Abortion from a Philosophical Standpoint
 

Let's have an intelligent discussion about abortion from a moral/ethical/societal/philosophical/religious standpoint. Hell...include references, ideas, anything you wish. Let's just not slander eachother, only the ideas presented.

We'll just say I sit on the fence on this one. How about one of you convince me either way ;)

it's all about choices... it's not for me to decide since it's not my body, so the man already doesn't have the choice.

I'm a "Life begins at conception" guy.

pro-choice....I worked too long in the hospital to see the consequences otherwise.

The govt. doesn't know how to correctly regulate something as sensitive as this.
So the choice has to be left up to the individual.

I wish it didn't have to be.

I simply don't think the government ought to have any say in the matter, and therefore it is up to each individual person.

I continue the air of this thread, and add my own bit:

Abortion isn't at all a moral issue unless you are a female considering having one. Otherwise, it's a question of restricting other people's actions or not.

"Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" are both silly positions on the issue when you look at it that way.

I'll definitely agree with the statement about morality having nothing to do with the choice if you're not the one having the baby. However, if the option to have an abortion weren't there, there would be an abundance of unwanted children, either given up for adoption, or otherwise creating additional strain on social assistance programs. Once my tax dollars go to pay for someone elses mistake, that's when I have the right to an opinion. I'm not saying that I would support something like mandatory abortions for people who can't afford children, but the option should be there.

There's my $0.02

I've come to the conclusion that there will be very little middle ground between the two sides.

Take it out of the abortion context and consider this:

If you TRULY believe that some one is being murdered, can you compromise on your position?


That being said, I am pro-choice while agreeing to some restrictions in the third trimester.

My position: I believe abortion is acceptable (I hate te terms pro-choice and pro-life).

BUT this means that I read what I can to convince me to change my mind (I think that is it better to read material that challenges your existing beliefs rather than material that supports them) and will put some corresponding points here.

Firstly, I recommend the following book:
Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights

Secondly,
This is clearly a moral issue for more than just the woman involved. To say it only involves the woman is to adopt a pro-choice premise from the start.
At stake is the *possible* painful murder of hundreds of thousands of human beings - surely that is an issue that affects everyone.

Thirdly,
@ Many people have a utilitarian ethic (they think that what truly matters is creating happiness and preventing pain). There are strong arguments to say that sbortion does cause pain to the foetus, so anyone with a utiltarian ethic should consider the pro-life arguments carefully.
@ Many people have a set of ethics that places a value on human life. There is debate and uncertainty as to whether foetuses (or unborn children, depending on your perspective) have human life. When uncertainty exists as to whether human life is in danger we usually err on the side of caution (i.e. if there was a chance that a room had a person in it, would you be doing something wrong to throw a grenade in?). Therefore anyone who values human life and is not 100% positive that what is in the womb is not a person or human life should consider the pro-life argumetns carefully.

Just today I thought of a new take on this for pro lifers.

Slavery was abolished years ago. That means that one person has no right to own another person. By a pro-choicer saying that a woman has a right to choose whether or not she wants to have an abortion, he is saying that she in fact is the "owner" of that child. Now on that note, should abortion be illegal under anti-slavery laws?

I also just thought of this. If you think about it, people call it "pro-choice" Is that because the true name, "pro-death" sounds much to harsh?

Why don't people understand that this isn't just a matter of choice for lots of people? If you believe that human life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. If you believe that, then you will never buy the argument that it's a woman's choice, just as you wouldn't buy the argument that it was her choice to strangle the baby after it was born.

I say this as atheist, who believes that a early zygote/embryo/featus is a <i>potential</i> human, which is sad to lose, but not murder. Still, I fully understand why so many people have a very hard time with it and lobby so hard against it.

Sperm hits egg its a life. Period. Try to justify it all you want. Whatever lets you sleep at night. With that said. There are alot of murders and rapist and theives in the night out there. I can not right every wrong. I will not say wether someone can or can not have an abortion EXCEPT if and when it is my child. Say what you want but just because it came out of you it is no more yours then mine. If I got a girl pregnant (wether she be my wife,girlfriend or just some chick) and she got an abortion against my wishes (and it would be) then I would kill her. Its as simple as that. I don't buy all that "Its my body" bullshit. Yea well its MY child. If you want to squirt one out and leave then fine. I can raise my own child just fine. Thats not how I would want it to be of course but I would manage. I expect you to pay child support and if you do not then don't expect to ever see your child. But if she did go and get an abortion done behind my back then I would quite literally put an end to her life. I don't care if I was put away for life or give the death sentance or whatever. I would go to my grave feeling it to be justified.

umm

BBtB,

I understand you position, I just don't agree with it.

If you choose to call that justification, that's your right, but I can assure you, I do not see it as "justification" or "rationalization", but my own understanding of life, humanity, and free will.

Well my point is namely to those extremly ignorant people who want to say "Well it is my body" A child is no more the womans child then the mans. The man should have just as much say in things as the woman.

While I do not agree that the man should have no say, I also do not agree that he should have equal say.

It is perfectly reasonable and possibly manditory to explore the morality of abortion in terms of the intimate relationship between the woman and the fetus among all the other moral connotations.

I believe in choice. Sex is the choice. When sex is not a choice, ie, rape, abortion is ok. Also in the choice of the baby or the mother, or both, I say abortion is cool. As for incest, also abortion is ok, due to humanity needing diversity to stay alive. other abortion reasons do not fly in my book. If you cannot be responsible for your actions, do not have sex. I am not targeting anyone but I hate the arguement that birth control is expensive b/c having a child is more costly. I know that at conception a life begins, but is it human? That I do not know, and I doubt anyone else does. Who are we to say its not human? Sex is a choice, choose wisely.

