At what stage is abortion immoral?

[kerikiwi]

During my first pregnancy a coworker asked if I'd changed my stance on abortion rights,

Out of curiousity: why did s/he think that choosing to have a baby would mean that you now thought women should not be able to choose not to have a baby?
It's bizarre!
Like if you decide to have a baby you now think people shouldn't use contraceptives.

 

[uruk]

But what if someone else determined that taking responsibility meant that you had to become personal chauffeur for the other driver, while simultaneously taking a car mechanic course so that you could do the repairs yourself? That seems to be a pretty logical consequence.

That does not seem like a logical consequence. The hypotheical situation you describe is a bit extreme. Perhaps intentionaly so in an attempt to support a point of view.

In reality there are chauffeur services and car shops where you only have to pay for the services rather than perform the services yourself. I see having to perfom the serivces yourself as being unreasonable. Paying for them for the other party in an accident is not unreasonable.

Would you like the other driver to impose the consequence on you, or would you like a choice in the matter?

There are already consequence imposed upon us by law and nature where we do not have a choice in the matter.

In fact the situation I described where the person is the cause of a car accident and has to pay restitution is already an enforced law. That is because people often want to avoid the responsibility rather than own up to it. A law has to force you to owe up to your responsibility. I feel it would be better if we did not have to be forced but rather that we would want to own up to our responsibilities.

It appears to me that we have allowed our culture to develop an attitude where taking responsibility for ones actions is unreasonable, objectionable or wrong. I find that both sad and odd.

I take it you've never been pregnant then? Besides the risk of death, a pregnancy can also impact a woman's: health, social life, emotional well-being, finances, career and education opportunities, physical comfort, other family responsibilities. It's not nine months of sitting around.

Being male I have never been pregnant or had an abortion. I can only say that I have known and been very close to women who have been pregnant and have had abortions. I know what the dangers of pregnancy are. I know what the dangers of abortion are although I will never be able to experiance them personaly.
I spoke with my wife about this very subject last night.

Be aware that there are somethings that a male is sometimes required to do that endagers his health and life but are necessary to perform for the proper functioning of society. So we are not completely without the knowledge of risk to body and mind in performance those functions.

From my experiance with women I am also aware of the endorphins that the woman's body produces during pregnancy. So preganacy is not entirely a terrible and burdensome experiance. I have even personaly known women who have enjoyed the experiance.
But this depends on the individual and the circumstances.

As for the social aspects, which is what my wife and I were dicussing, she feels that they are vaild concerns in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, especialy in teen pregnancies.
I, of course, must agree with her otherwise she may perform a post-natal abortion on me.

Kidding aside. she brought up some very valid concerns. A woman may be stressed to the point of suicide in such cases because of the disruption it may cause to her relationship to her family, especialy where a teen pregnancy and certain cultural convictions are involved.

Obviously there are organization that can help. But in extreme cases an abortion may be recomended. But again I would take a very close look at the situation before making that choice.

As for an adult and the issues of social life, emotional well-being, finances, career and education opportunities, physical comfort, other family responsibilities. Sometimes owing up to a responsibilty has burdens involved with it. (That is what I was trying to point out with my car accident scenario.)

That is why people try to avoid responsibility whenever possible.

I believe that issues such as finance, careers, and education oppurtuinties can be remedied to some degree by society. Jobs can and are protected by maternity leave statutes and policies. There are social and governmental programs that aid in assisting a pregnant woman financialy. They are mostly for poor and underpriviledge mothers though.

The college I teach at works with pregnant women by offering online courses, hybrid courses daycare and allowing a mother to defer testing if they deliver during finals week.

Remember that a soldier goes through much worse burdens and risks to health when he is deployed in a war zone.

Some responsibilities entail burdens. That is just a fact of life.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What is the significance of personhood other than as an artificially constructed dividing line to allow those human beings who fall on one side of it to be harmed or killed for arbitrary reasons, while those on the other side are protected?

I know it is probably not the sort of person you thought you were, but please admit (if only to yourself) that you think we should sometimes be allowed to kill human beings for our personal convenience and other arbitrary reasons that have little to nothing to do with their best interests.

 

[Sun Countess]

Out of curiousity: why did s/he think that choosing to have a baby would mean that you now thought women should not be able to choose not to have a baby?
It's bizarre!
Like if you decide to have a baby you now think people shouldn't use contraceptives.

