Is or can abortions constitute selfishness in some cases?

[randomvim]

In some cases an elective abortion may be motivated by self-serving reasons. But no one should expect that all women must conform to his personal and idiosyncratic standards of virtue. I'm more concerned with legality than ethics. I don't believe that the condition of being pregnant negates a woman's bodily autonomy from fertilization onward. A fetus is genetically distinct individual, but it's not legally a person. And--at least up a point--a pregnant woman must retain the right to decide how her uterus, and other organ systems will be used. Laws that criminalize abortion from fertilization onward are just too authoritarian. They give way too much power to the state.

so you would be okay with identifying some humans as non human or not persons?

 

[jayem]

I wonder if there are other ways a doctor can be able to save both lives in some cases.

That's what OB-GYNs always try to do. I'm not an OB, but I've worked in health care for 40 years. I was on staff at a teaching hospital with an active high-risk OB service. Managing medically complicated pregnancies can be very challenging. You have 2 patients to worry about. But these docs live to deliver healthy babies. Losing a pregnancy, or having to terminate for medical reasons is an intense personal defeat.

Not to go off-topic, but this kind of specialized treatment is only possible when women have access to prenatal care. This means having decent health insurance. Many high-risk pregnant women are indigent and rely on Medicaid. Which is always one of the expenses conservative state legislators want to cut. Anyone concerned about saving babies should support all women having affordable, comprehensive health coverage and never paying higher premiums than men. As they often had to do in the bad old days.

 

[jayem]

so you would be okay with identifying some humans as non human or not persons?

I'm okay with following the Constitution. Which never explicitly states, or even implies that the unborn are "persons" as that term is used in the document. If you think that is wrong, then the Constitution should be amended. And I would fully support such an amendment stating that personhood occurs at either of 2 points, whichever comes first:

1) At birth, whenever that occurs.

2) When a fetus in utero, reaches 24 weeks of gestational age, as determined by standard obstetric techniques.

 

[thesopranopiano]

Overall, I don't think having an elective abortion is selfish, as long as it is done as early as possible. I acknowledge that having an abortion ends a life, but at such early stage, the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus. But abortions after fetal viability are more complicated. If a woman has a healthy pregnancy, and at around 7 months decides to terminate because she suddenly changed her mind, maybe I could consider that selfish, although I really don't know how common that is. If an abortion is needed for the mother's health, where is the line drawn for when the abortion could be done legally? Do we base it on the chance of survival (which has room for error), or does the mother have to already be dying? I'm more concerned with women having the option to terminate available to them when needed, than I am with unnecessary late term abortions.

I have my own beliefs on abortion which may contradict yours as I don't believe women should abort their children, even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life. While it may seem to be an extreme position to some of you, let me explain. I don't think aborting a baby is the answer because even though rape and incest are egregious, vile, and horrible personal violations (forgive me if you agree with how I define rape and incest), the baby or babies are innocent.

I'm curious to know why you don't believe saving the mother's life should be an exception. Your explanation only mentioned rape and incest, and saving the mother's life just doesn't seem comparable, IMO.

 

[Lik3]

I understand what you are saying,soprano. Help me to understand exactly about a mother aborting her baby to save her life. Maybe I am misinterpreting that, but are there any other reasons besides saving the mother's life why aborting a baby to save her life isn't comparable. I am just uncomfortable with anyone aborting or shortening a life of their unborn regardless.

I now wonder why aborting a baby to save the mother's life abortion if it is "necessary" to save the mother's life. (I wonder if the father plays a role in deciding whether or not to make a decision.) To me, abortion is a term meaning the ending of a life that has already been conceived from the beginning. Abortion in all cases may or may not be selfish, but I don't believe in general or at all, that it is a women's life to choose to do with her body, even medically.

I am saddened that there are people, activists especially, who seem to misunderstand that there are selfish reasons for having ended a life other than in my opinion, deception in a religious sense. That may not be their intention, but there are women who have abortions for very selfish and ungodly reasons. Yes, there are people who take their views way too far on both sides but I believe that all life, unborn or not, is of value. By the way, what does the mother believe about terminating her pregnancy to save her life, her child's life, or both since she is the one carrying her child (or children)? I believe that in a religious sense, that women in general are being deceived, especially by pro-choice activists who believe in having the right to her own body, regardless of the reason.

 

[bhsmte]

A whole lot of activities can reach the level of selfishness.

 

[ver 2-10]

Is or can abortions constitute selfishness in some cases?

