At what stage is abortion immoral?

[uruk]

You really sound as if you want people to be punished for having a sex life.
To take steps to avoid unwanted births is taking responsibility.

Since when is taking responsibility for you actions punishment? Why is it that people feel this way?

I have nothing against contraceptives. I have used them myself. I feel preventing pregnacies is far more moral than having an abortion.

 

[fuelair]

I can't tell the face of one fetus from another four months after they're born.

Some of us can. And, call me nasty but the mom rules all the way until it's born. At that point I switch to attack it at your peril mode. ( I like kids).

 

[gnome]

Uruk, is the immoral part the bit about avoiding consequences itself, or because you perceive a harm to the fetus that is immoral?

 

[kerikiwi]

The Declaration of Independnace says we have a duty to rape and destroy? Where doe sit say that.

That "some thing" mentioned in the document meant defending the rights of the people, ameliorating injustice, etc.

But I think you knew that already.

Well, no I didn't know that because that is not what you said.

 

[kerikiwi]

If you choose to engage in behaiviours associated with those risks then be prepared to accept the consequences of those risks.

Allowing an abortion when an unwanted pregnancy occurs is taking control of consequences. The consequences you want people to accept are not unavoidable. If an abortion is an option, the consequences of taking part in sex are changed.
An unwanted pregnancy should not be enforced in order that the woman suffer consequences.
It should not be used as punishment for behaviour you do not like.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Except for one very obvious thing, pregnancies don't "just happen". Those analagies have 1 thing in common: they attempt to remove any sort of responsibility for the pregnancy from the equation..."a seed just blew in the window, and she became pregnant."

No, two people chose to engage in one very specific act, and act which has the possibile consequence of the female becoming pregnant. Pregnancy is not the result of some failure of omission, like not closing your windows, it is the result of a singular and specific act of commission.

== "She had sex, so she must be punished."

 

[quixotecoyote]

Consequence is just another word for punishment when the consequence is unwanted, not agreed to, and imposed by a third party.

Some posters consider sex as something that needs to be punished but want to play games so they don't have to say it.

Why not replace it with a crime and see the lack of a difference in the argument:


Moral crusader: You just had sex and became impregnated.
Woman: So?
Moral crusader: Now you have to face the consequence.
Woman: Yes, the consequence is that I will have an abortion.
Moral crusader: No, the consequence is that I will make you carry to term.

Cop:You just went into a bank and stole money.
Thief:So?
Cop:Now you must face the consequences.
Thief:Yes, the consequence is that I will sneak off with the cash.
Cop:No, the consequence is that I will put you in prison.

The argument is the same. Sex is treated as the crime, the pregnancy the punishment, and the abortion the escape that must be thwarted so that the villainess can take her punishment.

Now, I don't think sex is equivalent to a bank robbery or that abortion is getting away with ill-gotten gains.

But that's what using this "pregnancy as consequence" crap is doing, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

 

[uruk]

Unwanted pregnancy may be a consequence, but aborting the pregnancy is not 'a cheat'. It is taking control of the consequences. To say it is 'a cheat' quite cleasrly implies that you think there should be some kind of punishment for having an unwanted pregnancy.
Why the hell should we not change the consequences, or avoid unwanted consequences?

I feel that it is cheating. Abortion for reason of inconvienance is immoral and it cheapens the value of human life.

The creation of human life is not something that should not be taken lightly. We certainly give great lip service to idea that all human life is important. But yet we seem to give no importance to the thing that brings about this vaunted human life that is so ideologicaly important to us.
Every single person who is alive today was once an fertilized egg with an uncertain future.
And it is sex (for the most part) that initiates this process.

But people only seem to see the pleasurable aspect of sex. They seem to ignore the procreation part. That is the reason why there is so many unwanted preganacies, abandoned and neglected children, and overpopulation. People having lots of unprotected sex without reguard for the consequence that having that sex would produce a pregancy.

Would you say that unwanted pregancies, negelcted children and overpopulation are bad things? Wouldn't you say that any behaiviour that leads to those things is reckless behaiviour?

Abortion gives the person an "out" to continue this reckless behaiviour. It is akin to treating the sypmtoms but ignoring the cause of the problem. They do not learn to modify this behaiviour. They avoid this reponsibility to themselves and to the idea that we hold human life to be important.

Sex without protection when you do not want to have children is being irresponsible. And aborting the unwanted pregnacy is immoral because it does not deal with the underlying problem. It also has the consequence of preventing a human life from completeing its development and we loose that potential.

And the easier it becomes to devalue the importance of developing human life, the easier it becomes to push that line of where a human being becomes a human being farther up the scale. I've already heard someone argue that you are not human being until you can speak, think, and be self-sufficient.

 

[uruk]

Uruk, is the immoral part the bit about avoiding consequences itself, or because you perceive a harm to the fetus that is immoral?

Actually both. but more to the harm to the fetus part.
Avoiding consequence can cause problems to those who try to avoid those consequnces and those around them.

