Why Abortion is Immoral

[Ana the Ist]

There are many other choices as well, such as contraception or abortion. Why are you jumping all the way to forced sterilization?

Lol it's a bit disconcerting, isn't it?

It's almost as if he thinks if your born with a vagina and womb you don't get any say in how they're used.

 

[William67]

There are many other choices as well, such as contraception or abortion. Why are you jumping all the way to forced sterilization?

Show me where I said "forced" sterilization. I'm saying that if a woman hates children so much she cant stand the thought of one growing inside her, she should have herself sterilized.

But I love how you twisted my words. Typical leftist debating strategy.

 

[William67]

Lol it's a bit disconcerting, isn't it?

It's almost as if he thinks if your born with a vagina and womb you don't get any say in how they're used.

No, but I do think that if you create a child, the father should have some say in the matter. As it is, men have absolutely no rights whatsoever.

 

[stevevw]

Some may say that abortion is safe and maybe it is today with modern techniques. But that doesn't mean it is right and good. While there was one study quoted that claimed women dont feel any guilt or depression from an abortion this study was done with on only 67 women. It bucks the plethora of peer-reviewed studies confirming women who have abortions face both depression and other mental health problems.

It is the same for women who have miscarriages. They grieve and go through the range of emotions just like the loss of any person in their lives. I think the true mark of whether people think that a fetus is a life or not is in the way a mother feels when she loses her baby. People can pretend that its not a problem or that a fetus is not life. But the truth is in the real life situations of where people have to deal with the realities of having an abortion and the consequences.
Recent Studies Confirm Women Face Depression After Abortion, Other Problems
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/09/28/nat-6733/
Abortion Risks: A list of major psychological complications related to abortion
A study of the medical records of 56,741 California medicaid patients revealed that women who had abortions were 160 percent more likely than delivering women to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in the first 90 days following abortion or delivery. Rates of psychiatric treatment remained significantly higher for at least four years.

http://afterabortion.org/2011/abort...chological-complications-related-to-abortion/

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, but I do think that if you create a child, the father should have some say in the matter. As it is, men have absolutely no rights whatsoever.

I don't disagree...I'm just not sure how that would play out in reality. Ultimately, someone has to make the decision.

 

[stevevw]

I don't disagree...I'm just not sure how that would play out in reality. Ultimately, someone has to make the decision.

You probably right that in reality there may be a lot of unhappy and mixed up men out there who have been pushed aside or at least feel they have been excluded from something they felt a part of.

 

[DaisyDay]

How is consenting to have sex the same as consenting to pregnancy when active measures to prevent pregnancy have been taken? I don't buy that argument at all.

 

[stevevw]

I was reading some of the earlier posts about when is a fetus life and the value of a future for a fetus. What about when a women finds out she is pregnant or a couple do and they begin to think about their own life styles in regards to the health of the baby. The mother usually will watch what she eats, smoking and taking drugs is frowned upon as being bad for the unborn babies present and future health. So the couple become very concerned about the health of the unborn baby right from the start and all through the pregnancy. We hear about health issues and proper planning from health professionals for the unborn baby from day one until full term.

So isn't this looking out for the present health of the fetus no matter what stage which would indicate that the fetus is life that needs to be kept healthy and treated well like any life. That doing the right thing during pregnancy is ensuring the future health of the fetus and therefore baby. It seems that the reality of the words and actions of people involved in a pregnancy from day one speak of life and future life that needs to be concerned about. Its easy to rationalize and justify something in theory. But what some say and what actually happens in real life situations are two different things.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I do not believe morality depends on it but I have zero doubts that a newborn is capable of thought. It really isn't a difficult question at all. Babies are not born "brain dead".

Lots of grey area. How do you define "thought"?

