At what stage is abortion immoral?

[epeeist]

This is generally a more interesting and less vitrolic thread than most elsewhere...

Notwithstanding the "parasite" argument, I have a hard time seeing how killing a one-day old is (morally) murder, but aborting a 8-month and 29-day old fetus would be (morally) fine. Or a pregnancy that is extended, someone at 9 months and 1 day who hasn't yet delivered, abortion (morally) fine?

Sci-fi author Robert J. Sawyer (who is, if I recall correctly, an atheist), had an interesting concept in "The Terminal Experiment": SPOILER WARNING

evidence that souls exist and that they enter a fetus at a variable point in time, so whether or not the fetus his wife had aborted had a soul or not was left unknown. That was not the major premise of the book, just a subplot.

I use the "morally" qualifier, because notwithstanding some problems I was generally persuaded by the reasoning in Roe v. Wade. That is, I see abortion as legally and constitutionally "permissible" (in the sense of, cannot constitutionally be prohibited completely and some "line-drawing" was necessary, 3 trimesters no worse than another method), while considering it morally wrong (for reasons of both religious and secular morality). So to me it's an example of one of many legal things, that are still immoral.

Does that make me pro-life or pro-choice? Those are arbitrary, unhelpful labels that lead to polarizing of positions and supporting people you don't want (vis-a-vis "Republican" and "Democrat" labels...), e.g. someone who feels unable to object to a late-term abortion on a whim by a rich socialite to avoid more stretch marks because they're "pro-choice" or someone who feels unable to express sympathy for a rape victim getting an abortion to avoid serious health complications life because they're "pro-life".

 

[AWPrime]

I do not agree. Aborting an unwanted pregnancy that was the result of unprotected sex, in my opinion, gives both parties a quick "out". In most cases the reckless behaivour is not corrected. There are also other reasons other than just preventing unwanted pregnancies that are remedied by using protection.

Better way of exercising responsibility would be to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place by using protection. Preventing an unwanted pregnancy is more moral than performing an abortion

Again, I do not agree. The baby can be given up for adoption if you do not want to keep the child. Adoption may not be the best solution inthe world, but it has the benefit of not terminating a human life. You would be excercising responsibility to protecting and furthering human life.

Again this would depend on how much importance you place on human life.

I do not see you putting any importance in human life. I see a great deal of wanting to control/change how the world works, but no real caring for human life. If one cares about human life, they must also care about the quality of that life.
Women will have a limited amount of children in their life. Without abortion a large number of these children will be born in/with unfavorable conditions, these will likely have a lower quality of life. Thus if one really cares about human life, one must allow abortion.

 

[uruk]

You are free to believe that way. And I have no quarrel with your right to believe that way. However if you directly (by preventing a desired by the woman abortion) interere OR indirectly (by passing or helping pass a law preventing abortions ) interfere we have a problem. Just exactly the same as I have no problem with you believing everyone should be xtian, xlim, xdist, xdu or whatever as long as you do not try to enforce it directly or indirectly. Or, more to the point I believe everyone should be free to believe whatever they want for themselves, but not free to force any others to act on those beliefs (with obvious exceptions for things generally accepted in advanced societies to be not good: stealing, killing,harrassing, graffittiing,molesting, scamming etc. - that group of things).

I am in complete agreement. My posts were mearly contemplations of "it would be a better world if...." and an exploration of morality.

I, by no means, want to make abortion illegal or force my views or opinions on anybody. But I will freely express them when asked, even if just to make people think about thier own opinions.

 

[Arcade22]

Fully grown woman's rights aren't important, huh?

While I'm not 100% against abortions and i merely want to restrict them much more than they are now,
i see the wellbeing of the fetus and the pursuit of good public morality as more important than anyones 'rights'.

Because it's not inside someone's body. Simple.

In what way is this distinction meaningful?

 

[Dragoonster]

This is generally a more interesting and less vitrolic thread than most elsewhere...

Notwithstanding the "parasite" argument, I have a hard time seeing how killing a one-day old is (morally) murder, but aborting a 8-month and 29-day old fetus would be (morally) fine. Or a pregnancy that is extended, someone at 9 months and 1 day who hasn't yet delivered, abortion (morally) fine?

The same primary right is in play--that of the mother to not be forced to care for the fetus/infant. The only difference (aside from development of the fetus/infant, which I agree isn't magically different in the space of a day) is that while a fetus the only way to do this is to abort, or in late cases induce/c-section. After birth an additional option opens up--to give the baby up for adoption or to the state. And at that point killing the infant would be immoral because its existence will no longer require anything from anyone who's unwilling to provide it*.

If mothers didn't have that choice post-birth to give it up, killing it would be either as moral, or as immoral, as aborting it previously.