If we value human life or place a moral importance on human life then it should be for all stages of human life. And we should place importance on the process by which a human being is produced, by which I mean the gestation process.

It does not amke sense to me to say that you are not human because you are a zygote.
Everyone who is alive today was once a zygote.

You are human from the time your specific DNA has combined to the time you take a dirt nap. The DNA if a human zygote is distinctly human and not any of other species.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I feel that it is cheating. Abortion for reason of inconvienance is immoral and it cheapens the value of human life.

<snip further irrelevancies>

Uruk, you can't use broken arguments to support each other.

You can't argue that abortion doesn't change the consequences of getting pregnant by appealing to cheapening lives or harming fetuses. All the cheapening and harming in the world won't change whether something is or is not a consequence of something else.

Going on about various other half-put together problems doesn't change that.

 

[I Ratant]

By "quick fix" I meant abortion.
Contraceptives work for the most part, I've used them myself, but they are not 100% effective.

I am by no means saying that people should abstain from sex. What I am saying is that there are risks associated with sex for those who do not want to or who are not ready to become parents. If you choose to engage in behaiviours associated with those risks then be prepared to accept the consequences of those risks.

I feel that it is far less immoral to give up an unwanted child for adoption than to abort the fetus.

I am also not saying that we should make abortion illegal. In a perfect world there would be no need for abortion. The issue I am addressing is the morality of abortion.

.
Your attitude of "don't do the crime if you can do the time" is prehistoric and moderately ignorant and self-centered.
Some of these "unwanted children" can't be adopted, as they're too damaged by circumstances and will need 24/7 specialized care.
A friend on meds for bi-polar disorder got pregnant. The meds are known causes of physical and mental defects.
The child will be a basket case for life.
This is medical fact.
Bring it to term, and let it have what won't be anything like a conscious life, burdening the parents/society for however long that life might be or abort it early?
The result to the child is the same, but the death is quicker, inevitable in any event.
The abortion was -prescribed- by the doctor.
I've been requested to finance other "inconvenient" abortions, and turned down the requests.

 

[uruk]

Uruk, you can't use broken arguments to support each other.

You can't argue that abortion doesn't change the consequences of getting pregnant by appealing to cheapening lives or harming fetuses. All the cheapening and harming in the world won't change whether something is or is not a consequence of something else.

Going on about various other half-put together problems doesn't change that.

Please elaborate.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Please elaborate.

My post before last elaborates on what I think about using 'consequence' when you mean 'punishment.'

My most recent post is clear. If you argue that abortion doesn't change the consequences of pregnancy, bringing up a dozen unrelated points doesn't help your argument.

 

[Dragoonster]

People are responsible for thier actions and choices. Actions and choices have consequences. It's amazing that people tend to forget that.

As others have said one way some pregnant mothers choose to deal with those consequences is to abort. Your argument comes down to the value and rights of a fetus, not really the irresponsibility of the impregnated. (unless your argument is inconsistent, as in the following)

Are you okay with abortions in the case of rape/incest? Don't want to strawman that you do, but if so exactly why does the fetus lose rights depending solely on the circumstances of its creation? If it can lose rights so easily they must not be very strong rights. Is abortion really being punished, or irresponsibility?

If you do not want a seed person, then take the proper precausions. Do not behaive or do the things that make you supceptable to getting seed people.

If you behaive in such a manner knowing the risks then you are responsible for those actions and consequences.

If it is illegal to destroy a seed person and you do not want to have a seed person but get one anyway due to your actions than take the consequences and the responsibility.

If you decide to go to a shady person who will destroy the seed person then you know that you are chosing to put yourself at risk. You chose to take the risk and you have to take the consequences of those actions.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Or you can also change the law by challenging the law in a court. Maybe you can call the ruling Hoe vs. Weed.

My point is that outlawing abortion also has consequences, because abortions will still happen, but more dangerous abortions. In some ethics systems one would have to account for the damage caused by illegal abortions when arguing whether abortion should be illegal or legal.

Similarly, if you want to stop unwanted pregnancies and/or think casual sex is a lack of responsibility, and if the ideal consequence of a law is the only real concern or goal I'd think you'd favor outlawing all non-procreative sex. With "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" as the answer for anyone who ignores that law and still has non-procreative sex. Or better, mandated birth control implants, to only be removed by the state when you can prove you can responsibly care for a child. Not trying to strawman you here either, but if I shared your same views on why abortion should be illegal this is what my argument would develop into.

 

[kerikiwi]

Avoiding consequence can cause problems to those who try to avoid those consequnces and those around them.

What a bizarre claim.
It is not avoiding consequences, that is suffering consequences, which causes problems.
Do you take the same position with sexually transmitted diseases? If someone is unfortunate enough to contract HIV, do you want them to suffer the consequences, or use available treatments to avoid the consequences?