I think babies are conscious...kind of. But it is an entirely different consciousness than that of an adult. I don't think babies have coherent thoughts and they obviously don't have an internal sense of self. And it seems that babies cannot form long term memories (hence why no one can remember their own birth). Their brain is still developing. They obviously aren't brain dead (didn't you and I already agree that "brain dead" means "dead"?). But there is a continuum of consciousness and babies are much lower down on the ladder than adult humans.

(Btw, by our agreed upon definition, fetuses aren't brain dead either).

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

It would seem your definition is becoming more narrow. Why did you go from not wanting to use person to define a fetus because

But immediately invoke it when dealing with the other end of the spectrum?

You didn't seem to address the points made in my post.

The definition is no more narrow. A brain dead person is a dead person. They have no more potential. The whole basis of Tree of Life's OP (which I agree with) is that death is wrong because it robs human being of future potential experiences.

I never used personhood in my argument. I simply reiterated the OP's argument.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

It's a tricky subject, and any decisions about it are going to involve at least some arbitrary lines being drawn. But the discussion still needs to be had, we can't just throw up pur hands and say "slippery slope" and ignore it. Like many things, consciousness, mind, sentience all exist on a spectrum. And like on a spectrum, it's impossible to say where red ends and green begins. That does not, however, meanthat one end of the spectrum isn't green while the other is red.

If you divorce the concept of consciousness from the topic of abortion (as the OP has done), then you avoid the slippery slopes.

Here is the OP's argument in a nutshell: killing unique human beings is immoral if it deprives them of future experiences. Exceptions to this rule such as war, capital punishment, etc must be justified. Therefore, the onus is on those that think abortion to be moral (or amoral) to justify why abortion is an exception to the rule.

Fetuses are unique human beings in the broadest sense possible. They are genetically, uniquely human; of the species Homo sapiens; capable of having future experiences, etc. It seems reasonable to take a conservatively broad definition when defining a human being. Narrowing the definition only opens up inconsistencies within the definitions.


For example, if you use consciousness/mind/thought/intelligence/memory as a definition, then why do you believe it is wrong to kill a newborn baby if the mother does not want it? It can easily be argued that newborn babies are less conscious than other animals that we kill such as pigs, cows, etc. They can't form long term memories. They have no concept of self. They don't have higher brain functions. They can't even express complex emotions.

The only reason it is wrong to kill newborn babies is the exact same reason it is wrong to kill a fetus: you are robbing them of future experiences. Oh, and babies are cute while fetuses are not....but "cuteness" seems a poor rationale.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Basing the law upon it is something we already do though...isn't it?

Don't we examine the mentally diminished and decide whether they can do things like serve on a jury or in the armed forces?

Don't we look at those in a vegetative state and have someone else determine if they are to remain upon life support or not?

This is the heart of the issue for me...because those who think abortion immoral want it illegal because they've conflated morality and law. Laws shouldn't serve morality necessarily...they should serve the good of society. IMO the benefits to society of keeping abortion legal greatly outweigh making it illegal.

Not sure if you've read my other posts. I am pro-choice. I don't want abortion to be made illegal. The negative impacts of it being illegal are too great and I don't think making it illegal will really solve the problems.

However, you are correct, we do base the law upon consciousness when it comes to consent. With regards to a mentally handicapped person, we do not want them to serve in the armed forces because we are concerned that, due to their mental state, they are not fully aware of what they are doing. The same argument is made for the case of having certain individuals serve on a jury. In the case of a person being in a vegetative state, the default position of medical personnel is to keep that person alive unless prior consent was given by family members or the now-unconscious patient.

Do you see? The default position is to keep human beings alive. Exceptions need to be justified.

In the case of a mentally handicapped person joining the army, we are protecting that person from being killed doing something they weren't fully consenting to. If you are unable to give consent (for whatever reason), then the default position is: protect that human being and keep them alive.

Fetuses can't give consent to anything. Killing them robs them of future human experiences and personhood.

Now, why do you think a fetus is the exception?

The onus is on you to explain why killing fetuses are exceptions to the rule. The rule is: keep human beings alive.