BBtB: are you saying you would actually kill a woman that aborted your child against your wishes?

not at all.

you are not encouraging people to go out and doing it, you are simply giving them the choice as to whether or not they want to abort. just because they <i>can</i> dosen't mean they <i>will</i> - it is not our place to say they cannot even make that choice for themselves. look at our congress. look at our president. how many of them will ever have the opputunity to make that choice for themselves? exactly. what place do they have to make that choice for someone else?

Yes. Because she murdered my child. As I allready stated, if she wants to have it and then leave to never see our child again then so be it. But I will no more tolerate someone killing my "future" child then I will someone killing my 2 year old. And the only reason I say that I would kill her is because I know she would never see justice through our justice system.

First off, this is an awesome thread. Good point and counter points here. Generally I would have to say I am pro-life. When do I consider abortion to be all right? When some sort of exrteme deformity or disease or some other condition is detected before the birth that would decrease the child's quality of life. It is simply cruel and unjust to make a child live a life full of agony. It is common knowledge that suffering is a harsher punishment than death. Counter-point? Well, if we erradicate, say, everyone fetus diagnosed with Down's Syndrom, then scientists would have no way to research the condition. You know what I mean? If we abort fetuses diagnosed with some sort of condition, the number of people with said conditions would decrease and those who are still alive already with the condition would be less in numbers. I feel like I'm not getting my point across. I'll digress and move on (I still have a lot to say)

Just goes to show that BBtB is old-world. I strongly agree with B here, mostly because my dad is also very old-world and has raised me mostly as such. If the baby is perfectly healthy but she doesn't want it, and the bitch aborts it without me knowing, I'd hurt her really bad. I don't know if I'd kill her, but I'd hurt her.

Finally someone said it. This is a cold truth that comes up .001% of the time when discussions about abortion occur. This is what it boils down to, yet people carefully evade it when it is convenient. I've had plenty of opportunities to get laid w/o protection, but I simply didn't do it because I know that the chances of knocking her up were really high. Learn self-control, or stay home. And to the ladies with no self-control, bear the consequences of your actions, but make sure to give the guy who knocked you up the same hell.

As far as rape, I still don't think the baby should be aborted. If you really don't want it, then give it up for adoption when it is born. (more on this later)

Incest, well, chances of the baby not coming out right are high, so as I mentioned before, if the condition is detected before it is born, it might be best to simply abort it. Of course, there is the counter-point to this that I already mentioned.

Your tax dollar go into the trashcan all the time anyways, so a little bit of spending on social assistance programs isn't so bad. Now I don't know the specifics about this, but I recall from my economics class that Congress still has tasters who taste coffee and tea and other such items before they are served, and they are paid salaries comparable to that of a lawyer or doctor. Thats a lot of money down the damn train that your tax dollars are paying for. What with the FDA in place you'd think they'd've gotten ridden of these clowns, but they haven't. God knows what else they're wasting your tax dollars on that you don't even know about. Knowing that part of our taxes goes to these social services programs should actually be a breath of fresh air.

Thats my two cents :D

my opinion:
Pro Life = Anti Choice
Pro Choice != Anti Life

disagree?, please explain.
(!=) is doesn't equal

either philosophy serves the purposes and need of humans or it doesn't.
if it doesn't, it's nonsense.

parents need to be in a position to decide whether or not to have children.
and they need the legal right to abort them before they are born.

This might be somewhat disjointed, but here goes;

Why do people say that the zygote/fetus/baby is a part of the mothers body? It has it's own unique genetic code. Even if it had the same DNA as the mother until birth, that wouldn't necessarily make a governable part of a womans body. Identical twins share the same DNA, and yet one cannot simply kill the other because, after all, the one is simply an extension of the other.

Next point, we know that it is biologically alive from the moment of conception. We also know that it is human (of human sperm and human ova) Obviously it's size doesn't matter, after all are fat people worth any more (or less) than thin? It's level of development shouldn't make any difference either. I can't hurt/maim/kill a pre-school child any more than I could a college student. Just because it is living in the womb, doesn't mean it is under another persons control, I do not have the power of life and death over the people who rent my house, (though I may wish it.) Age doesn't matter, we don't kill people after they hit a certain age. They may not have any real self-awareness at first, but neither do people with Alzheimers and we have not yet descended to killing them.

Those are my $4 (2c adjusted for inflation)

Second everything hawkeye said. Damn good arguments. Plus the witty comment at the end did it for me.

As far as i can see it, there is only one good reason to abort - and that is : will the development of this embryo/foetus/child bring unendurable hardship to the parent(s)/future child?

This is a simple as i could distill it. The definition of "unendurable hardship" would be the next discusion point.

I dont believe that women should be denied the right to abort, according to the idea i have stated.
I do believe it is her choice in the matter (although the guy does have a right to be heard too).

Anyone who wants to hurt a woman for aborting "their" child i think needs to see a psychologist. The justification of the fact as stated above is spurious and contradictory.

Read this.

No need to go around insulting people. If you don't understand the beliefs of others, don't say anything. Not everyone was raised the same as you.

Hawkeye. I disagree with you logic on how a fetus is not part of a woman's body. Since it (the fetus) is connected through the umbilical (sp?) cord to the mother, it is part of her body. True, it may have it's own genetic code, but it would not survive without that physical connection.

Also, for the pro-lifers out there, if you believe that is a fetus is alive without any consciousness or thought processes (first trimester), are you also vegan? At that point in a child's development, he is at about the stage of an animal, so killing an animal for food is about the same as killing a child.