The person thought I would now value the sanctity of life, since I knew first-hand about what a miracle it was. (Completely overlooking my grey-green complexion and frequent puke breaks.)

 

[Sun Countess]

That does not seem like a logical consequence. The hypotheical situation you describe is a bit extreme. Perhaps intentionaly so in an attempt to support a point of view.

Somewhat intentional. An accident happens. There will be consequences borne by a party. In the case of a car accident, the person responsible can take the easy way out and pay for the damages caused, or can do the more responsible thing by voluntarily chauffering around the other party and performing the car repairs.

In an accidental pregnancy, the person can take what you consider an easy way out and have an abortion, or take what you consider the more responsible way out and bear the time and costs of bringing the pregnancy to term.

In reality there are chauffeur services and car shops where you only have to pay for the services rather than perform the services yourself. I see having to perfom the serivces yourself as being unreasonable. Paying for them for the other party in an accident is not unreasonable.

Yet you would have the woman perform some service by herself (gestating an unwanted pregnancy), instead of contracting out a different solution to a medical professional.

There are already consequence imposed upon us by law and nature where we do not have a choice in the matter.

But with abortion, as with car accidents, we DO have a choice.

In fact the situation I described where the person is the cause of a car accident and has to pay restitution is already an enforced law. That is because people often want to avoid the responsibility rather than own up to it. A law has to force you to owe up to your responsibility. I feel it would be better if we did not have to be forced but rather that we would want to own up to our responsibilities.

Yes, the person has to provide some restitution. We've allowed people to pay licensed mechanics and rental car companies to provide support for the injured party. We do not force people to act as chauffers and mechanics themselves.

It appears to me that we have allowed our culture to develop an attitude where taking responsibility for ones actions is unreasonable, objectionable or wrong. I find that both sad and odd.

Having an abortion is taking responsibility for one's actions. I don't understand why you think it isn't. You think it's fine for a bad driver to pay someone else to fix his mistakes, but you don't want a pregnant woman to have the same right. You essentially want her to take harsher consequences.

Kidding aside. she brought up some very valid concerns. A woman may be stressed to the point of suicide in such cases because of the disruption it may cause to her relationship to her family, especialy where a teen pregnancy and certain cultural convictions are involved.

Obviously there are organization that can help. But in extreme cases an abortion may be recomended. But again I would take a very close look at the situation before making that choice.

With all due respect, why are you looking closely at anything? Isn't the woman herself capable of determining what's best for her?

Off to work.....more later....

 

[kerikiwi]

Be aware that there are somethings that a male is sometimes required to do that endagers his health and life but are necessary to perform for the proper functioning of society.

I am not aware of any such things.

 

[uruk]

But do you understand that people have different moral values? I don't like drinking or tattoos, but I don't inflict my moral thinking on other adults.

Yes I do. BTW, I do not like drinking or tattoos either.

I am not inflicting my moral views on anybody. I am not forcing you to believe what I believe. You are free to hold whatever thought or opinion you choose. I do not judge you for the beliefs or opinions that you hold. You do not have to listen to me or respond to my posts. You are free to ignore me if you wish. I will bear no ill will or grudge against you if you choose to do so. That is the joy of living in this country. Freedom of thought and expression.

I am mearly expressing my opinion on the subject of the morality of abortion. If you are fee to express your opinion then so am I. You are also free to disagree with me. That is how free speech works.

In the case of this forum, I am expressing my opinions and exposing my logic and line of reasoning to criticisim. This helps me to test my line of reasoning. To see if my arguments holds up to scruitiny. To see if there is anything I have not though about or if any of my arguments are incorrect. not to mention that I get a certain joy from debate. I also learn many things from the process.

Correction. We have laws to protect people. People who have been born and issued appropriate birth certificates.

Correct, we do. I just find it odd that we do not offer some form of protection to the life when it is inside the womb.

I have not seen any persuasive arguments as to why we do not do so.

Thanks for those stats. It looks like most women are behaving responsibly. Only 8% of women having abortions have never used birth control.

Happy to oblidge. I'd say that is a good thing also.

Who cares? I'm not about to have a dozen children just so I can see what the world may gain from their existence.

Nor should you try, that would be unreasonable. I was concerned with only the ones that got started and had achieved viability.

Most women who have abortions go on to have other children, which they may not have had were it not for the abortion.