*personally I still don't see an infant as a person, but some do. And while I don't think their view of a fetus/infant as a person should trump a mother's certain rights as a person while in the womb, once they're born I don't really care, because no one's rights are being usurped.

 

[uruk]

This is your core argument/case right? Can you expand further on this?

It's not exactly the core but it is related.
Everybody has rights in this culture. Most of those rights are defined in constitutions, bills of rights, and court decisions.
Some people believe that the source of those rights are bestowed upon us by a diety of some sort.
I believe that, on a pragmatic level, you only have rights when others decide to recognise them by mutual agreement. That is why they have to be defined and enforced by laws and constitutions and bills and courts. We practicaly have to force people to recognize the rights of each other. In a perfect world we would not need these enforcements. People would want to respect and recognise each others rights on thier own.

Human beings are a social species. We need to live in groups for survival. That means that we have to limit certain individual rights so that the group can function properly. In reality it is not as easy as it sounds. There are long debates and arguments (the issue of abortion is one such instance) and in some instances there is no "right" or "correct" resolutions to all cases, they have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

And the legal issue of abortion boils down to the rights of the mother to exercise control over her body versus the right of the fetus to exist. The line at which we decide the fetus has those rights is an arbitrary line, though we do try to find objective criteria to justify the placement of that line.
Generaly speaking we place the line at a point along the devlopment of the human life where we define when that life becomes a "person". This is also not an easy task with easily definable, objective criteria. In one thread concering abortion, someone stated that a human life only becomes a person well after it has left the womb. Like, years after it has left the womb. I don't subscribe to this, but I also do not subscribe to placing the line at intial conception.

To be clear, I do not limit the placement of the right to exist solely on the the point at which a human life becomes a "person" in the philosophical sense or at the point of conception. I place it at the point of viability, by which I mean when the conditions exist for the zygote to have a positive chance of devloping into a fully formed human being.

At that point I believe that the developing human life should be afforded some form of protection against the right of the mother to execise control over her body. To what extent depends on the conditions of the pregnancy. In some cases the mother's rights should prevail, in other cases the fetus rights should prevail. I do not think that this is too much to ask considering other situation where our rights can be abrogated for some end and that the suspention of rights is only a temporary one.

I will address my views concerning "value" of human life in another post.

 

[JFrankA]

While I'm not 100% against abortions and i merely want to restrict them much more than they are now,
i see the wellbeing of the fetus and the pursuit of good public morality as more important than anyones 'rights'.

So an unborn fetus has more rights than the fully grown, cognizant, adult human being?

Sorry, in my opinion, that's scary

And, in my opinion, this question

In what way is this distinction meaningful?

is even scarier.

I'll answer later when I have more time. I'm off to work. My apologies.

 

[Sun Countess]

I see this argument all the time, but I'm sorry, it is a pathetically stupid argument.

I guess those laws against murder, rape, child abuse, etc. should all be removed from the books because they inflict moral thinking on other adults, right? If some adult disagrees that murder is immoral, why should we "inflict" our morality on them by criminalizing it?

What dross.

You've listed crimes that have victims. Of course it's immoral to commit rape or child abuse or murder because those crimes hurt other people. Abortion is a medical procedure, not a crime. I would never be a willing participant in S&M, but am not going to impose my personal feelings on other consenting adults.

Why should other people (predominantly men, it never fails to amaze me) impose their personal feelings on other adults, namely pregnant women?

 

[Loss Leader]

No, you don't HAVE to do any of those things. You can ask your spouse to do them. You can engage a hireling to do them. You can ask your own parents (if living) or siblings (if any) to do them. You can ask a neighbor to do them. You can even turn your children over to the state for foster care. A pregnant woman can do none of these things with her pregnancy.

Possibly the silliest thing I have ever read. I am ultimately responsible for the welfare of my children. As I wrote, even if I turn them over to the state, I still have to pay for them. I am not free to do whatever I please.

In a lot of ways, a pregnant woman is a whole lot more free than I am. She can go to any restaurant she chooses whenever she wants without having to worry if they serve grilled cheese sandwiches. She can see Avatar on a whim and not worry that her baby won't go to sleep for her parents. She can sleep more than three hours at a time, a privilege which I have not had in four years.

And even if I didn't have children, I wouldn't be free. I can't shoot anybody I want, or just take a bag of chips without paying for it. I can't even drive down my street without having to stop for a light - not even another person, but an automated lamp that someone left there years ago.

We are all enslaved by our obligations to others.

Pregnancy may be different in degree, but not in much else.

 

[Sun Countess]

I think that this is , for the most part, irrelevent. I don't think the individual sperm or egg is near as important as the unique combination of DNA that results from the union. And if the sperm and egg never meet there is no potential. What I am concerned with is the point after combination and viability that is where the potential exists and where it is lost if not allowed to continue.

