the womb is probably not also the first time someone is a person.

 

Would you call a fetus that has 2 days left until birth a person?

[mymistake]

Some people think a fetus is a person.

 

Some people think a fetus is not a person.

 

I haven't seen anyone in the first category be for abortion . . .

 

Well let me just fix that for you.

 

Hello, my name is "mymistake" and I support a woman's right to get an abortion at her discretion even though I believe a partly developed fetus is a person. In my opinion abortion is a situation where one person has the right to kill another person. Maybe it's a hold over from my Bible thumping days. Abortion is a deeply dividing issue so not many have crossed the line in either direction.

 

. . . or anyone in the second category be against it. Unfortunately "person" and "potential persons" etc, isn't a very well defined term. This argument over abortion needs to change to when to define someone as a person. Obviously, conception is a retarded place to call something a person. But being out of the womb is probably not also the first time someone is a person.

 

Would you call a fetus that has 2 days left until birth a person?

 

Yes I would. Any fetus who has developed a functioning brain is a person in my book. However I accept as fact that in some situations abortion is the best option and the mother is the expert on when that condition is met. However a fetus two days before term is no different than a baby born two days before term.

[Noggy]

Some people think a fetus is a person.

 

Some people think a fetus is not a person.

 

I haven't seen anyone in the first category be for abortion . . .

 

Well let me just fix that for you.

 

Hello, my name is "mymistake" and I support a woman's right to get an abortion at her discretion even though I believe a partly developed fetus is a person. In my opinion abortion is a situation where one person has the right to kill another person. Maybe it's a hold over from my Bible thumping days. Abortion is a deeply dividing issue so not many have crossed the line in either direction.

 

. . . or anyone in the second category be against it. Unfortunately "person" and "potential persons" etc, isn't a very well defined term. This argument over abortion needs to change to when to define someone as a person. Obviously, conception is a retarded place to call something a person. But being out of the womb is probably not also the first time someone is a person.

 

Would you call a fetus that has 2 days left until birth a person?

 

Yes I would. Any fetus who has developed a functioning brain is a person in my book. However I accept as fact that in some situations abortion is the best option and the mother is the expert on when that condition is met. However a fetus two days before term is no different than a baby born two days before term.

 

Why is killing another person justified in this situation?

 

Is it justified in every situation?

 

I am convinced by the arguments of "self-defense". That is, if a woman is going to be harmed by the fetus inside of her, then she has a right to kill that person. Giving the women the say-all in this matter seems a bit weird in my opinion. All abortions are not in "self-defense". A minority of them are for convenience sake. Would you consider this okay? And why should a woman killing a person inside her body be less to blame legally and morally then someone killing a person outside their body for convenience?

[mymistake]

Why is killing another person justified in this situation?

 

Is it justified in every situation?

 

I am convinced by the arguments of "self-defense". That is, if a woman is going to be harmed by the fetus inside of her, then she has a right to kill that person. Giving the women the say-all in this matter seems a bit weird in my opinion. All abortions are not in "self-defense". A minority of them are for convenience sake. Would you consider this okay? And why should a woman killing a person inside her body be less to blame legally and morally then someone killing a person outside their body for convenience?

 

Well I can't promise that I can justify it to somebody else's satisfaction. All I can do is show you how I justify it to my own satisfaction. Yes I do suppose that some women will abuse the right and kill for convenience. I assume that this is a very small percentage of all abortions. But the key is that the rest of us cannot know the difference. Doctors are experts but they are also notorious for not listening to their patients. Heck, I can hardly get my doctor to listen to me for a full sixty seconds. Judges and arbitrators might spend longer thinking about something but they still get the wrong answer often. The mother is the only one who really knows if she is going to be able to raise a child. Given the diversity of the human race there is no way for us to anticipate all the reasons a woman would know that she shouldn't have a child. For the few women who are going to abuse the right I don't think they would make for good mothers until they deal with whatever is influencing them to abuse the right. There is great suffering in life. If you have to kill someone then doing it before they are born is one of the most merciful ways to do it.

 

Just my opinion.

[RankStranger]

This poll needs an option for either "don't know" or "don't care". Or both.

 

The way I see it, a fetus is basically a part of the mother's body until it's born. Therefore until it's born (or pretty damn close to it), it's pretty much her business what she does with it. Yes, I know there's a line somewhere after which a fetus is viable and ought to have rights. No, I don't know exactly where that line is. I also understand that a mother who drinks and shit like that can fuck up a kid. It's not a simple situation. But I lean toward the mother's rights because she's conscious, and the fetus is essentially a part of her.