. I have had friends who have done that very thing.

One of my friend had no regrets going through the abortion and is very happy with the children she planned on. Another friend got an abortion and felt regret. It bothered her for many a year untill she had got pregnant with a planned pregnancy.

My point in both cases is that both women started to use protection after the first unwanted pregnancy. Even though the first woman was not bothered by the idea of having the abortion, she did not want to make the mistake of having an unwanted preganacy and going through an abortion again. Abortions are not cheap nor are they a pleasant experiance.

To me this question is in line with "who knows what we may have lost or gained had my parents had sex on Thursday instead of Friday?" We all beat incredible odds to get here anyway; we don't need to worry about the other trillions of potential embryos in the history of the world that didn't make it. Neither should we worry about any specific fertilized egg or whether a neighbor lady uses an IUD.

I am not worried about those. I am concerned with the ones who had viability and had there been no intentional inteference they would probably have gone on to become a "person".

I felt there was a responsibility that should have been owed to them to give them that chance and they were denied that.

As to the "what if" part. When a rare undiscovered plant that could have had useful medicinal properties has been drivin to extinction due to a deforestion of an area, we don't really concern ourselves with what could have been possible or what might have been cured. Especially when we are unaware of the plant existance in the first place.

That does not mean, however, that the loss of the plant did not have an actual effect on us simply because we were unaware of its existance. It can still affect us even though we are not aware of the loss.

If you want to get poetic about it, read "No man is an island" by Robert Frost.

Further, the loss of a useful species due to "natural" effects is one thing but the loss due to our intentional actions is another.

The argumant I use for the lost potential of a viable fetus is similar. The concept of oppurtunity cost seems to lend some support to my argument.

 

[Dragoonster]

What is the significance of personhood other than as an artificially constructed dividing line to allow those human beings who fall on one side of it to be harmed or killed for arbitrary reasons, while those on the other side are protected?

It's not exactly arbitrary. The final line is, but I think we could all agree that a single sperm isn't a person, nor is an orangutan, nor is a corpse. Post-fertilized egg the question gets more arbitrary, or rather the definitions and other axioms do. But the line still isn't totally devoid of rational or moral consideration. At least until it gets to the exact line, where pragmatism and also compromise becomes more important.

I know it is probably not the sort of person you thought you were, but please admit (if only to yourself) that you think we should sometimes be allowed to kill human beings for our personal convenience and other arbitrary reasons that have little to nothing to do with their best interests.

I've always admitted abortion is killing a human in very early development, and preventing a future person from existing, and also get rankled when some pro-choicers refuse to admit this. The pro-choice stance shouldn't ignore the unsavory consequences of valuing women rights over fetus rights. It shouldn't be an easy thing to argue for, even for people thinking it's the most moral or most libertarian etc. argument to make.

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

Excellent, has absolutely nothing to do with my point. I was commenting on the fact that the word "slavery" was improperly applied to pregnancy when it accurately described the entire human condition. We are all enslaved to various rules and obligations about which we have no choice. Pregnancy is certainly a different degree of remarkably inconvenient obligation, but it is hardly a different category.

Incidentally, pregnant women are free to do most all the things you mentioned, just like I am free to pick up a gun and shoot someone. In both cases, all that is required is not caring about the consequences.

 

[kerikiwi]

Incidentally, pregnant women are free to do most all the things you mentioned, just like I am free to pick up a gun and shoot someone. In both cases, all that is required is not caring about the consequences.

If you say someone is 'free' to do those things, you are being disingenuous and playing fast and loose with the language, especially after you just got through saying we are all enslaved to rules and obligations about which we have no choice.
A little inconsistent, no?

 

[Loss Leader]

If you say someone is 'free' to do those things, you are being disingenuous and playing fast and loose with the language, especially after you just got through saying we are all enslaved to rules and obligations about which we have no choice.
A little inconsistent, no?

That was my point exactly. I am no more free to shoot someone than a pregnant woman is to smoke crack. I think that basing a justification of abortion on any concept of "slavery" is unwarranted.

 

[kerikiwi]

I think that basing a justification of abortion on any concept of "slavery" is unwarranted.

Enforced pregnancy can be reasonably compared to slavery.

 

[theprestige]

Enforced pregnancy can be reasonably compared to slavery.

