At what stage is abortion immoral?

[uruk]

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)

Correct! Some see abortion as a valid or responsible method to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. I feel there are fundamental problems with that line of thinking where it comes to the value of human life.

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?

I have no issue with abortions due to rape/incest, and imminent risk/health issues.
In the case of rape, a crime was commited against the woman. The pregnancy may present serious mental heath issues to the woman due to the trauma. I feel that in this case the woman is moraly justified if she chose to terminate the pregnancy.

Having said that, I personaly have known two women who became pregnant as the result of rape. They both decided to take the preganacies to full term and even kept their babies. Their line of reasoning was they felt that the child was not responsible for rape and should not die because of it. I know this is anecdotal, but I think that if you researched this issue yourself you will find some women who also became pregnant as a result of rape and allowed the child to come to full term for similar reasoning. I do realise that not all women feel the same way.

Incest is similar because if the woman is at a particular age she may not yet be emotional equiped or mentaly developed enough to make a concensual decision. In this case a certain degree of coersion is more than likey involved. The woman has no responsibility toward the fetus in this case.

In the where there is incest between consentual adults you encounter the issue of genetic problems. This would be a special case and possibly an exception to this rule.

I also feel the woman is morally justified in terminating a fetus if the fetus presents an imminent health risk or puts the life of the mother in direct jeopardy. I feel that it is her right to be able to choose her life over that of the fetus. It is a matter of survival

As to the rights or value of the fetus in these situations, It truely is a hard call. The fetus is not responsible for its part in each of these cases but the existance of the fetus is a direct cause of imminent danger for the woman.

Someday technology may present a solution to the issue concerning the necessity to terminate the fetuses in these cases, but that may bring up a whole other set of issues.

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.

Which is why I believe that abortions should not be made illegal.

Again the issue I am arguing is morality not legality.

I am simply saying that there are "good", "justifiable" reasons to have an abortion and "bad", "unjustafiable" reasons to have an abortion.

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.

No. I am saying that having unprotected, casual sex is being irresponsible. When I said "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" I simply mean that if you willingly and knowingly engage in unprotected casual sex you are increasing the risk of having an unwanted pregnancy. In such case that an unwanted pregnancy results from the unprotected casual sex then you are not in a moraly justifiable condition if you choose to abort the unwanted pregnancy for the simple reason of inconvienenace or social stigma. (read "cramping my style")

In this case I believe that, moraly speaking, the right for the fetus to exists outwieghs the right of the parents (both the mother and father) to not to be inconvienanced by the preganacy.

I do not see abortion as being a more responsible or moral choice in this case.

I also believe that, baring any imminent health issues, it is not unwarranted for the woman to go through nine months of pregnancy so that the fetus has a chance to develop to full term. The father should also bear any financial and supportive responsibility to the fetus and mother during the preganacy because he is also responsible for the unwanted preganacy.

I do not advocate legislating or making this line of action a law. Instead, I believe it should be a personal obligation to do so. It should be the "right" thing to do.

 

[AWPrime]

Not if the fetus is a person, then it's an abrogation of responsibility.

The statement that a fetus is a person is mere wishful thinking.

No. You can give babies up for adoption, or in many states you don't even have to do that much, you can just leave it at a hospital.

And in what why is this more responsible then getting an abortion?

 

[AWPrime]

In this case I believe that, moraly speaking, the right for the fetus to exists outwieghs the right of the parents (both the mother and father) to not to be inconvienanced by the preganacy.

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

 

[Arcade22]

And in what why is this more responsible then getting an abortion?

Because an abortion kills the fetus and thus makes sure that it will never grow up and became a human being?

 

[Ziggurat]

The statement that a fetus is a person is mere wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking? No, AWPrime. It's wishful thinking on your part to think you can just dismiss the claim out of hand. Concluding that a fetus is a person is a judgment call, just like the statement that a fetus is not a person is a judgment call. You are free to make that call as you see fit, but there's no way of getting around the fact that it IS a judgment call, and no way to prove that one answer is correct and one answer is not. That's why this issue is so complex and contentious. It may serve partisan interests to pretend that it's all cut and dry (and that applies to both sides), but the truth is that it's a damned difficult question.