[SilentLoner]

This is a really hard one for me. Being that I am a newly deconverting Christian, I am not really sure where I stand I know I would never have one, not matter what has happened to me. However, I would hate to force a woman to have a baby that she was going to hate and not care for properly. I have been "pro-life" as long as I can remember and I believe I have a different view because of my life experience. My mother worked at our local crisis pregnancy center when I was a teenager and while counseling came across a young woman from Columbia that was pregnant. Her boyfriend wanted her to have an abortion, her parents had disowned her. She was in college at the time and her parents stopped sending her money to live. My mom, who is a wonderful woman, went against everyone at the center and brought this young woman to live with us. I can't imagine why, but the crisis center actually fired her for this???? What the hell did they expect this young woman to do? Anyway, she came to live with us when I was 14. My parents finished paying for her college and my mom took care of her child while she finished her education. Things were a little harder financially for us, but I didn't mind, it was worth it. Anyway, she eventually graduated and moved to Ohio for a job, fell in love and married a wonderful man. This baby just got married last month, he is 26 years old and has a beautiful son of his own. They are family and we love them so much.

 

Anyway, being a mother and having been pregnant, I cannot imagine not carrying to term. However, all of my babies were planned and wanted. Pregnancy is hard, even when totally normal, so I can't imagine going through it and not wanting to be going through it. Especially in the difficult situations some women find themselves in. I do think birth control should be easily accessible, especially to teenagers! The more unwanted pregnancies we avoid, the better! All of this to say, I just don't know.

 

I don't think being pro-choice means that you necessarily have to be all for having your own abortion, it just means that you respect the right of other women to make that decision. I could not honestly say if I would have an abortion myself; but neither would I condemn any woman who made such a choice. I think that's the essence of being pro-choice- acknowledging that abortion is a personal issue, and not a moral or religious issue. The way I see it, the pro-lifers make it a moral and/or religious issue, when really it is no such thing.

 

That's right. Being pro choice means you believe a woman has a right to decide if she wants to adopt, abort or parent.

 

I can't imagine why, but the crisis center actually fired her for this???? What the hell did they expect this young woman to do?

 

This hypocritical behavior is what caused me to stop being "pro life." I too was raised in the "pro life" camp but I realized early on that the same people who ranted and raved against abortion were often the same ones who opposed welfare benefits for single mothers, funding for school programs or lunch programs, etc. Not to mention they simultaneously looked down their noses at the women they were supposedly helping. Hence the common joke ...Pro life: Supporting life from conception until birth.

 

Exceptions like your mother, I find, are few and far in between.

[SilentLoner]

[VacuumFlux]

Would you call a fetus that has 2 days left until birth a person?

 

Yes I would. Any fetus who has developed a functioning brain is a person in my book. However I accept as fact that in some situations abortion is the best option and the mother is the expert on when that condition is met. However a fetus two days before term is no different than a baby born two days before term.

 

Why is killing another person justified in this situation?

 

Is it justified in every situation?

 

I am convinced by the arguments of "self-defense". That is, if a woman is going to be harmed by the fetus inside of her, then she has a right to kill that person. Giving the women the say-all in this matter seems a bit weird in my opinion. All abortions are not in "self-defense". A minority of them are for convenience sake. Would you consider this okay? And why should a woman killing a person inside her body be less to blame legally and morally then someone killing a person outside their body for convenience?

 

To me, the difference between before and after birth is the dependence on the mother's body, particularly the dangers inherent in giving birth. Due to how difficult birth can be to a mother's body, I would still consider this a matter of self-defense. These dangers are lower in a high-technology hospital, so I'd say that for most Western women with access to pre-natal care and a hospital to give birth in, the doctors could probably give her a reasonable risk assesment about how safe it is for her to go through delivery before the pregnancy gets to that point. But there are probably situations where the dangers don't show up early, and a woman late in pregnancy is forced to re-evaluate the risks involved in giving birth. Or perhaps she finds out late in the pregnancy that there were complications that didn't show up earlier and the baby is highly unlikely to survive. Without access to health care, death or serious injury (see fistula) in childbirth is a very real risk even if the rest of the pregnancy went well.

 

I guess the short answer is that giving birth is every bit as dangerous as being pregnant, and I would not fault a woman for deciding that the process of giving birth is too risky to attempt. I personally would prefer at that point that, if it's not a medical concern, that the woman give birth anyway and give the resulting baby up for adoption, but I do not have the right to make a woman go through birth any more than I do to force her to go through pregnancy.