But for other people, the individual sperm and egg are important. For me, the fertilized egg is not important. Which of us gets to decide for everybody else? Why not let people decide for themselves? You know that if you decide to go with "fertilized eggs are people" argument, that takes out all the hormonal forms of birth control and IUDs. Then the only way that people - men and women - will be able to have recreational sex is with barrier methods of contraception. Which can only mean more unwanted pregnancies.

First, how do you define a person? At which point along a person's development from zygote to adult does he/she become a person?
The last I had a debate on this subject the line was all over the place. Everywhere from the point of conception to when a person can speak and becomes self-sufficient.

We become people when we're born. That date is recognized, the time is noted, and people are given birth certificates. It's not a hard line to draw.

In the terms of rights, I believe that at that point the growing "human life" should be given some level or form of protection. That is it should be given a basic right to exist.

I don't agree. And where we don't agree, should you be able to impose your standards on me? What's the rationale for anybody imposing their standards on anybody else? I'm not going to tell you how many tattoos you should get or how many people you should be allowed to sleep with. Why should you tell me when I need to start protecting an embryo's right to life? If it's living inside my body, and can't possibly live outside of it, why shouldn't I get to make the decision? How does this affect you in the least?

In reality, living in a society is a balancing act of limiting ones rights against anothers. Sometimes it is necessary to reduce or restrict one persons rights for that of another depending on the situation.

But who is this "other?" A zygote, embryo, or fetus is not a person.

 

[uruk]

.
Your attitude of "don't do the crime if you can do the time" is prehistoric and moderately ignorant and self-centered.

How so?

Some of these "unwanted children" can't be adopted, as they're too damaged by circumstances and will need 24/7 specialized care.

True, but some people are willing and do adopt children with health issues. My wife has often spoke about adopting a problem child.
She is a teacher for handicapped and learning disabled students. We have have been not been able to adopt so far because our income and house are not up to the standards required for approval. But we are working on it.

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.

A better solution to the situation would have been for your friend to have taken precautions to prevent the birth. I do know that her mental health may have been an issue, but these are precisly the cases that need to be addressed on a conditional basis. Abortion may be a viable option in this case, but I would take a closer look at the situation and conditions before that decisio is made.

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.

In this case the doctor determined that abortion was the proper action to take. Abortion is often seen as necessary in cases of severe malformation or defect. Often the malformed fetus is aborted on it's own naturaly. If medical assited abortion is required, then so be it.

I've been requested to finance other "inconvenient" abortions, and turned down the requests.

Any particular reasons why?

 

[uruk]

.
I financed an abortion for the health, physical and mental, of the mother.
The father couldn't have cared less.
Fathers tend to not have any interest in their spawn in many instances.
The state is beginning to retaliate by withholding driving privileges until the dead-beat dads pay up.

I say this is a good thing. In this case legal coersion is probably necessary. Although in a perfect world.....

I don't seem to see anyone arguing against the curtailing of rights in reguard to reproduction in this case..

But seriously; The burden has been traditionaly on the mother because of the fact that she is the gestator in our species. The father also bears a responsibility in pregnancy since it takes the gammetes of both male and female to initiate the creation of a fetus.

It is not an equal responsibility though because of physiology. And by that I mean that the woman has to go through a physiological burden during the preganacy, the male does not. The burden of responsiblilty on the male then has to be one of a legal, financial and supportive nature.

If science can figure a way for the male to carry a fetus to term conditions may change.

The seahorse is one such species where the eggs are taken to term in the male.

 

[Sun Countess]

In a lot of ways, a pregnant woman is a whole lot more free than I am. She can go to any restaurant she chooses whenever she wants without having to worry if they serve grilled cheese sandwiches. She can see Avatar on a whim and not worry that her baby won't go to sleep for her parents. She can sleep more than three hours at a time, a privilege which I have not had in four years.

This just makes me giggle. I'm going to assume that your wife had relatively problem-free pregnancies.

That she didn't have months and months of constant nausea, that she wasn't confined to bed rest for two months, that she didn't have to take blood sugar readings or insulin injections for gestational diabetes, that she wasn't hospitalized for six weeks with dangerously high blood pressure while waiting for the fetus to develop to a point of viability, that she didn't risk losing her employment or her placement in an educational program, that she didn't have to worry about where she'd get the money to pay for vitamins, food, or clothing. (eta: just wanted to note that this "random" sampling was all experienced by me and my sisters-in-law)

Pregnant women aren't really living some care-free lifestyle. They're not free to drink or party, to pursue certain careers, to switch employers, or to become passengers on commercial aircraft or rides at Disneyland.

Yes, there are sacrifices to be made with parenthood - ones which you maybe notice more because they affect you as well - but a pregnant woman can't hand her fetus over to a babysitter so she can have a girls-night-out.

