At what stage is abortion immoral?

[uruk]

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.

Putting an importance on human life includes the quality of life. If people respected the procreation process there would be no overpopulation. Only those who wanted babies would have babies when they felt they were ready to have them and not before. That would mean that there would be less unwanted babies to fill orphanages.

The chain of child abuse involves more than just having or being force to raise an unwanted child. There are many different psychological reasons as to why people abuse children. An unwanted pregnancy just exacerbates the situation. And even then adoption is a more moral solution than abortion.

Abortion is one of those issues where people tend to put up blinders to other issues and arguments because human rights are involved. They seem to focus only on the rights issues and little else. The issue of abortion is more than just a human rights issue. But politics has made it that way.

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.

You forgot about contraception. Abortion is not the only solution.

Abortion is not a form of contraception. Contraception, by definition, is the preventing of conception. Abortion is dealing with the problem after the fact.

Abortion involves a whole lot more moral issues and legal battles than contraception. That's why you hear more about abortion on the news than you do about contraception.

Contraception is a more moral solution than abortion. But it does require more effort on the individual. It involves more personal responsibility than does abortion.

 

[uruk]

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.

My argument is at the point of viability, that is to say when the egg has implanted on the uterine wall.

I do not have any issue with forms of contraceptives that prevent that from happening such as the IUD and the "morning after pill".

As I said, preventing an unwanted preganacy is more moral than terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

You are also forgeting about vasectamies and tubal ligation. I prefer vasectomies since the proceedure is not anywhere near as invasive as tubal ligation is for women and it also has the best chance of reversal.

These surgical proceedures also have a much higer successes rate than any other form of contraception.

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.

that is just the time of birth. By legal and philosophical definition a baby is still not a "person". Look up the definitions of legal and philosophical person. you will find that a baby does not quite fall under all those definitions. And the criteria for those definitions are not so cut and dry.

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?

I am not arguing for the imposing of standards on anybody against thier will. I am saying that due to the morality of the issue people should want to protect the embryo.

Things like tattoos and who your sexual partners are do not have the same moral issues that abortion does. The fact that the embryo cannot survive outside the womb is more reason why it should be protected. The biological fact that the woman has to carry the embryo gives the woman more of a responsibility toward the embryo.

This gives the woman the choice by default. But from a moral stand point, that choice should be made with the consideration of the life if the embryo in mind, not just only your own. Sure it does not have any legal protection or rights under the law, but it does have importance from a biological and human species stand point.

That embryo is not you. It is a different "human life" from yours. It's DNA is 50% differentiated from yours. It is a differen individual sequence of DNA from your own. And given the chance, it will develop into a different "person" than you. I am saying this from a biological sense not a philosophical or legal sense.

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

No it is not aperson, but it is a human life. If people believe all the hype and importance we place on human life then that life would be respected. Protected.

We protect California Condor and Bald Eagal eggs. They are not people and by your agument the eggs are not condors or eagals but they are protected none the less.

The right to thier existance is weighed aganst the rights of people.

Does not human life even an developing human life deserve the same?

 

[kerikiwi]

But it does require more effort on the individual. It involves more personal responsibility than does abortion.

Contraception requires more effort than abortion? It involves more personal responsibility?
Wrong, totally wrong.

 

[kerikiwi]

My argument is at the point of viability, that is to say when the egg has implanted on the uterine wall.

Why do you say that is the 'point of viability'? The floating zygote (no longer an egg) has the same DNA as the implanted embryo.

 

[Loss Leader]

By legal and philosophical definition a baby is still not a "person". Look up the definitions of legal and philosophical person. you will find that a baby does not quite fall under all those definitions. And the criteria for those definitions are not so cut and dry.

Um ... I don't know a thing about philosophical definitions of personhood, but I know a little about the legal definition. And I have no idea what you're talking about. What legal definition of personhood excludes babies? I'm not aware of any.

