Why Abortion is Immoral

[Belk]

We don’t have absolute rights over our bodies.

I beg to differ

I don’t have the right to freely use my body in such a way as to wantonly harm another person.

You are attempting to conflate to completely separate concepts here. If you wish to claim we don't have absolute rights over our own bodies you have to demonstrate that instead of bringing in third parties.

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.

Bet me dollars to doughnuts. Society has always recognized the taking of "innocent" life in the service of the greater good. Otherwise every war ever fought would be considered immoral.

 

[fhansen]

I beg to differ


You are attempting to conflate to completely separate concepts here. If you wish to claim we don't have absolute rights over our own bodies you have to demonstrate that instead of bringing in third parties.

The unborn child is a third party-harmed by the actions of other parties in the case of abortion.

Bet me dollars to doughnuts. Society has always recognized the taking of "innocent" life in the service of the greater good. Otherwise every war ever fought would be considered immoral.

The taking of innocent life is looked upon as a necessary evil in war, not as the goal in itself towards the end in mind. And certainly the "greater good" has nothing to do with eliminating a life merely because it causes me an inconvenience. Otherwise it should be acceptable to kill anyone who just happens to get in my way.

 

[SteveB28]

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

Perhaps you might like to leave the room while the adults are having a discussion.



.

 

[fhansen]

Perhaps you might like to leave the room while the adults are having a discussion.



.

Obviously you couldn't think up an adult comeback.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Well I'm glad you understand the logical argument I made...but I think you might have missed the point behind it. Our moral opinions aren't necessarily based upon logic...there's a host of complex factors that go into deciding what is morally good or bad.

Ever read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"? In it, he makes a logical argument for the selling and eating of babies...specifically for a solution to the Irish potato famine. It's satire...but his point is the same, we don't create morals based upon logic alone.

In my view, our morals ought to be given to us by God.

Well you understand the practical difficulties of such a law....right?

If we make abortions illegal except in cases of rape...how would we determine the rape occurred? Our legal system isn't really known for its quickness...most women would be carrying the baby to term before the trial commences. That's if a trial commences, since there's always the possibility the rapist isn't caught.

If the standard is simply that the woman claims she was raped...then we've just created a system where women lie about being raped more often than they do now. I'm not even going to get into all the kinds of problems that's likely to cause.

The effect on the actual number of abortions would be negligible IMO. It would save our often overworked/unsupported police force a lot of time and effort just to let women legally abort.

You're quite right about that. I hadn't really thought of it. Well, I suppose perhaps we could let the woman do an abortion if she just said she had been raped — however, if, after the trial, it were determined that she has really not been raped, she would have to pay a huge fine: that could make women think twice before lying...

Nevertheless, although I do understand that this would be difficult to enforce legally, do not forget that the point of this thread is mainly to discuss whether or not it is immoral, not whether or not it should be illegal.

I do appreciate your logical consistency though. Kudos to you for that.

Thanks! Your argument has a lot of logical consistency too! Kudos for that and for making me think about something I had never really thought about!

 

[SteveB28]

In my view, our morals ought to be given to us by God.



You're quite right about that. I hadn't really thought of it. Well, I suppose perhaps we could let the woman do an abortion if she just said she had been raped — however, if, after the trial, it were determined that she has really not been raped, she would have to pay a huge fine: that could make women think twice before lying...

Nevertheless, although I do understand that this would be difficult to enforce legally, do not forget that the point of this thread is mainly to discuss whether or not it is immoral, not whether or not it should be illegal.



Thanks! Your argument has a lot of logical consistency too! Kudos for that and for making me think about something I had never really thought about!

That you are prepared to think about these issues is a good sign.

It is only through reflection that we might come to change our position.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Ah, at last! The hypocrisy finally reveals itself - I wondered how long.

This argument has NOTHING to do with a desire to 'save' the foetus. If it were, you would have no hesitation in advocating for it in ALL situations.

But you don't. You would permit it to be destroyed, just as long as the behaviour of the woman meets your conditions! It lives or dies, not on its own merits, but only if you consider that the woman's actions were honourable.

This has nothing to do with 'saving the unborn'. It is entirely about controlling women!

I revealed no hypocrisy. I never said (nor was I implying) that, in cases of rape, abortion would cease to be immoral. In fact, even if the woman has been raped, it would still be immoral for her to abort the child. However, in case of a rape, it is also immoral to force the woman to go through unwanted suffering. Therefore, both things would be immoral.

Yes, it has a lot to do with the desire to save the foetus (and I wonder why you put ‘save’ in quotes). That was precisely one of the aspects I considered in the ‘on the other hand’ list of things. But, in this case, there is also the desire to save the woman from going through unwanted suffering when she did nothing to consent it.