 

[Belk]

You didn't seem to address the points made in my post.

The definition is no more narrow. A brain dead person is a dead person. They have no more potential. The whole basis of Tree of Life's OP (which I agree with) is that death is wrong because it robs human being of future potential experiences.

I never used personhood in my argument. I simply reiterated the OP's argument.

Actually it appears to me that you specifically used personhood as the determining factor in the post I quoted. I even highlighted it.

A brain dead human being is fundamentally different from a fetus for two reasons:

1) A brain dead person has no potential to become a fully functioning, thinking, conscious person. So, from the perspective of the OP's arguments, killing a brain dead person does not deprive them of any future experiences because it is impossible for them to have such experiences anyway. Thus, the premises of the OP's argument are not fulfilled and it can be reasonable to suggest that a brain dead person can be killed amorally.

Now perhaps you misspoke yourself and intended it differently but the way it reads to me now is that you are using the potential for something to become a person in the future as the determining criteria by which it would be moral to kill someone who is brain dead (with no hope of recovery) versus a fetus that might potentially become a person.

Do I have your position wrong again?

 

[Belk]

What is "viable"? Viable independent of the mother or a viable fetus meaning that everything is function correct to develop into an independent baby.

Viability outside the uterus is generally considered the determinate factor.

If we are talking about the chance of the baby surviving if born, do we just keep changing the age as technology finds a way to keep these babies alive? 24 weeks is the accepted age now...but it may be moving toward 22 weeks.

Correct. Which is what we have seen in the time since Roe V Wade.

Is a baby really defined as becoming a baby by the status of our technology and in a constant flux?

No, it is not. A baby remains defined as a human being that has been born.

Does a third world baby become "human" later than a first world one that has access to the finest technology since they are most likely further along gestationally before they do survive premature births?

No. From sperm through fertilization and past birth it has always been human. What changes is its legal status as a person.

 

[Belk]

You didn't seem to address the points made in my post.

Oh. And I will be happy to address your points once we clear up my confusion. I must say I am enjoying this discussion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not sure if you've read my other posts. I am pro-choice. I don't want abortion to be made illegal. The negative impacts of it being illegal are too great and I don't think making it illegal will really solve the problems.

However, you are correct, we do base the law upon consciousness when it comes to consent. With regards to a mentally handicapped person, we do not want them to serve in the armed forces because we are concerned that, due to their mental state, they are not fully aware of what they are doing. The same argument is made for the case of having certain individuals serve on a jury. In the case of a person being in a vegetative state, the default position of medical personnel is to keep that person alive unless prior consent was given by family members or the now-unconscious patient.

Do you see? The default position is to keep human beings alive. Exceptions need to be justified.

In the case of a mentally handicapped person joining the army, we are protecting that person from being killed doing something they weren't fully consenting to. If you are unable to give consent (for whatever reason), then the default position is: protect that human being and keep them alive.

Fetuses can't give consent to anything. Killing them robs them of future human experiences and personhood.

Now, why do you think a fetus is the exception?

The onus is on you to explain why killing fetuses are exceptions to the rule. The rule is: keep human beings alive.

Sorry leftright, I didn't mean to make my post appear to characterize you as pro-life.

Perhaps my examples aren't the best...but I honestly don't know enough about the topic to give a better one for certain. What happens in a situation where a John Doe ends up vegetative? Who decides then and upon what criteria?

What's the situations with comas of uncertain possibility? I'm speaking about those kinds of comas where a person may make a recovery...but then again they may never awaken from the coma? That seems to me a similar situation where possible valuable human future is uncertain. Are loved ones required to keep the person alive in the coma? Are they just expected to absorb that kind of medical cost? Does the state absorb the costs? Or does it end up with the next of kin/loved ones deciding whether or not to terminate someone's life?