And in what why is this more responsible then getting an abortion?

You honestly don't know? Then try to figure it out, it's not hard. Because if you can't, then you really don't understand opposition to abortion at all.

 

[uruk]

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?

Sorry, I was fatigued and that statement came out clear as mud. What I meant to say is that avoiding responsibilites to consequences has unintended consequences of it's own. But I think there is some confusion or varying interpretations of what responsibilities and consequneces are.

But to respond to your post:
Contracting HIV is a consequence of unprotected (and sometimes protected) sex. That is a fact. Contracting HIV is suffering the consequences of actions but that does not mean that you should not get help or treatment for the desease. That would also be irresponsible.

But pregnancy is not a desease. It is a biological function. It is something that is biologicaly meant to happen as a consequence of having sex.

It is moraly ok to treat HIV like a desease because that what HIV is. HIV is detrimental to your existance. Pregnancy is not meant to be detrimental to your existance. (in some cases it can, but that is a different issue to which I already have expressed my views in a previous post) It is one of the functions of your existance.

Also a fetus or zygote is not a virus or desease. It is the inital stage in the development of a human being.

It is not moral to treat a preganacy like a desease.

 

[I Ratant]

...

I also believe that, baring any imminent health issues, it is not unwarranted for the woman to go through nine months of pregnancy so that the fetus has a chance to develop to full term. The father should also bear any financial and supportive responsibility to the fetus and mother during the preganacy because he is also responsible for the unwanted preganacy.

I do not advocate legislating or making this line of action a law. Instead, I believe it should be a personal obligation to do so. It should be the "right" thing to do.

.
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.

 

[Ziggurat]

.
Amazingly enough, the universe doesn't revolve around you.
Invalidating anything you may have said is not a priority of mine.

So why then did you try to make a point in response to me that I had already made?

If what I say invalidates what you have said, and that occurs a lot

Yeah, um... not so much, actually. You haven't demonstrated that you even understand what I'm saying.

 

[kerikiwi]

It is not moral to treat a preganacy like a desease.

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.

 

[MikeMangum]

I do. Being forced to be pregnant when you don't want to be is a punishment.

Is being forced to provide and care for a child that is 2 days old (under punishment of improsionment) punishment as well?

 

[I Ratant]

Is being forced to provide and care for a child that is 2 days old (under punishment of improsionment) punishment as well?

.
Where does that happen?
Anything like making a dead-beat father pay up?

 

[Ziggurat]

Adoption (tossing out the kid) isn't usually done in many families, they just keep the damn kid, and treat it like dirt.

And they do that even though abortion is available. So making abortion available doesn't actually solve that problem, does it?

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

An unwanted child has negative effects too. But it is illegal to treat an unwanted child as a disease, or as a pest to be exterminated. It is NOT in fact perfectly moral to rectify the negative effects of an unwanted child by, say, killing them. You can't using "rectifying a negative effect" to justify creating a larger negative effect. And if a fetus is a person, killing that person is about as negative an effect as you could create.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The argument about when life starts, while engaging, is not morally relevant in the case of abortion. So while you may hold the belief that life starts when the child is born, or when it could survive without the mother, or in the x trimester, the morally relevant question is whether a person has a duty to another (and I'm here granting that a fetus is a person) to sacrifice their time, effort, or use of their body to save that person. And this brings me back to the violinist. I can't see any duty that I have to the violinist.

And while you see it as a shortcoming that I grant a fetus is a person, it defuses many counter-arguments. Most abortion debates get stuck at the point where the 'pro-life' position says a fetus is a person and the 'pro-choice' position says a fetus is not a person. I say fine, a fetus is a person, but tell me why a person has the right to leech off of my body, just because that person needs to. And moreover, tell me why denying that person the right to leech off of my body is murder. Any takers?

If you were in an accident which left you in a coma and totally dependent on the support of others to keep you alive, should anybody who contributes to your care be able to kill you because they don't want to expend any more of their resources on you? What if it was expected you would make a fully recovery in about 9 months and someone wanted to pull the plug before?