 

And just generally, a woman who is going to get a convenience abortion is more likely to do it early on and not deal with the pregnancy at all. But whether or not it is immoral is very specific to the circumstances, so I would be very hesitant to make that judgement for someone else. I am even less comfortable with the idea of the legislature trying to make that decision for women, or leaving women open to a lawsuit on top of a difficult decision about risking their own life for another person's sake.

 

 

I know what you mean, and I don't believe I have the right to make that choice for someone else. I guess what I don't know is if it is wrong. For instance, if I go out and kill my neighbor because they are making my life difficult, that is obviously wrong. I see a lot of pro choice people think abortion isn't either right or wrong, and I don't know if I can say that... And I do see situations where abortion is probably the best decision for the mother and the child, I just can't ever see abortion as a "good" thing. Just something that is sometimes necessary in the awful world we live in. I am just having a hard time defining it in my own head. Please remember where I am coming from, I am not trying to judge anyone else.

 

I do have a question though, is good and bad arbitrary? Are there no absolutes? I am asking honestly, I really don't know anymore.....

 

No, I do not think there is are absolute morals, not in the sense of them existing outside of people's heads. There is an objective reality though, and we have to do our best to create a moral system based on reality. I don't think good and bad are arbitrary, but rather that our understanding of the best way for humans to live changes as we realize our past assumptions aren't working out. I don't believe that there is any force of justice outside of humans working to create a more just society. And sometimes, the best answer isn't necessarily a good one, it's just that all the other choices are worse. That's how I see abortion. And it makes me angry when Christians claim morality when they teach abstinence-only sex ed and their ignorant kid victims end up having to make a painful decision. To me, a healthy moral system must be open to editing when you find out that it's not working they way you thought it should, therefore I find many absolute moral claims to actually be immoral. So in that sense, I find a lack of absolutes to be comforting, because that means there's a chance we can make things better.

 

Edit: Since I'm making a claim about the dangers inherit in childbirth as part of my reasoning on why I'm ok with late-term abortions being legal, here's some info from the WHO on the risks.

 

http://www.who.int/making_pregnancy_safer/topics/maternal_mortality/en/

 

I found this interesting: "Most maternal deaths are avoidable, as the health care solutions to prevent or manage the complications are well known. Since complications are not predictable, all women need care from skilled health professionals, especially at birth, when rapid treatment can make the difference between life and death. For instance, severe bleeding after birth can kill even a healthy woman within two hours if she is unattended. Injecting the drug oxytocin immediately after childbirth reduces the risk of bleeding very effectively."

 

bolding mine.

[Legion]

I think a woman should retain a natural right to kill her fetus up until the point of viability, for any reason. And yes, I said kill. That's what she's doing. She is extinguishing a human life, and I think it's her right.

[Guest end3]

I think a woman should retain a natural right to kill her fetus up until the point of viability, for any reason. And yes, I said kill. That's what she's doing. She is extinguishing a human life, and I think it's her right.

 

You damn pipe smoking tarhead.....no. The woman is the vehicle....it's not her right to kill.

 

Put regular tobacco back in the pipe.

[Jessie]

Just curious as to what kind of moral values atheists/agnostics have.

 

Then why are you asking about just one controversial issue that even some Christians are conflicted over?

 

If you ask us about the whole of our views on morality (if you were ever really honestly curious), you're going to get a lot of different answers. We are individuals, not an organized religious movement.

[mymistake]

I think a woman should retain a natural right to kill her fetus up until the point of viability, for any reason. And yes, I said kill. That's what she's doing. She is extinguishing a human life, and I think it's her right.

 

You damn pipe smoking tarhead.....no. The woman is the vehicle....it's not her right to kill.

 

Put regular tobacco back in the pipe.

 

Ah Christianity, supporting life from conception up until birth.

 

Christians believe that the vast majority of the children born will make the wrong choices (they take the broad road) and as a result will burn in hell for all eternity. From that point of view it is better that the children to never be born. Think about it. Even you don't really believe your own nonsense. It just keeps you from thinking for yourself.

[Guest end3]

I think a woman should retain a natural right to kill her fetus up until the point of viability, for any reason. And yes, I said kill. That's what she's doing. She is extinguishing a human life, and I think it's her right.

 

You damn pipe smoking tarhead.....no. The woman is the vehicle....it's not her right to kill.

 

Put regular tobacco back in the pipe.

 

Ah Christianity, supporting life from conception up until birth.

 

Christians believe that the vast majority of the children born will make the wrong choices (they take the broad road) and as a result will burn in hell for all eternity. From that point of view it is better that the children to never be born. Think about it. Even you don't really believe your own nonsense. It just keeps you from thinking for yourself.