Hmmmm.........

They guy has just as much right as the woman. It is 50/50. Why should it be 70/30? Just because it comes from her body? So it is therefore less my child?

So anyone who believes a murder should see justice must there for be unbalanced and in need of mental health. Lets also kill all the squirrels.

interesting point. I will point to siamese/conjoined twins (although some can be seperated, I know.) but I will give that some thought.

I have a strictly practical view on the issue.
I believe in what Andrew Vachss says; abortions save more lives than they take.

It's intriguing to see that some people care more about unborn babies, than what happens to them after they're born.

Question:What's the difference between a child a day before it's born and the day it's born?.... Answer: Nothing.

So abortion is not murder if the child is in the womb, but 2 seconds later when it's out its murder?.... It makes absolutely no sense. If you want to give anyone a choice give it to the child about to be inhumanely killed. And yes, it is inhumane. If you don't believe me read the true life story in Sallie Risdales' short story " We do abortions here: A Nurse's Story"

Me being a man makes my understanding much different than that of a womans. I also think the man should have a "choice" in the matter, afterall he did half the work.

You're never going to change anyone's mind, and that's why women will CONTINUE to have abortions even if they are illegalised. They will just be messier, more painful, and more dangerous.

We should have learned from Prohibition that you can't legislate morality or responsibility.

The best course of action would be to keep abortion legal, without exception, except in the last 3 months where it would be illegal, without exception. And after that if the wonderful women's groups who are protecting female freedom of choice and the wonderful women's groups who are protecting the sanctity of birth are unhappy with this arbitrary judgement, they can pour the uncounted piles of cash they receive every day to make a big controversy about this issue into something USEFUL like sexual education and contraception research and education so that situations in which a woman has to choose to have an abortion or not don't even have to happen.

That's pretty much it.

Norma McCorvey seems to have changed her mind some 30 years later and is now Pro-Life and she was one of the factors in Abortion becoming Legal in the first place

Heres the link http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mccorvey1.html

I was not insulting anyone. If you have read it that way, my apologies for not being clear enough in my statement.

Anyone who believes violence plays a part in getting their way needs to consider their position in our society.

How much effort do you put into growing this foetus? 5 seconds maybe? The woman has the majority of the right to decide because she ultimately is the one who pays the price of the pregnancy. If you could bear children, then it would be your right.

im sorry, but i dont understand the point you are trying to make

Finally, if we can define when a child becomes sentient, rather than just "alive", we would find that a lot of peoples arguments against abortion would disappear.

I don't think awareness is the issue here, Otaku. I don't think a child is aware until they are at least a few monts old. To put it into perspective, do you have any memories from your first few months on this earth? I sure don't. I don't think that even as much as three months after we are born that we are aware of our existance and our surroundings. May I quote the great movie Memento...

"Just because I close my eyes doesn't mean the world stops."

The world continues on whether we are aware of it or not. <- Good topic for later discussion!

First off I do not think amount of effort has anything to do with it at all. Secondaly as I stated in my first statement if she wanted to have it and then leave I would raise my own child. So she puts in 9 months of effort and I put in 18 years. Yet she is still putting in more? What it boils down to is amount of effort or not it is still just as much my child as hers. If I could bare some or all of the pain and work of child bearing I would. But I can't. That doesn't make the child less mine. This is a common mind set that has been going on for years both in this debate and others. This needs to change. It is NOT less my child just because it was inside her. Period. End of debate(this particular debate atleast) There is nothing you can say to convince me that this child is somehow less mine and I should therfore have less say on what happens to it. Either a month after conception or 5 years after its born. It is just as much mine as hers. I have just as much right to my child as she does. Sadly either by natures design or gods cruel joke woman have to do 100% of the child bearing process. However I had just as much in making that child as her. It is not less mine then hers. We both had a part. It was 50/50 that is true untill birth. Now after birth depending on what the parent does they may lose certain rights to their children. But that has nothing to do with this particular debate.

I don't understand why anyone would want to kill a baby. Isn't all human life precious? How can any of us possibly think we possess the wisdom to dictate who should live and who should die? Do any of you honestly think that you can determine when life begins, when it has it's own unique value, and when it should end? The gods look down on us and weep, for the things we do out of our own hate and selfishness, just so we can do without some inconvenience!! We are so haughty, cruel, and ignorant!! As soon as we put a price on anyones life, ANY life can be bought!

Without reading all of the other posts yet, let me offer my two cents. Personally, I don't have a problem with abortion. If a fetus can't live outside of the womb, it is not yet living. It's, well, parasitic, living off of the mother. That sounds really harsh, but that's the best analogy I can come up with.

I realize that a baby can live outside of the womb before the pregnancy reaches full term. I may not like abortion once that point has been reached, but I still support it.

Abortion is not an issue that should be legislated, period. If it's a moral issue, then it is not a government issue, plain and simple. The government should not legislate morality under any circumstances.

Morality is a personal issue. My morals probably won't agree with your morals. That doesn't make you or me right. It's a personal belief, and can be based on many different things. It is not for you, me, or anybody else to enforce morality on another individual. You could be just as wrong as the person you think is wrong.

By the same token, the collective opinion of a group of individuals or even an entire society may not be the "right" opinion. I liken it to old Salem and the witch hunts. It was popular to burn witches at the stake, but it didn't make them right.

The moment we begin to legislate what you or I believe is right or wrong we risk causing unnecessary harm to people who don't deserve it.

Let government stick to serving the people, not ruling them.

You are contradicting yourself. If the fetus wasn't living then there wouldn't be human life. How do you think embryos develop into fetuses which develop futher until the day you die. You are constantly "living" until you are no more.