 

[BenBurch]

I think, under the right circumstances, it isn't immoral as late as the 210th trimester.

 

[kerikiwi]

I do not agree. Aborting an unwanted pregnancy that was the result of unprotected sex, in my opinion, gives both parties a quick "out". In most cases the reckless behaivour is not corrected. There are also other reasons other than just preventing unwanted pregnancies that are remedied by using protection.

Better way of exercising responsibility would be to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place by using protection. Preventing an unwanted pregnancy is more moral than performing an abortion


Again, I do not agree. The baby can be given up for adoption if you do not want to keep the child. Adoption may not be the best solution inthe world, but it has the benefit of not terminating a human life. You would be excercising responsibility to protecting and furthering human life.

Again this would depend on how much importance you place on human life.

Aborting an unwanted pregnancy is not a quick 'out'. Such a claim is ridiculous.
How do you know the 'reckless' behaviour is not remedied in most cases? Another ridiculous claim.
Why do you think abortion is acceptable when the woman has been raped or when her health is otherwise at risk or the fetus is damaged but not when the woman is simply unwillingly pregnant? I mean other than wanting to punish the woman or teach her a lesson or whatever phrasing you chooseOf course a better way of preventing an unwanted pregnancy is to use protection --- and then go ahead and punish when that fails.
Preventing an unwanted pregnancy is better (not more moral ) than having an abortion. Also, the earth revolves around the sun. What other bleeding obvious things shall we state?
Forced adoption is not an option and does not protect and further human life.

 

[uruk]

Yes, it is, if the pregnancy is unwanted. An unwanted pregnacy has negative effects, just as diseases do. (Remember that diseases are, in fact, dis eases.)
It is perfectly moral to rectify the negative effects.
I would go so far as to say it is a moral imperative to rectify the negative effects.

I do not agree. A disease is not a normal biological function of an organizim. An organizim has mechinizims which defend against desease. A woman's body is made more conducive to the acceptance and development of a fetus rather than defend against a fetus. (with some exceptions of course)

An unwanted pregnancy does not, under normal circumstances, have a negative biological effect on the parents.

By any medical or biological definition a pregnancy is not considered a disease.

Now, a pregnancy may have a negative sociological effect for the parents which may be the indirectly cause of negative physiological effects such as stress.

But there are remedies to that condition that do not involve terminating the fetus.

I believe they are moraly better remedies than abortion.

 

[kerikiwi]

In this case the doctor determined that abortion was the proper action to take.

I hope you really, really meant to say the woman determined that abortion was the proper action.
I hope you don't really really think that these decisions are made for a woman rather than by her.

 

[kerikiwi]

I do not agree. A disease is not a normal biological function of an organizim. An organizim has mechinizims which defend against desease. A woman's body is made more conducive to the acceptance and development of a fetus rather than defend against a fetus. (with some exceptions of course)

An unwanted pregnancy does not, under normal circumstances, have a negative biological effect on the parents.

By any medical or biological definition a pregnancy is not considered a disease.

Now, a pregnancy may have a negative sociological effect for the parents which may be the indirectly cause of negative physiological effects such as stress.

But there are remedies to that condition that do not involve terminating the fetus.

I believe they are moraly better remedies than abortion.

I did not say that a pregnancy is a disease, but that it is moral to treat an unwanted pregnancy like a disease. An unwanted pregnancy has negative effects. Not all negative effects are biological.

 

[kerikiwi]

I believe they are moraly better remedies than abortion.

I can think of only one other remedy, with a couple of variations: that one is forcing the woman to carry the pregnancy to term, and the variations are then either keeping the resulting baby or giving it away.
Both variations of the initial horrible offence of being forced to stay pregnant are horrible things to be forced to do.
That remedy is not morally better than abortion.

 

[Sun Countess]

An unwanted pregnancy does not, under normal circumstances, have a negative biological effect on the parents.

Certainly the man involved doesn't have any negative biological effects. The pregnant woman will almost certainly suffer some negative biological effects.

I was more than happy to suffer physically to bring my two children into the world because I wanted to have them. During my first pregnancy a coworker asked if I'd changed my stance on abortion rights, and I said that I was now even more firmly of the mindset that an unwanted pregnancy should never be borne by any woman against her wishes. It's not just some innocuous condition, like having red hair.

Pregnancy may not be a disease in and of itself, but it can give rise to many "disease-like" conditions, including nausea, heartburn, vomiting, diabetes, high blood pressure, edema, insomnia, etc. Let's not forget that for approximately 1 in 4 pregnant women in the US, this non-disease will end in major abdominal surgery. I didn't have surgery but I did end up getting 15 stitches with the first delivery and 8 with the second.