 

[gnome]

Actually both. but more to the harm to the fetus part.
Avoiding consequence can cause problems to those who try to avoid those consequnces and those around them.

Others are addressing this, but I don't know if this has universal logical consistency. If one engages in risky sports and becomes wounded, is it immoral to mend one's wounds? I don't think addressing the consequences of risky behavior is inherently harmful, it depends on the morality of the way of addressing it, which brings us to your primary point.

If we value human life or place a moral importance on human life then it should be for all stages of human life.

I do not believe this is a warranted assumption. For example, the same importance is not attributed to individual sperm and eggs. Nor is anyone going to great effort to rescue fertilized eggs that fail to implant. Given that I accept a being with a functioning brain deserves its own life, is there any quality besides that which separates a fetus from my other examples in your mind?

 

[Sun Countess]

I feel that it is cheating. Abortion for reason of inconvienance is immoral and it cheapens the value of human life.

And if you feel that way, you probably shouldn't get an abortion. Some people think I'm cheating when I use store-bought pasta instead of homemade. I'm really just choosing differently than somebody else might choose.

The creation of human life is not something that should not be taken lightly. We certainly give great lip service to idea that all human life is important. But yet we seem to give no importance to the thing that brings about this vaunted human life that is so ideologicaly important to us.

Sex?

Every single person who is alive today was once an fertilized egg with an uncertain future.

So what? Honestly, I don't understand this argument at all. Everyone who is alive today was somebody who has beaten all the odds and been born. Billions of men, billions of women, millions of sperm, hundreds of eggs, hundreds of menstrual cycles, billions of sex acts, and yet they don't all mix together and make babies. Approximately half of all fertilized eggs result in absolutely nothing, as they miscarry naturally. Where is the woe?

But people only seem to see the pleasurable aspect of sex. They seem to ignore the procreation part.

That certainly depends on the couple and the circumstances, and it's nobody else's business why anybody else chooses to have sex. Sometimes it's for fun, sometimes it's intentionally used to make a baby, sometimes it's a business transaction.

Would you say that unwanted pregancies, negelcted children and overpopulation are bad things? Wouldn't you say that any behaiviour that leads to those things is reckless behaiviour?

They can be bad things, and I'd say that abortion gives people one more tool to avoid neglected children and overpopulation.

Abortion gives the person an "out" to continue this reckless behaiviour. It is akin to treating the sypmtoms but ignoring the cause of the problem. They do not learn to modify this behaiviour. They avoid this reponsibility to themselves and to the idea that we hold human life to be important.

I'm going to pretend I don't hear a subliminal message of "those harlots need to learn to control their selfish tendencies." But how do you know what women do or don't learn from having one abortion? And what do you think men learn from unwanted pregnancies? Do they learn to modify their behavior?

Sex without protection when you do not want to have children is being irresponsible. And aborting the unwanted pregnacy is immoral because it does not deal with the underlying problem.

Do you have any statistics on how many abortions are due to sex without protection versus how many are due to rape, incest, failed protection, fetal problems, or maternal health?

It also has the consequence of preventing a human life from completeing its development and we loose that potential.

So what?

 

[Sun Countess]

Avoiding consequence can cause problems to those who try to avoid those consequnces and those around them.

Having an abortion_is_a consequence of an unwanted pregnancy! It's just not the only one.

If we value human life or place a moral importance on human life then it should be for all stages of human life. And we should place importance on the process by which a human being is produced, by which I mean the gestation process.

In other words, women's work.

It does not amke sense to me to say that you are not human because you are a zygote.
Everyone who is alive today was once a zygote.

But not every zygote is a human being. Half are naturally aborted.

Here's another fun fact: Nobody alive today is at risk of regressing to the zygote stage.

I ask again: so what? If your existence stopped somewhere in the zygote stage, you'd have no idea that you weren't going to be born, and nobody who made it past the zygote stage would have any idea that you haven't been born. Do you ever stop to think about all the children that you'll never ever have? Out of all those billions of sperm you'll produce, and the thousands of women you'll meet, each with hundreds of eggs to choose from, and yet you'll at most have a handful of children.

The DNA if a human zygote is distinctly human and not any of other species.

But a zygote is not a person anymore than an acorn is a tree or a seed is a flower.

 

[Ziggurat]

An unwanted pregnancy should not be enforced in order that the woman suffer consequences.
It should not be used as punishment for behaviour you do not like.

That isn't the argument against abortion. The argument is that the fetus shouldn't be punished (by being killed) for the mom's behavior.

 

[kerikiwi]

That isn't the argument against abortion. The argument is that the fetus shouldn't be punished (by being killed) for the mom's behavior.

The argument that has been presented is that people should accept the consequences of their actions. That is a fallacious argument, as the consequences are not immutable: an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy carried to term is not an unavoidable consequence of having sex.
Such a pregnancy can be terminated early.
Your argument is that the fetus shouldn't be punished.
I also reject that argument: the foetus is not being punished, any more than sperm are punished by spermicide.