I couldn't agree more =)

Freewill, isn't it great?

Technically murder is a moral issue. Murders seldom see themselves as "wrong" should we therefor say because you see yourself as right you ARE right?

Well, this is just my newbie opinion which has probably already been stated and disproven, but I believe that it is better to end one life humanely, then let it ruin two. By that I mean that I don't believe in abortions, unless it would ruin the life of the mother and child. Of course, just how rined a person's life becomes is a matter of perspective.

Actually, I think murder is wrong always, becuase no person has the right to control another's destiny, but there are a few people that I'd like to chop up in to pieces and piss on their remains.

I myself am at a standpoint between the two, I'm not quite sure whether i would be for pro-life or abortion. I think abortion is not a cure for mistakes as some have taken pregnancy to be. I believe that if you take action in the creation of a life, you should have full responsibility in taking care of that of which you have created.
But in a situational viewpoint i can find it sensible, such as rape. If a rape victim is in a hard time where her mentality is rocky, and would not be able to handle having a visual day to day right by her side, then i can find it reasonable to abort a baby.

Abortion is murder plain and simple. How can you justify it? Convenience? Please... Those welfare mama's are an inconvenience to me, how about I kill them. Regardless of religion, its wrong. That child has been called into existence, who are you to terminate it?

if you say "you can't abort any child ever" then you take away the FREEWILL of the mother by forcing her to have this child (which might only be there because some guy raped her!)

now if you are going to tell me that a mother MUST have the baby of the man that raped her because she is killing a life if she does, than sure you can belive that, but TELL YOUR WIFE THAT, if God forbid, that happend!!!!

it might be a harsh way to get my point across but it works, now disagree with it or not but think about it

That is the only card that you "pro-choicer's" play, the rape card. Its a fucked up situation no doubt. But the child has nothing to do with it, the child is still innocent. There is the alternative of adoption.

Being Pro-choice is bullshit, don't wag the dog and just call a spade a spade, your pro-abortion. the fact of the matter is something like .05 of all abortions have anything to do with Rape. You made the choice to have sex, the result brings about new life. Maybe you guys can live with that choice, but the baby can't. It amazes how stupid people are my generation (i'm 18) and the one before me are about to have a big wake up call when we hit the afterlife (60+). Since Roe v. Wade you people have aborted 40+ million babies... every 4th baby dies from a choice. Its sickening in 30 years we have manged to abort an entire generation of people because they weren't convienent.

I agree. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Who is being disrespectful here? I didn't attack anyone here, just the context of the situation at hand.

Just a friendly request, 's all ;)

What if, as stated before, the child was forced upon the mother through rape? She certainly is entitled to not give birth to a child she never intended to have, especially under such extreme cases, is she not? Not only that but isn't that child a constant reminder of the traumatic experience she went through? Thinking about it or not, that child will always be a subconcious reminder of something I'm sure she has no intentions of wanting to remember. Or what about when the birth of a child is found to severely harm, injure, or even kill the mother during birth? How could you justify still having the child then?

There are cases when abortion should not be taken, and that is when the "adults" (And I use that term loosely based on the age at which people are having children now) know full well what they're doing and what the repercussions are of that action. For simplicity's sake I'll leave the mentally handicapped out of this as they might not know the full extent of what may happen when/if they get lucky (That's a discussion of a whole 'nother matter, but if you wish to take that route be my guest). However, if the child is the cause of rape, or if the child's birth will conceivably kill the mother, it should be that mother's right to decide if she wants to proceed with birth or not.

Simply put there is no clear cut solution to this matter. There are always going to be variables where it may be the right thing to do on one hand, and on the other hand it may just be flat out wrong to even think about such an option.

Can we come up with something new besides rape? Like I said it is sooooooo statisically uncommon its neither here nor there. Honestly give me one justifyable reason other then rape as to why a human life should be terminated?

Statistically uncommon or not, it STILL happens. Even the smallest voice needs to be heard does it not? So you'd opt to simply ignore those that have been raped simply because they're in the gross minority? They still are a factor in the question on abortion, it still happens, and a child may be the result of a rape even if you chose to acknowledge that aspect in this matter or not.

And if you READ my post you'd see that I made mention of the process of birth leading to the death of the birthing mother. What then do you do? By your viewpoint there'd be a murder going on either way correct? So instead of waiting to that point where a split section decision has to be made, I say the mother has every right to terminate the pregnancy long before her personal well being is ever made a bigger issue than what it may already be at that point (If she so chooses to put her own life ahead of a unborn fetus).

Again, rape victims,incest victims and times when the mother might die during child birth all make up a small percentage of abortions. Lets say 5% although its probably even less then that. Now by your logic if we let this 5% get abortions then we HAVE to let the other 95% that just want to do it out of convience. On that same logic I could say 5% of black males will comit a crime. So lets kill them all!I'm just saying is all. I am not going to get into this debate.

Even if it is rape you are still terminating a human life. As far as the arguement about the mother and birth, what makes you think that anything has to be done? We have perverted nature, played god if you will in the last 50 years of medical technology. Shit happens, it is the natural cycle of life, how do you think people got along without medicine for the thousands of years of existence before it? Like BBtB and myself have said with your two problems you have only brought up the VAST minority, does that not mean that some action should be taken against the majority?

No, I'm not contradicting myself, although I can see how you would come to that conclusion. Separate an embryo from the mother, and the embryo dies. It happens all the time during miscarriages, not just during abortion.

I love the argument of adoption as an alternative. It makes me laugh. Sure, you can put your baby up for adoption. That's why there aren't any children in the world waiting to be adopted.