So can enforced parenthood. Time to lift the taboo against aborting three year-olds!

 

[kerikiwi]

So can enforced parenthood. Time to lift the taboo against aborting three year-olds!

Some statements are beyond silly and not even worthy of consideration.

 

[quixotecoyote]

So can enforced parenthood. Time to lift the taboo against aborting three year-olds!

Would you like to adopt a fetus?

 

[Smackety]

Would you like to adopt a fetus?

Is that possible? I don't think i even have a uterus!

 

[kerikiwi]

I don't think i even have a uterus!

Are you sure? Have you looked?

 

[Sun Countess]

Excellent, has absolutely nothing to do with my point. I was commenting on the fact that the word "slavery" was improperly applied to pregnancy when it accurately described the entire human condition. We are all enslaved to various rules and obligations about which we have no choice. Pregnancy is certainly a different degree of remarkably inconvenient obligation, but it is hardly a different category.

Incidentally, pregnant women are free to do most all the things you mentioned, just like I am free to pick up a gun and shoot someone. In both cases, all that is required is not caring about the consequences.

Yes, we all have obligations, but I was responding to your comments that in some ways a pregnant woman is somehow more free than the parents of an infant.

In some ways, yes, but in many other ways, no, not at all.

I do think it's interesting that I mentioned a pregnant woman not being able to do all the things that a non-pregnant woman could do - basic daily living stuff, and your counter example was a violent crime. I know a few women who had to quit their employment due to pregnancy, and that can really suck, especially when virtually no one else will hire somebody who's visibly pregnant. That has nothing to do with the pregnant woman ignoring the consequences of her behavior.

 

[Sun Countess]

I am not inflicting my moral views on anybody. I am not forcing you to believe what I believe. You are free to hold whatever thought or opinion you choose. I do not judge you for the beliefs or opinions that you hold. You do not have to listen to me or respond to my posts. You are free to ignore me if you wish. I will bear no ill will or grudge against you if you choose to do so. That is the joy of living in this country. Freedom of thought and expression.

I do appreciate that you're not trying to inflict your values on others, and that you classify yourself as pro-choice. Of course, in the case of abortion, there are many who try to impose their morals on others through the use of legislation.

One of my friend had no regrets going through the abortion and is very happy with the children she planned on. Another friend got an abortion and felt regret. It bothered her for many a year untill she had got pregnant with a planned pregnancy.

My point in both cases is that both women started to use protection after the first unwanted pregnancy. Even though the first woman was not bothered by the idea of having the abortion, she did not want to make the mistake of having an unwanted preganacy and going through an abortion again. Abortions are not cheap nor are they a pleasant experiance.

One of your arguments seems to be that there are so many women who will have abortions and then not learn anything and go on to have more unprotected sex. Your stats showed that only 8% of women who've had abortions never used other birth control. The vast majority of women do use birth control. Every woman I know who had an abortion due to failed or sporadic birth control use became much more conscientious. I don't personally know anybody who's had more than one abortion.

As to the "what if" part. When a rare undiscovered plant that could have had useful medicinal properties has been drivin to extinction due to a deforestion of an area, we don't really concern ourselves with what could have been possible or what might have been cured. Especially when we are unaware of the plant existance in the first place.

But in this case, the plants are unique. Human beings aren't in danger of becoming extinct just because one specific fertilized egg doesn't make it. That one specific zygote is one out of billions of possible zygotes with the same two parents/gene pool. Just like most women will try again after an unplanned miscarriage, most women go on to have future pregnancies after abortion. There's nothing more special about the one that got away than the one that replaced it.

 

[uruk]

~snip~
Bolding mine--say, there's an idea... we should just ask him.

Ok, seriously...

Where I'm not joining you is why there is a moral consequence assigned to the chance of development. What is the moral importance of something that WILL BE but is not yet? For those that are religious, the reason is obvious--they believe a precious soul is already present. It's a consistent argument even if it's one I don't agree with and that cannot have legal force.

I'm still trying to catch on to where you're coming from on this.

I am not religious by any means. And my argument would not have any legal force either.
To be clear, I am not arguing legalities or for any part of abortion to be legislated any more than it already is.

The issue I am trying to address one of ethics, hypocracy, double standards and responsibilties (both personal and social) toward something we claim to hold great reverence and importantance.