No, sometimes we here in Denmark see it as a merciful action, since it would be cruel to let a child be born in a family that wouldn't love it, or be in poverty followed by starvation and sickness, grow up by abusive parents, etc.

 

[randomvim]

That's what OB-GYNs always try to do. I'm not an OB, but I've worked in health care for 40 years. I was on staff at a teaching hospital with an active high-risk OB service. Managing medically complicated pregnancies can be very challenging. You have 2 patients to worry about. But these docs live to deliver healthy babies. Losing a pregnancy, or having to terminate for medical reasons is an intense personal defeat.

Not to go off-topic, but this kind of specialized treatment is only possible when women have access to prenatal care. This means having decent health insurance. Many high-risk pregnant women are indigent and rely on Medicaid. Which is always one of the expenses conservative state legislators want to cut. Anyone concerned about saving babies should support all women having affordable, comprehensive health coverage and never paying higher premiums than men. As they often had to do in the bad old days.

yeah. too many mixed stories here. hears this and heard too many professionals "advise" induced abortion too quick despite other options.

 

[Cearbhall]

I understand that there are strong opinions on the subject, but would you or do you consider abortion a selfish act?

Sure, sometimes. But oh well.

 

[randomvim]

I'm okay with following the Constitution. Which never explicitly states, or even implies that the unborn are "persons" as that term is used in the document. If you think that is wrong, then the Constitution should be amended. And I would fully support such an amendment stating that personhood occurs at either of 2 points, whichever comes first:

1) At birth, whenever that occurs.

2) When a fetus in utero, reaches 24 weeks of gestational age, as determined by standard obstetric techniques.

1. only time I remember the constitution using term person was when it clarified slaves as 2/3rd a person and for voting. otherwise i dont see person actual defined.

despite built on the idea that all men are created equal, the natives, irish, blacks, italians, mexicans, asian, etc. were not considered equal until a few decades ago and still that is in question.

so relying on law is not efficient.

furthermore, you quote a document from a time when peopke did not question whether or not those of us in the womb are not human or a person.

2. similar to the racist qualifications for humanity, you point out criteria that another person could never pass for your own purpose .

3. what is the fetus before birth or 24 weeks if not a human?

4. definition of person does not support your claim either.

 

[randomvim]

No, sometimes we here in Denmark see it as a merciful action, since it would be cruel to let a child be born in a family that wouldn't love it, or be in poverty followed by starvation and sickness, grow up by abusive parents, etc.

is that not an assumption?

 

[ver 2-10]

is that not an assumption?

No, it's often how it's portrayed in various media, TV, paper, etc.

 

[Cearbhall]

so you would be okay with identifying some humans as non human or not persons?

Not persons, yes.

 

[randomvim]

No, it's often how it's portrayed in various media, TV, paper, etc.

portraid by media supporting abortion. but the question was towards the childs outcome.

are we not assuming the child is going to habe a bad life, hence abortion is okay?

 

[randomvim]

Not persons, yes.

how? definition of a person is an individual human. thats it. thats thw definition held for as long as the word existed.

so again. how?

 

[ver 2-10]

[..]are we not assuming the child is going to habe a bad life, hence abortion is okay?

Yes, only in such cases, but if it's opportunistic like "oh my boyfriend left me, i'll choose to get abortion" then it's immoral, or if it's a very late abortion.

 

[randomvim]

Yes, only in such cases, but if it's opportunistic like "oh my boyfriend left me, i'll choose to get abortion" then it's immoral, or if it's a very late abortion.

what ever you just typed up after yes makes no sense.

ao lets focus on the yes for now. since it is an assumption. it is a fallacy. to argue that abortion is merciful to prevent bad things for that person who is killed is invalid.


furthermore, this concept could be used as it has been used to kill people who did not want to die. those who did not have to die. used as a means to oppress. due to that person's mental or physical health. some who were living happy lives.

a final solution to limit costs and create a better humanity. hope we can see how immoral this is whether commited against someone who has been born or still in the womb. state of being should not change how we view man.

 

[ver 2-10]

[..] to argue that abortion is merciful to prevent bad things for that person who is killed is invalid.

Says who?

 

[randomvim]

Says who?

logic/philosophy.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

othwrwise if we really need to know how happy a person can be and how they can still have joy despite hardships, there are many stories shared online. search for foundations and groups that rep. handicap, etc.

 

[Cearbhall]

how? definition of a person is an individual human. thats it. thats thw definition held for as long as the word existed.

No, that's incorrect. Perhaps colloquially, but the relevant concept here is the legal definition of "person," which is not synonymous with "human."