Perhaps you're talking about the legal definition of competency. In order to be considered competent, one generally has to be at least eighteen years old. However, the law still considers incompetent people to be people. Chopping up a fourteen year-old, as far as I know, is still considered murder in most states.

 

[pounce]

I've heard religionists say that life begins at fertilization, and I don't believe that.

OTOH, others have said life begins at forty.

I think that's going to far.

 

[Soapy Sam]

So, after 247 posts, we have a wide range of opinion on the question in the OP, no coherent conclusion and no method for reaching one.

In short, the question is inadequately framed, which was apparent from post one, because as we have established in many threads on this board, we have no adequte definition of "moral".

Either God decides and tells us, or we decide for ourselves.

For the latter, all we have are opinions - or biology, logic and the estimated maximum benefit to individuals and society.
If we go with that model, it is clear that what is "moral" changes from place to place and time to time. We must accept moral relativity.
In our times- and increasingly in the next fifty years, society may "need" babies less than it needs resources.

The other definition of morality is as an unchanging absolute. I find that argument untenable. YMMV.

Before we try answering questions like this, we must first make that distinction.
But if we choose relativism, then our work has only begun at that point.
And if we choose absolutism, we're stuffed.

 

[JJM 777]

Sorry to join the marathon discussion so late, as others have already exhausted themselves.

Explanations aside, I believe that abortion (or infanticide soon after birth, where the child can theoretically be months younger than in late-term abortions) is never immoral if it is the will of both parents.

 

[theprestige]

Sorry to join the marathon discussion so late, as others have already exhausted themselves.

Explanations aside, I believe that abortion (or infanticide soon after birth, where the child can theoretically be months younger than in late-term abortions) is never immoral if it is the will of both parents.

Easy enough to have beliefs when you set aside explanations. That said, would you be willing to explain how late in a child's lfe its parents may still morally elect to "abort" it?

 

[Sun Countess]

My argument is at the point of viability, that is to say when the egg has implanted on the uterine wall.

I do not have any issue with forms of contraceptives that prevent that from happening such as the IUD and the "morning after pill".

As I said, preventing an unwanted preganacy is more moral than terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

The egg planting on the uterine wall is not a point of viability. This is actually one of the more interesting "points of division" I've ever heard. There's no difference between a zygote which implants naturally, one which is impeded by an IUD, or one which is flushed out with a morning after pill.

I am not arguing for the imposing of standards on anybody against thier will. I am saying that due to the morality of the issue people should want to protect the embryo.

I don't understand the reasoning that people "should" want to protect the embryo. I get that's your personal preference, and I wouldn't want to take that away. I consider myself an extremely moral person, try to live by the golden rule, and I don't feel any need to protect embryos. I can imagine in some circumstances wanting to protect my own embryos, but can't imagine a single one where I would want to protect somebody else's embryos. (And I should note that I would never sacrifice myself for my unborn child, where I would sacrifice myself to save the life of either my own children or other people's children.)

If I start thinking it's my business to get involved in other people's reproductive lives, I'm afraid I'd come across as a busybody, because I think there are quite a few people out there who are having too many kids. I would certainly never try to tell people that they should have kids that they don't want or can't afford. Fortunately, I realize it's not my business. My parents were happy to have six, and I'm happy to have my two. Other people can do what they please, and I promise to keep my nose out of their business.

Things like tattoos and who your sexual partners are do not have the same moral issues that abortion does. The fact that the embryo cannot survive outside the womb is more reason why it should be protected. The biological fact that the woman has to carry the embryo gives the woman more of a responsibility toward the embryo.

Not really. You can't force someone to feel a moral responsibility if they view the embryo differently than you do. The fact that the embryo cannot survive outside the womb is more reason that it's not an actual person with rights to be protected.

No it is not aperson, but it is a human life. If people believe all the hype and importance we place on human life then that life would be respected. Protected.