I would much rather have a child never be born than see it grow up in a harmful culture of foster homes or orphanages. In a world where there already isn't nearly enough homes for children to go into, the pro-lifers (that term cracks me up to) want to burden even more an over-burdened system.

Perhaps if the way we go about the adoption process were changed it wouldn't be such a bad alternative. If we could get race, sexual orientation, and religious faith removed from the adoption screening process, then perhaps I might go along with that idea. But when well-off black couples aren't allowed to adopt white children (Cincinnati) you're never going to reach a point where adoption is a viable alternative to abortion.

Pro-life FORCES the mother to have this child, no matter the circumstances. If you take circumstances out of the equation all you have left is: let the mother chose what she wants or not. THAT IS THE POINT!

It's the FREEWILL of the mother, it isn't anything else, you either let the mother decide what she wants to do or not

from a philosophical standpoint, taking away freewill, is the worst punishment you can do to any human being. it's taking away the naturally given rights of a person.

pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion; conversely, pro-life IS and only is anti-abortion, plain and simple.

Pro-Choice means let the mother make HER own damn decision, and accept it!

Lipo: And I mean this very respectfully. Embryos develop before they become "attached" to the mother. They grow them in labs(thats a whole other debate). And..... adoption is a great way because there are many many couples who can't conceive and choose to adopt. My mother was adopted by a very loving family. Adoption is also a great way to help those in foreign orphanages, many people adopt from there and many more would if those countries would make it easier for people in the US to do so. Many adoptions are arranged before the baby is born, so it is a viable alternative. The fact of the matter is, nobody has the right to terminate life whether it is young or old. If the mother were going to die I could see an emergency surgery to remove the child and do all possible to sustain its life. Pro choice is a way to "cop out" of one's responsibility.

Obviously, that's why this debate is taking place :p

ok, the "pro-lifers" on here still havent answered the question : what if the mothers life was put in danger by the pregnancy/birth of this child.

Is abortion a justifiable alternative, or do you think that the pregnancy should proceed anyway?

Make sure to read all the posts :p

Applogies there svt :)

How about the rest of the pro-lifers? anyone else wanna comment?

is there any reason in your minds that abortion is a justifiable alternative?

No prob. TFP kicks ass and by that I mean the people. This is a really really controversial topic and yet everyone here is very respectful. Peace.

seems that you FORGOT this:
pro-life is against letting the mother choose.

Mac, why is it the mother's decision on whether or not the child should die? Because she help conceive it? Because it's her freewill? Is abortion still not murder if the baby dies and the mother didn't want it aborted? For example, for some reason someone punches the woman in the stomach and the baby dies, did the perpetrator infact murder someone(remember, pro-choicers say the fetus isn't living)? The person who does so would most certainly go to jail. Yet if the woman allowed a doctor to abort the baby it isn't murder. ????? Explain

The following is a paper I wrote for a morality class on the subject of abortion.

It is broken into three parts. First I argrue the pro-life side, second I agrue the pro-choice side and third, I argue my own conclusions and viewpoint.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Morality of Abortion:
A Discussion


Introduction

Historically, abortion has been a subject that has received little attention in mainstream thinking. Various cultures have addressed when it was permissible, such as after “quickening” or after so many days of conception, but as a reality it was left to women and midwives. It has only been since the late 19th century with the advent of women’s rights movements in areas such as birth control do we see abortion begin to be addressed. This debate has significantly escalated in intensity and volume since 1973 with the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the landmark case, Roe vs. Wade.

A comment should be made regarding the use of the terms pro-life and pro-choice in this paper. It has been my experience that in this highly emotional debate, each side has chosen the terminology that it feels best describes itself. These terms are used here out of respect and not out of favor for a particular political or moral view on the rightness or wrongness of abortion and abortion laws.

Pro-life

The difficulty in the pro-choice side of the abortion debate lies in the fact that wherever the line is drawn in allowing or not allowing abortion, it is an arbitrary line. Fortunately, there are two principles which can guide us in deciding whether or not abortion is moral and permissible. First, is that is always wrong to take an innocent life, and second, that the fetus is human by the only non-arbitrary line, that being conception and the creation of a unique human genetic code.

Typically, arguments for the morality of abortion during any or all of pregnancy fall into three areas: 1) viability of the fetus; 2) experience, and; 3) what Noonan calls, “the sentiments of adults” . None of these are reliable however in determining the morality of abortion. The age of viability of the fetus has changed dramatically with the advent of 20th century medicine and it is reasonable to think that something akin to an artificial womb is possible. At the other end of the spectrum, a full term baby is just as dependant upon others for survival as the fetus, so viability is a non-issue.

Experience is also unreliable, as this not only depends on age but on the individual. The fetus at a very early age can experience pain, while adults who have suffered nerve damage may not. Psychologically, we do not distinguish individuals who have cerebral palsy as less “human” than others because of their defect and deficit of experience. Our view of children or our “sentimentality” is just as unreliable. The pro-choice side would argue that the fetus does not even “look” like a baby until several months after conception. Yet such distinctions have been used throughout history to deprive whole classes of individuals of rights, such as blacks in America, and in the extreme case, eugenics movements during Nazi Germany. So too, the pro-choice side would deprive the fetus.



Pro-choice

The mistake of Noonan and the pro-life side is to confuse genetic humanity with person-hood and to attempt to ascribe the rights of the later to the former. This separation is central to the pro-choice position. Person-hood is and must always be separate from genetic humanity. While a fetus is undeniably genetically distinct from the parents, it is not sufficient for us to grant it the status of person-hood and the rights and moral status implied. In developing this argument, one must first define the characteristics or qualities that we can, in general, ascribe to people. Mary Ann Warren defined them thus:

1) Consciousness (of objects and events external and /or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;
2) Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);
3) Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);
4) The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely man possible topics;
5) The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both.