What if you were a Siamese twin? If you were the stronger of the two should you be allowed to have your sister or brother killed because they are 'leeching' off your body?

Additionally, it is often the case that it is not you who will be doing the killing. You want someone else to do it for you, typically a physician.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

However, I think that getting caught up in these details is irrelevant. It's much the same as an argument as to whether a fetus is a person or not - it misses the point entirely. Personally, I like to look at things in terms of duties. The question of morality is (whether you took precautions or not): do I have a duty to allow another person to use my body to their end?

You see a person in need of medical care. You are the only other person around. Do you have a moral (rather than legal) responsibility to use your body to help them, either directly or by calling for assistance?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

And they do that even though abortion is available. So making abortion available doesn't actually solve that problem, does it?

No, it doesn't "solve" the problem. See the WP article on the Nirvana fallacy^WP for an elaboration.

An unwanted child has negative effects too. But it is illegal to treat an unwanted child as a disease, or as a pest to be exterminated.

Did anyone in this thread ever actually treat fetuses or kids as a disease? I mean, the way other people have been talking about making love like it was a crime or sin that you had to "suffer the consequences for"?

It is NOT in fact perfectly moral to rectify the negative effects of an unwanted child by, say, killing them.

Again, did anyone ever say otherwise?

You can't using "rectifying a negative effect" to justify creating a larger negative effect.

Agreed. Which is why I'm in favour of letting women have abortions. You don't rectify the fact that you had sex by giving birth to a kid before you're ready to give it a good upbringing.

And if a fetus is a person...

...which it isn't.

killing that person is about as negative an effect as you could create.

Agree to an extent, so it's a good thing they aren't people. Seriously. It's an egg and a sperm cell. It doesn't suffer more than the eggs and sperm cells separately as they're thrown out of your body through menstruation, orgasms, or wet dreams.

 

[MikeMangum]

.
Where does that happen?
Anything like making a dead-beat father pay up?

It's called child neglect and is a felony. If you are the parent of a brand new baby and simply put it in a crib and leave it there for several days without feeding it or changing its diaper...not actively harming the child but not providing it the care it needs...you are guilty of child neglect.

An example from Florida:

(3)(a) "Neglect of a child" means:

1. A caregiver's failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or

2. A caregiver's failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.

Neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.

(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Parents have a legal responsibility for the welfare of their child[ren], with potential felony charges and prison time for non-compliance. Is that punishment, or a simply a recognition of responsibility?

You seriously were not aware of child neglect laws?

 

[MikeMangum]

You see a person in need of medical care. You are the only other person around. Do you have a moral (rather than legal) responsibility to use your body to help them, either directly or by calling for assistance?

If you are their parent, then by law, yes you do.

 

[Sun Countess]

I do not see it as punishment. Taking responsibility for your actions means doing what is "right" to correct or remediate a situation where your actions were involved.

If I was the cause of a car accident, I would not try to drive away or lie to the police officer or the other party in the accident about my part in the accident. Nor would I try to avoid paying for damages that I caused.

I would instead take the blame for my part in the accident and I would pay for the damages I caused. I do not see this as punishment. I see this as doing the "right thing".
I may not like to or particularly want to do these things, But I would not be able to sleep at night if don't them.

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.

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

In the case of abortion, I feel that if the woman is healthy of a legal adult age and the pregnacy was not due to non-consentual sex and the preganacy does not present any extrordinary health risk to the woman, then nine months of pregnancy is not an unwarranted price to pay so that a human being can come to full term.

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.

 

[I Ratant]

...
Parents have a legal responsibility for the welfare of their child[ren], with potential felony charges and prison time for non-compliance. Is that punishment, or a simply a recognition of responsibility?

You seriously were not aware of child neglect laws?

.
Child neglect is ex-post-facto to birth.
I believe the subject is what happens and why and who is or isn't responsible prior to birth.
What may be "serious" to you might be peripheral to me, when it's not on topic.