 

I'm just afraid that thinking for myself might put me in the same predicament as you.

[mymistake]

I'm just afraid that thinking for myself might put me in the same predicament as you.

 

And what predicament would that be? Or did you mean the fear itself? The fear passes with time.

[Legion]

I think a woman should retain a natural right to kill her fetus up until the point of viability, for any reason. And yes, I said kill. That's what she's doing. She is extinguishing a human life, and I think it's her right.

 

You damn pipe smoking tarhead.....no. The woman is the vehicle....it's not her right to kill.

Okay so we disagree. No problem. But the woman is far more than just a "vehicle" of the fetus. As far as I am concerned, she is god of the fetus, and as such retains the right to kill it. Mother's rights. From conception to viability she has a window there to grant life or to take it.

[mymistake]

Okay so we disagree. No problem. But the woman is far more than just a "vehicle" of the fetus. As far as I am concerned, she is god of the fetus, and as such retains the right to kill it. Mother's rights. From conception to viability she has a window there to grant life or to take it.

 

Oh wow. I wish I could give you ten arrows up for that one. Well done.

 

To the mindless fundamentalist God smiting babies and innocent girls is fine because God is our creator so anything God does is good. But when I was a fundamentalist I blocked myself from seeing that the woman creates the fetus so the same principle applies. If it is right for God to strike an innocent person with any disease or disorder known then the same applies. Well done indeed.

[Legion]

I don't know quite what to say MM. Thank you.

[Jessie]

 

You damn pipe smoking tarhead.....no. The woman is the vehicle....it's not her right to kill.

 

 

Sure it is. Vehicular homicide. Duh.

 

P.S. If I *have* to be a vehicle, may I be a Bugatti Veyron? I mean, unless I can just be a woman, which would be nice. I mean, if you would allow it... sir.

[duderonomy]

as an Agnostic I would say that anything that impedes the progress of the human race is wrong.

[Guest end3]

I mean, unless I can just be a woman, which would be nice. I mean, if you would allow it... sir.

 

Sure, if you will remember your place.

[Guest end3]

Okay so we disagree. No problem. But the woman is far more than just a "vehicle" of the fetus. As far as I am concerned, she is god of the fetus, and as such retains the right to kill it. Mother's rights. From conception to viability she has a window there to grant life or to take it.

 

Oh wow. I wish I could give you ten arrows up for that one. Well done.

 

To the mindless fundamentalist God smiting babies and innocent girls is fine because God is our creator so anything God does is good. But when I was a fundamentalist I blocked myself from seeing that the woman creates the fetus so the same principle applies. If it is right for God to strike an innocent person with any disease or disorder known then the same applies. Well done indeed.

 

The woman is not the sole creator in this case. Taking the creation in "her" own hands is similar to dismissing God as irrelevant. You admonish God for death, but then "create" death through abortion. Dude, you are seriously challenged.

[Guest Xtech]

The woman is not the sole creator in this case. Taking the creation in "her" own hands is similar to dismissing God as irrelevant. You admonish God for death, but then "create" death through abortion. Dude, you are seriously challenged.

 

Umm your god does not enter into this decision any more than Thor or Zeus or Loki or Makemake does.

 

Controlling women is more what anti-abortion is about.

[mymistake]

Okay so we disagree. No problem. But the woman is far more than just a "vehicle" of the fetus. As far as I am concerned, she is god of the fetus, and as such retains the right to kill it. Mother's rights. From conception to viability she has a window there to grant life or to take it.

 

Oh wow. I wish I could give you ten arrows up for that one. Well done.

 

To the mindless fundamentalist God smiting babies and innocent girls is fine because God is our creator so anything God does is good. But when I was a fundamentalist I blocked myself from seeing that the woman creates the fetus so the same principle applies. If it is right for God to strike an innocent person with any disease or disorder known then the same applies. Well done indeed.

 

The woman is not the sole creator in this case.

 

Yes quite true. Let's not make light of the father's contribution. After all he does provide one ounce of material and a few minutes of his time. So the mother just does 99.9999% of the creating measured by either mass, volume or invested time. Thank you for pointing out that she is not the sole creator. Wouldn't want that detail to slip our minds.

 

Taking the creation in "her" own hands is similar to dismissing God as irrelevant. You admonish God for death, but then "create" death through abortion. Dude, you are seriously challenged.

 

What in the world are you talking about? Who said God is irrelevant? Me create death? Very funny. How am I challenged? You still didn't say if you meant fear when you mentioned my "predicament". Should I just dismiss you comments as goofing around? When you run out of explanation you make up things about people.