An adult human certainly demonstrates all of these characteristics, and a baby of only a few weeks demonstrates most of them, but a fetus demonstrates none of them at the start and very few of them even at later stages of development. It is not denied that the fetus will become a person, but rather that the fetus is not yet a person and therefore cannot be ascribed all the rights and moral status that we would to an adult human or even an infant.

Using this concept of person-hood vs. genetically human, we may further say that not all genetically human beings are people, nor is genetic humanity necessary for person-hood and the rights we ascribe it. For the former case, we can consider the case of anencephaly, that is, incomplete development or even the absence of the brain in a newborn. Genetic humanity is undeniable yet the child will never meet the criteria of person-hood. In the second case we can consider hypothetical alien cultures or artificial intelligence. We can imagine meeting such creatures and where they meet our criteria they deserve the rights of person-hood.

Therefore, while it is due respect of it potential, a fetus is not a person and abortion is morally permissible at any and all stages of pregnancy.


Personal Viewpoint

I have never been completely satisfied or comfortable with either position presented here. In developing my own position, I have considered two cases, 1) the one week old fetus, and 2) the 8 ½ month old fetus. In the first case, I am strongly persuaded by Warren’s arguments. There are genetic humans, and there are persons, and the fetus at this stage does not exhibit the characteristics of a person as outlined above. It has a high probability of becoming a person and should be valued as such, but to ascribe it the same moral status as a fully developed person is completely foreign to my understanding of what a person is. In the second case, the fetus has, for whatever reasons, been allowed to develop. At this point, its potentiality is much closer to realization and it is viable outside the womb. I would consider an abortion at this point to be immoral, except to save the life of the mother. In both cases, Jane English’ “self defense” argument, where even the taking of innocent life can at times be justified, is persuasive.

I have also noted that frequently the pro-life side of the debate ignores the woman and her rights in this debate, or as English put it, “But all such approaches look to characteristics of the developing human and ignore the relation between the fetus and the woman.” Here I choose to distinguish being pro-choice from being pro-abortion. The debate of abortion is much like the debate over capital punishment. We are forced as individuals and as a society to draw lines in the sand. In some cases we may justify capital punishment while in others we may decide that it is an inappropriate punishment, while some individuals will hold that it is never morally justifiable.

Yet, there are valid arguments for each position. So too, is the debate over abortion. Strangely, Noonan said it best, “To say a being was human was to say it had a destiny to decide for itself which could not be taken from it by another man’s decision.” While he was talking about the fetus’ rights as a human being, I believe this is central to being pro-choice: it is morally wrong to interfere with another person’s personal moral decisions and destiny, especially when such decisions can be supported by reasoned and logical arguments.

Therefore, I support the current position of the Supreme Court in making abortion legal without restrictions in the first trimester while allowing restrictions as the pregnancy progresses. In my view, this is a reasonable attempt to balance the rights of the woman to self-determination with that of the fetus’s right to life especially in the middle of the pregnancy where it is difficult to draw a line, yet a line must be drawn.


--------

1 John T. Noonan Jr., The Moral Life, page 760
2 Mary Anne Warren, ibid, page 769
3 Jane English, ibid, p 782
4 John T. Noonan Jr., ibid, pp 763-764

MacGnG, Why should it just be the MOTHERS choice? Did the father not have anything in this? And of course... no one is asking the child.

Otaku, The majority of such births could be done through surgery thus saving the life of both invovled. Beyond that, again, we HAVE answered this question before, these make up the fring minority of abortions.

But again, I am not going to go into the debate of outlawing abortions or anything like that. I just think it should be a decision of EVERYONE involved. It shouldn't be the sole decision of the mother simply because it happens to be inside her. Her decision will effect many others other then just her.


Also, Lebell, while I do not 100% agree with your conclusion I must say that is one of the best articles on abortion I have ever read. Kudos to you.

svt: if someone punches the mother and the baby dies, it's up to the court to decide what the guy is charged with (manslaughter maybe), happend on, i think, an episode of Law And Order.. it was interesting. --if someone can find something on the net, it's happend b4 , what was the guy charged with.

BBtB, yes it is primarily the mothers choice, she can decide if she wants the fathers input, it's also the circumstances of the mother and father, married?, is she an unfit mother? is he an unfit father?... no one asks the child, because the child can not speak... i agree everyone should be involved in the decision, but they all cant.

i don't agree with killing the potential of life, but taking away the freewill of the mother is worse.

what is so wrong with letting the mother decide (simply letting her decide whatever she wants). this is the only thing I argue for. i am fighting for the mother to make whatever decision she wants, if she doesn't want to have an abortion,OK, but if she does no one should stop her.

if a girl wants to, she is gonna find a way to abort the baby some how; Isn't providing a safe and sterile environment for the abortion to occur, a lot better than a 13 year old girl using a coat hanger?

i only fight for the right of the mother to do as she chooses, not for the "killing" of a fetus.

According to the catholic faith the efforts go to the child. My grandmother had one of the first cesarian sections,they actually asked grandpa who they should save if it came to it.