I've always been under the impression that the last question I listed there was the situation legally. A wife or husband can choose to end the person's life (probably after some prescribed amount of time for possible recovery). That situation is one that's not all that dissimilar to abortion in my mind. Perhaps the odds for a quality life are higher for the fetus than the comatose person...but there is the issue of uncertainty and cost in both cases.

Frankly, I don't see the rule as "keep humans alive". On a societal level, we look at the issue of cost. We accept certain levels of air and water pollution...knowing full well how many people they will kill yearly on average, and that's just one example of many. It's a cost benefit analysis. Why cannot then an individual make the same analysis with their life and the life growing inside them?

At least, that's the argument I would make if I were interested in arguing the morality of abortion. I'm not lol. My view of morality is one that believes we cannot prove a moral as a fact...they are merely opinions. A purely logic based argument for or against a moral position is rather absurd because it factors out all sorts of things like emotions. I don't see a lot of people using a strictly logic based approach to morality in the real world....so using one theoretically is a bit useless.

I'm really only concerned with abortion's legality...which is something I consider a societal good. Making it illegal only hurts us as a society. That wouldn't change, IMO, even if all of society were to agree it was immoral....as long as it happens (and I see no reason to think it won't happen) it's better it remain legal.

 

[jenny1972]

Of course, although it is important to note that some medications interfere with birth control pills. I was conceived despite such measures. If I relied on that to resolve the issue, it would be the equivalent of a self-performed abortion. Besides, while the medication is highly toxic to a developing infant, I have taken it for so long that my liver will clear it out of my system within a week or so, beyond slight traces at levels too low to do anything. Unfortunately, the medication does its worst in the first month of development, which is where the heart defects come in. For some background information, it is an extremely strong stimulant medication. The pregnancy class is C, but I know what it does to the animals, even if human studies have not been performed extensively. That is irrelevant to the situation. What would you have me do if I found out that I was pregnant? This is why my situation, weirdly enough, is the ultimate test of the blurry line where most people divide allowable abortions and inexcusable ones. If I was pregnant and didn't take my medication, my life would be wrecked and unlikely to recover enough to support a child properly, or myself for that matter. If I did take my medication, I would knowingly be endangering my child. If I get an abortion, well, it's an abortion. Yet, my medication in and of itself does not keep me alive, so the argument that abortions should only be allowed if the mother will die should she take it to term does not apply here. Where do you draw the line?


Because people are paranoid about being pregnant, and would rather find out as soon as possible. Why wait that long to test yourself if you know you performed risky activities?

if not taking the medication will end your life and taking it to save your life will result in possible disability for a child (if you do not miscarry) you must take your medication because if you die obviously you both die. if the medication is not necessary to keep you alive the responsible thing to do is to stop taking your medication because a human life is developing and if it is possible to stop taking medications then you should it might have a negative effect on your life or it might have a positive effect on your life you dont know the future or what the result will be but if you know that you can survive without it and another human life is at stake fear for the future is not a good reason to end another persons life what you predict and worry might happen is the same as the people who get abortions for financial reasons because of fear for the future . you may find that you really dont need that medication after all if you take a break from it you might meet caring compassionate people that you never wouldve met had you not stopped taking this medication that will change your life for the better .

 

[fhansen]

And you are completely entitled to that view and the actions it informs. For you.

Other people have other views.

Sure, some people believe they have the right to behead others also. Or that we should legalize pedophilia.

 

[fhansen]

Fair enough. How many of those woman that you talked to expressed feelings of grief or remorse for what they did?

Good question. I've spoke to women who've regretted the decision or decisions later-women who weren't necessarily believers. Eventually this will occur IMO. But in any case, if no life is involved, or if human life has no value, why should the decision entail any deep consideration anyway? What difference should it make?

 

[fhansen]

We don’t have absolute rights over our bodies. I don’t have the right to freely use my body in such a way as to wantonly harm another person. And most societies already recognize that we don’t have the right to take innocent human life-and all such life just happens to originate from nowhere else than the womb.