Where's all the hype and importance we place on human life? First, I think you're calling embryos "human life" and then equating them to human beings, and second, I don't think we place that much importance on actual living human beings.

Thousands upon thousands of children die everyday due to malnutrition, war, and preventable diseases. Most of the world's population lives in poverty. The history of humanity is littered with slavery, wars, oppression, poverty, genocide, and disease. There are children in 21st century North America who go to bed every day hungry or beaten. So no, I don't think that humanity as a whole places a lot of importance on other human beings, let alone the "potential" of zygotes and embryos.

I'm personally much more concerned about the potential lost when so many in the world are still impoverished and oppressed. What great minds are wasting away in ghettos and garbage piles or behind veils? What potential is being lost when children aren't fed or educated? Those are millions of real people, and I can't be bothered to care if Mrs. Wilson down the block has a miscarriage or if her teenage daughter has an abortion.

 

[uruk]

Aborting an unwanted pregnancy is not a quick 'out'. Such a claim is ridiculous.

How so? Making a simple claim with out support does not further the discussion

How do you know the 'reckless' behaviour is not remedied in most cases? Another ridiculous claim.

I do not know. And I do not claim that it will in every case. I can only speak for people that I have personaly known who in both cases have changed thier behaiviour following an abortion of an unwanted pregnancy.

Not every body is the same. My wife related to me several personal accounts where the people she never altered thier behaiviour. they continued to have unwanted pregnancies and abortion for a large part of thier lives. It seems to me that avoiding those types of situations with preventativeas is a better solution than carrying on with a behaiviour that causes more problems and disconfort for the person involved. An abortion is not a plesant experiance by any means. Why would person put themselves through that repeatedly?

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?

Nothing is ever black and white. The conditions of each situation is different though outcomes may be similar. The conditions of the unwanted pregnancy matters. Again the condition of inconvienience and the temporary suspention of life stlye is not an acceptable reason when such a thing could have been prevented by usung various means of protection and preventatives. the caseses of rape/incest/deformity/imminent health risk are different than ones of vanity.

I mean other than wanting to punish the woman or teach her a lesson or whatever phrasing you choose Of course a better way of preventing an unwanted pregnancy is to use protection --- and then go ahead and punish when that fails.

Again, I said nothing of punishment, I said nothing of forcing the woman against her will. I said that if she wished to be in a moral position, if she wished to respect human life, if she wished to take responsibility for the life she helped to create unintentionaly then she should choose to carry the fetus to term and give it up for adoption if so chose not to raise the child.

If she chose not to, no harm or punishment or imprisonment will come to her. That is unless you consider the cost, pain and discomfort of an abortion proceedure punsihment. Even an abortion has personal consequences that are not good.
But she will not have made a moral choice in regards to human life.

That is why I say that preventing an unwanted pregnancy is more moral than having an abortion.

Choosing to take responsibility for ones actions is not punishment. Why is it that you see it as such?

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?

If it is as obvious as you say then why don't more people use them. Lazy? It's against my religion? I forgot? Ignorance? Can't afford them? They don't feel good. They interfere with spontinaity. They are not romantic. etc.

There are many reasons why people do not use them. I find none of them to be good reasons.

Forced adoption is not an option and does not protect and further human life.

Nobody forces you to adopt anybody. Adoption has the advantage of the child being alive.

If people gave sex/procreation the proper respect, there would be way fewer children who needed to be adopted.

 

[uruk]

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.

It is the woman's choice by default, but in that kind of situation I would hope the woman has seeked advice concerning health issues from her doctor before making that choice because she could also have made the choice to go through with the pregnancy even though it presented an definite threat to ther health.

Like I said, when it comes to human rights, people loose thier minds. Rational thought goes out the window.

 

[uruk]

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.

I do not agree because of the fundamental moral and biological differences between a preganancy and a disease. You are free to believe otherwise.

And I do know that there are negative social/financial effects associated with an unwanted pregnancy. Again they have to be dealt with on an individual basis. I have already given my views on those subjects in a reply to one of SunGodesses posts.