"The baby has not been baptized and would die with an unclean soul"
This may have changed over the years...the church has gotten more PC since I learned from the nuns

But WHY? Why should it be solely the mothers choice? And the father maybe get "input" Why does the father not have a true say? Its just as much his child as anyone elses. I mean that is the whole stance of pro-choice people. Pro the mothers choice. But WHY merely the mothers? Because it happens to be inside her? Well fuck you if you think I am going to stand idly by while someone kills MY child out of laziness. And it will be out of laziness. Because I am not a rapist. I am not knocking up any 13 year olds. And obviously I am going to take the mothers health concerns into my decision. The only way she is going to get an abortion against my wishes is if it IS out of laziness. And you (and sadly the law as well) say its her right to do so. Well what about my right to my child?

BBtB: (simply) EVER FATHER isn't AS GOOD AS YOU! every father wouldn't take all those things into consideration, thats why.

Abortion
 

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
So your telling me that a mother should have to go through all of the pain and suffering, that another has put apon her because it would be wrong to abort a baby? I am anti-abortion all the way, but if the cause of the baby going to scar you for life then i believe you should get rid of it.
I know if i was put in a situation such as that, I wouldn't want to go through with haveing a baby of a man that raped me. It would be way to damn scary. But thats my thoughs.

(And if your targeting the "pro-choicer's" with that comment then you should word it a little bit differently. Because the only People that have been playing "rape cards" are the ones that are against abortion. Just a thought?)

Oh, so fathers are all inherently bad? Or just the majority? And mothers are inherently good?

I am sorry I just can not buy that the father shouldn't have a say in what happens to their child because they may not pick the right choice. Of course assuming the mothers always do.

Would you consider it murder if I masturbated and disposed of all the millions of sperm in my semen?

Let's clarify some stuff. A woman being raped is a terrible terrible thing no one here is arguing that point. If she were to be come pregnant the scarring wouldn't be from the baby, it would be from the trauma induced from being raped. The baby was brought into the world and that cannot be helped. Getting rid of it is fine, it's just the way in which you do. Women don't have to go "into labor" per say, she can have a c-section. Whether or not she has an abortion or has the baby it's going to require some form of surgery. Adoption is the best way, rather than taking life the woman can choose to give life.

no one always pick the right choice!!!!!!!!!!!

you just don't get it!

thats not what i was trying to say. my point was that some father's aren't good, which is why it should be the mother's choice. but since there are some mother's that aren't good either, then it becomes the combined choice of many.

this what it comes down to, it is the mothers choice with the input of others, unless for some reason she isn't fit to make the decision, and if she isn't fit to make the decision, she shouldnt be having the child.

You are contradicting yourself. First your say, rightly so, that no one can pick the "right" choice. First off that is subjective secondly not everyone is fit to make said judgement. Then you go on to say that because people are subject to errors it should be the womans decision? I guess I don't get it. Because she can make the wrong decision it should be hers? Or because he can?

Either I don't get it or your argument just dosn't hold water. Unless you bring more to the table I am just going to assume it is in face that latter.

there is no argument to be played out here BBtB. You are saying it is your right to have input into the decision, and it is. However it isnt your right to say "no you must bear my child". The actual process of bearing that child is left to the woman, and in doing so, she is the one who must make the ultimate decision.

You can have all the input you wish, but in the end, the final decision is hers.

The fact that you helped concieve this child is important, and so is your input into thedecision. However, if the woman decides she wants an abortion, how can you stop her (apart from becoming violent and/or restraining her physically)?

You can't!(unless she is considered unfit to make this decision - another discussion) Thus the ultimate decision is hers, not yours.

out of curiosity...those of you who are strongly pro-life...are you also vegetarians? This is a entirely hypothetical comparsion and no way does it reflect reality but humans control lives of animals daily by choosing to eat them, destroying habitat etc. and it is possible to draw similaties between animals and babies/fetuses in that neither have a great*[generally] mental capacity, but both are life forms...yet we choose to eat animals.

Now, this isnt to promote vegetarianism since I'm not one...it's just a thought. And I'm not entirely pro choice...i used to be but then growing up I realised that the average person cant be trusted to make wise decisions lol...no seriously...why give the choice if it'll be abused. Life is precious and at the same time women should have the choice but the average woman who gets these are raped and miserable, but teens or women who had abortions 5 or 6 times before. Personally i wanna slap them and tell em to smarten up but then in weighing the outcomes...I'd still have to say i'm a reluctant pro choicer

A woman who doesnt want the baby and has the baby will NOT love it, and putting babies up for adoption may be an option but for a child to find happy circumstances through adoption isn't common. Also women may keep the child and just be emotionally distant or abuse them etc etc...the consequences of having the baby is really tragic to think about.

i dont think hinduism really talks much about this. (or prolly i never looked into it)

anyway, i was raised in an atmosphere where abortion was treated as a contraceptive and society didnt look down that much.

You don't know that. You wouldn't have any idea seeing as how you didn't have the child. I know a few people who were adopted and they have had great lives. They grew up in great families. More often than not women love their children very much, so much infact that they give them up to provide a better life for them. That's true love. How often do you hear about kids being adopted and then the parents beating them? Not often, I know I never have. Not to long ago on MTV there was this show called "True Life" and this one particular episode dealt with adoption. Anyways, the woman who was giving the baby up for adoption planned in advance, found a loving family and on the day she gave birth she was sad because she was letting go of something she loved so much. I've never heard of a woman having a baby and saying "I hate you, I don't love you". Also, the whole vegetarianism thing was way off, so I won't comment further.

Alright, I think I've got it. Abortion should be legal because morality shouldn't be legislated. Sweet!

Hey, I've got an idea! Why don't I go out and knock a girl up just for the hell of it? After all, rape is my moral decision and moral decisions shouldn't be legislated. And why on earth did we stop Hitler from ridding the world of all of those God-forsaken Jews? It as his decision as the leader of his nation and the United States shouldn't have interfered with that. Hey, while we're at it why don't we put all of those fucking niggers back to work where they belong? They're not even human, so its not like they should be allowed to do anything else. Its my moral, God-given right to own property and that's what niggers are.