We as a culture hold human life to be important and worthy of protection. We create and enforce laws to protect it. Fight for it, have court battles over it, hold human rights rallys, we love it, cherish it, covet it. We create art and give great lipservice in praise of it. Devote enormous amount of resources to study it, understand it, preserve it.

We displace and force into near extinction other species for it. We hold it above all other things.

We even place a value on life both in a monetary sense in reguards to restitution and settelment and in punishment for it being wrongfully taken away.

We weigh one life against another, One's rights against another. And we do this for almost all stages and conditions of a human's life, except for one. The begining stages of it when it is in the womb. I find that to be hypocritical.

I am not arguing that the zygote or fetus has to be given rights by law, meaning that it should be forced against people's wills, I am saying that it should be given some form of protection because it is the "right" thing to do. That it is something that we should want to do becaue it is moral to do so. It is not moral to be hypocritical.

Why should the begining stages of a human life be held any differently from the rest of life's stages? Why is it not deserving of the protection we give to the rest of it?

I have heard many arguments against and found them to be some what lacking or weak in some fashion.

Anyone trying to define when a human life becomes a philosophical person is skirting the continuum fallacy. From a biological perspective, the development of a human life is a gradual, ever-changing process that, in reality, really doesn't stop changing untill the time of death.

And remember there are two types of person. A philosophical person and a legal person. By law you are not a legal person untill you are whatever the legal age of consent is. A minor is not bestowed with the same rights as an adult.

The criteria used is based on the idea that a person of a certain age is of sufficient mental development or capacity to make an intelligent,or consentual decision. That is a pretty vague line if ask me. I am pretty sure that you may know some people who are twice your age that do not really fit that criteria ans some that are half your age who can.
This is a very subjective line of reasoning.

The problem here is that the law has to set a line or standard of some sort in which to make legal decisions. That legal line does not necessarily have to have any basis in science or biology. In fact the present legal definition of a person no longer has to refer to a human being. Thanks to corporations and the courts, a corporation can be defined as a "person" in court. (technicaly an "artificial person"....interesting)

Note that legaly there is a difference of definition between a "human Being" and 'person"

And philosophicaly the definition of a person is not any less fluid or complicated than the legal definition of a person. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person.

But more generaly, the philosophical definition of a person is (quoted form a dictionary. Websters I think): "a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of both a body and a mind or soul". (<--note the spiritual reference) This is also a very subjective line of reasoning.

That is why I do not say that a zygote or fetus is a "person". I do know that by not defining a zygote or a fetus as a person, legaly or philosophicaly, that means that technicaly he zygote/fetus does not qualify for legal protection under the law. But I am not making a legal or philosophical argument.

I call the zygote/fetus a human life. Which I believe is a more accurate definition.
I prefere to use a more objective and biological definition.

Species can be identified by its particular DNA sequence. That is what differentiates one species from another. The human DNA sequence is specific to it's species. A human zygote has human DNA, and it is considered alive in the biological sense.

Therefore, a human zygote or fetus is, by my definition, a human life.

The purpose or the biological directive of the zygote or fetus is to produce a human being from a which a legal and philosophical person is derived. Without the zygote or fetus (a viable zygote or fetus, that is) there can be no legal or philosophical person.

The zygote/fetus is a necessary part of a legal and philosophical person existance.

That is one of the important characteristics of the zygote/fetus in refrence to the moral issue of abortion. And why I believe that it is worthy of some sort of protection.
It is important to protect the zygote/fetus because the zygote/fetus produces legal and philosophical persons.

To put it in a more pragmatic light, Consider the production of Intel CPUs'.

At every stage of manufacturing CPUs are protected from theft, damage and loss. Even the access to resources that go into making CPUs are protected and closely monitored.

The manufacturing process itself is patented and the designs are copywritten. Everything involved in the manufacturing process such as the resources, designs and the early stages of the CPUS are protected because the final product has value to Intel.

The loss of any of the resources or the CPUs in the early stages of the manufacturing process affects the company as loss in potential revenue. That is why Intel tries to improve the process and reduce the loss of cpus during the manufacturing process.

Now aren't human beings more important to us than CPUs?

And consider the protection California Condor and Bald Egale eggs are given.

You would no doubt argue that the rarity of the species is a factor, But then you would also be suggesting the argument that human life is not as valuable because there are so many of us.

A pragmatic view to be sure, but is it a moral view in light of the importance we place on human life?