 

[uruk]

~snip~

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.

My wife and I have personally known several. It could be the local culture where we live. The poulation is predominalty composed of a hispanic minority group (of which we are members). The level of education low economic conditions and cultural mind set probably conspires to promote this kind of behaiviour in this area.

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.

Then your argument is that an individual human being's life is not as valuable because the vast number of our species. Our rehtoric says otherwise.

Your argument may make sense pragmaticaly, but not moraly

Our laws says that your worth or importance or access to rights does not diminish simply because there more of us. My life is not worth more than yours. That does not change in accordance with population.

From a moral stand point, The human life represent by the zygote is no more or less important than any other. The zygote's life that is aborted intentionaly was just as moraly significant as the one who got to make it.

 

[uruk]

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.

You forget prevention.

Again i am not saying that we should force the woman to do so. It should be something that woman would want to do, personaly, from a moral standpoint.

Remember having a choice in this instance also means the choice to go through the preganacy, not only to just abort it.

 

[uruk]

I am not aware of any such things.

Fighting in wars to protect country and lives. In our country only men can officialy be in combat. Before the late seventies the draft forced men into serving thier country.

That is chaning of course. There have been many occasions where women have been and participated in combat. The documentary "lioness" is really good example.
http://www.lionessthefilm.com/

Then there is law enforcement, firefighting, search and rescue, bomb disarment, biohazzard clean up. These were all once traditionaly male occupation where the person willingly took the reponsibility of persoan risk to health to perform a necessary function of scociety.

 

[Sun Countess]

Then your argument is that an individual human being's life is not as valuable because the vast number of our species. Our rehtoric says otherwise.

No, my argument is that the potential lost with one particular human zygote is not the same as the potential lost with the extinction of an entire species.

Our laws says that your worth or importance or access to rights does not diminish simply because there more of us. My life is not worth more than yours. That does not change in accordance with population.

I agree with this, and I think it's important to keep in mind that human life here = human being. When it comes to zygote to zygote competition, isn't it the same? And yet, you're giving more worth to a zygote which managed to implant on the uterine wall than one which is flushed away with an IUD.

From a moral stand point, The human life represent by the zygote is no more or less important than any other. The zygote's life that is aborted intentionaly was just as moraly significant as the one who got to make it.

I would agree with this also, and add that neither is morally significant. There's no more moral significance to a zygote which is aborted naturally to one which is aborted intentionally.

 

[uruk]

Contraception requires more effort than abortion? It involves more personal responsibility?
Wrong, totally wrong.

How so? You will need to qualify that remark to further the discussion. Just claiming that my remark is wrong will not suffice. Please explain why my remark is wrong.

 

[Sun Countess]

You forget prevention.

Again i am not saying that we should force the woman to do so. It should be something that woman would want to do, personaly, from a moral standpoint.

That's like saying that abstaining from alcohol is something that a person should want to do morally.

You're saying that because you feel something is more moral, that other people should also feel that it's more moral and want to do that. The problem is that we don't get to decide other people's morals when it comes to their own private business. I don't get to choose whether or not other people drink alcohol, get tattooed, or sleep with a different partner every night of the week. Morally, I may not want to do those things, but what I think is "more moral" has no bearing on them.

Remember having a choice in this instance also means the choice to go through the preganacy, not only to just abort it.

Yes, that's the whole point of the pro-choice position. There are several choices available to pregnant women, but the final call is theirs.

 

[uruk]

Why do you say that is the 'point of viability'? The floating zygote (no longer an egg) has the same DNA as the implanted embryo.

Only when the zygote is implanted on the uterine wall are conditions for the zygote to develope into a fetus are met. If the zygote does not implant, the woman's body will not be promted to make the necessary harmonal changes to her body to enter into the gestation stage and the zygote will be flushed during menstration.

For more information about the processe, please read or google biological procreation.