Come to think about it, why the hell are all of these bitches complaining about how its their choice to have an abortion? Woman, return to the kitchen that spawned you and don't leave until its time to bear me another child! Its my moral right as a man to be the master of this house and I don't need any backtalk!

If you were offended by anything I said in those past paragraphs, perhaps you should consider that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Actions often cause harm and it is the purpose of society to monitor those actions.

Good Point Killconey. One of Pro-choicer's/pro-abortion biggest arguements is on the notion that the "fetus" isn't human. Hmmm that sounds familiar. Does the 3/5's act ring a bell? Black people weren't human. Jews weren't humans, however Hitler only got 6 million of them, you barbarians managed to get 40+ million.

Mojo_PeiPei,

Who are you calling "barbarians"?

The people that are for the slaughtering of unborn children.

please define human for me Mojo_PeiPei.

most people say genetics.

however, chimps have 98% of the same genes as us. Does that make them 98% human?

people with Downs syndrome have one extra chromosome. 1/26 is approx equal to 4% difference from human..

does that make people with down syndrome any less human than a chimp??

Mammals are +85% genetically similar to humans.

a human fetus is of course human, whether it is alive or not is the difficult question and what the abortion discussion is mostly about.

how do you define when life starts and a good reason WHY?

Well, in order to determine when death happens a doctor looks for a heartbeat and brainwave activity. Both of these occur often before the woman even knows she's pregnant, so technically the baby would be alive before she even knew it was there.

As far as Otaku goes, that is a damn good argument! No to disputing it: the difference between chimps and humans is greater than simple genetics and has to do more with the fact that we are of two different species. People with Down Syndrome, while perhaps genetically different, are still homo sapien.

MacnG: Easy, the human fetus is living, if it wasn't it wouldn't grow. Ask yourself this: When was the last time you saw a dead thing grow? Do you ever see dead chicken in the store grow? No, of course not because they aren't living. And that's why abortion is murder, the human fetus is living. You are living until the day you die.

on a personal sidenote, I would love to take some of what Killconey said and quote it completely out of context. :)

svt, ok.

so how do you define when life starts and a good reason WHY?

Mac: When the egg and sperm become one to form a zygote.

wow great reason why.

Ok, couldn't resist replying to this debate. First off, I wouldn't want to be born if I was going to have a miserable life of suffering.. or knowing one of my parents was a rapist, or violently abusive, neglegent etc. (just my opinion.. although I've had this discussion with friends and dont know anyone who would disagree yet)

With much, much thought on this issue... I don't think the answer is as simple is one OR the other only. It's not black or white.. but shades of grey. Each circumstance is different and not one solution is always the best for each one. (For a lot of issues, I'd say)

Anyway, If I have to choose one label or the other for this debate, I'd say I am pro choice. I just don't think it should be used as a form of birthcontrol instead of condoms, pill, etc. (I know a couple women who have used abortion that way a multiple times. I definately think those were unwise and irresponsible decisions).

However, I would like to add, pregnancy *prevention* information wasn't nearly as easy to obtain until recently (even today , there can be difficulty aquiring that information or the products for some folks).. so I can understand why there have been such great numbers of abortions. (Not saying that is a justification) I do believe that number will decrease respectively as more prevention information becomes readily available, which I can't fathom ever being a bad thing. (whew, beyond time for zzzz, hope this post made sense)

The baby wouldn't have to know this until he or she had developed in to an adult. Even if you told the story of conception at an early age he or she wouldn't understand. Again, the baby is an unfortunate product of such a terrible crime, they had no say in the matter. Humans are a product of their environment, that is to say that if a baby that was a product of rape and was born into this world they could be a great person. They're a plenty of couples willing to adopt that could help raise that child. I can't believe you wouldn't want to live just because someone you don't even know committed a crime. If I was the child, I think I would of had a more of a hard time with the fact that my mother wanted to have me killed rather than giving me the chance to be someone.

true! knowledge is the most important and effective form of birth control, unfortunately, many people dont have it.

On a sidenote, I've gotten in great trouble for giving that speech before in any context. Its fun and you all should try it whether you actually oppose abortion or not!

This thread is fucked. I can't even read the entire thing. BBtB you sir have issues. It is not ok for a woman who does not want to go through the hell that is child labor but it is ok for you to kill her for it? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Let me see if I get this right.... Birth control is bad to Christians because you are preventing the birth of god’s children. Christians frequent poor neighborhoods spreading the good word knowing that many of them will follow you blindly to salvation. Now not using birth control they have 5 kids but you conservatives (who are mostly Christian) think she should not have kids if she cannot afford them and should not get assistance from the government because that would be your tax dollars. She also should not have an abortion because that would be killing one of god’s children. So should she give up the children for adoption so your tax money can pay more to foster parents than they do to the welfare mothers?


For those of you that think a man should have equal say in this matter. I will agree to this once you carry a child around in your womb for 9 months. Once you have done that you have a right to equal choice. Maybe get raped by your father at 13 and pregnant with your son/brother. Or go running in the park and get raped only to carry the son of the bastard that violated you. Better yet, your wife gets pregnant with your child, and dies on the operating table along with the child because they needed to remove the unborn baby to save her.

She gets more of a choice becuase it is HER BODY@! What part of that do you not get? She is the one that will go through it, not YOU!


And about the laziness part. Why are you banging a lazy woman unprotected? Maybe it was your laziness that got her knocked up in the first place. Maybe she should remove your balls for it. How does that sound?