This is not comparable with women who want to have sex and disregard the consequences, and then try to flee away from undesired consequences through immoral means: this is irresponsibility. In the situation of rape, you have the case of a woman who was essentially forced to get pregnant and never wanted nor consented to it. We must respect her right to choose whether or not to get pregnant; and, since the is already pregnant, abortion can be seen as a ‘this would not be good, but it is the best we have’ way of cancelling it. This is by no means comparable to a woman who chooses to take the risk of getting pregnant, aware that she will cancel it if she actually gets pregnant.

It is not about controlling women, but about respecting their rights. Every foetus has the right to live, and every woman has the right to choose to get pregnant. How do you reconcile them? If the woman has deliberately chosen to have sex, there is no question: she has consented to get pregnant, and now we must respect the right of the foetus to live. But, if the woman never had a chance to consent or refuse to get pregnant, then we still have to try to respect the rights of both parties. It does not make sense to prevent her from aborting, because that is disrespecting her rights: it is preferable to talk and pray about it.

Something similar happens if, for some reason, it is determined that the woman's life will be at risk if she goes on to give birth. In that case, both the woman and the foetus have the right to live. In that case, it also does not make sense to force her to give birth, because that is disrespecting her rights: it is preferable to talk and pray about it.

Meanwhile, just to clarify, I believe it is still immoral, even in cases of rape and life-threat, to abort a foetus. Do not forget that this thread was made to discuss mainly whether or not abortion is immoral, not whether or not abortion should be carried out. However, since, in cases of rape and life-threat, it would also be immoral to prevent the woman from giving birth, this is my conclusion:

• Abortion is always immoral;
• Except for situations of rape or life-threat, it should never be carried out and should be criminalised;
• In situations of rape or life-threat, the woman should be given the right to choose whether or not to abort, and it is perfectly comprehensible and acceptable if she chooses to abort.

However, in most cases (where a woman simply chooses to abort because she had sex irresponsibly but willingly), it makes no sense to give her a ‘second chance’ to let her get away with this one, and she should not be allowed to abort. The rare exceptions of rape and life-threat are more difficult problems about which we cannot make such a universal decision — even though, even then, it would still be immoral.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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 .

Obviously, but the point of my situation is that the medication doesn't keep me alive; it keeps me functioning well enough to reliably take care of myself. Hypothetically, it is possible that I could take care of myself a full 9 months without taking it, but it is highly unlikely.

I have taken a break from the medication, in fact, I call it my unhappy pill because some of the many side effects include anxiety, depression, and insomnia, and I experience all of them. However, without it, I cannot focus on anything for more than a few moments, my body movements are like a puppet being controlled by a 5 year old, and the majority of humanity finds me excessively obnoxious and unaware of social situations even worse than when I am on it. I forget to do things like eat or sleep regularly, and usually end up stumbling in a circle for hours because I have so much energy but no focus to use it for anything.

Creeps the crap out of people that see me like that. My own mother cannot tolerate my presence when I am off my medication. In contrast, my boyfriend enjoys me when I am off it more than when I am on it, taking great humor in how my mind wanders to crazy and random places. But, how people feel about me as a person when I am off it is irrelevant; the fact remains that I have significant precedent for the fact that while off it, I cannot reliably take care of myself, let alone accomplish anything productive.

 

[jenny1972]

Obviously, but the point of my situation is that the medication doesn't keep me alive; it keeps me functioning well enough to reliably take care of myself. Hypothetically, it is possible that I could take care of myself a full 9 months without taking it, but it is highly unlikely.

I have taken a break from the medication, in fact, I call it my unhappy pill because some of the many side effects include anxiety, depression, and insomnia, and I experience all of them. However, without it, I cannot focus on anything for more than a few moments, my body movements are like a puppet being controlled by a 5 year old, and the majority of humanity finds me excessively obnoxious and unaware of social situations even worse than when I am on it. I forget to do things like eat or sleep regularly, and usually end up stumbling in a circle for hours because I have so much energy but no focus to use it for anything.

Creeps the crap out of people that see me like that. My own mother cannot tolerate my presence when I am off my medication. In contrast, my boyfriend enjoys me when I am off it more than when I am on it, taking great humor in how my mind wanders to crazy and random places. But, how people feel about me as a person when I am off it is irrelevant; the fact remains that I have significant precedent for the fact that while off it, I cannot reliably take care of myself, let alone accomplish anything productive.

there are women who have even severe ADHD and have managed without stimulant medication during pregnancy it can be done you can learn to manage never taking medication ever again there are many people who have ADHD who are not able to take stimulant medication but learn to manage without medication the fear that others will be annoyed with your behavior (what do you fear your loved ones will do abandon you when you need them because you are too annoying without medication and wouldnt understand not wanting to hurt your unborn baby with dangerous medications ?) i think thats a very unrealistic worry and so many opportunities are missed if we allow ourselves to be controlled by fear of the unknown there is no reason for you to give up the idea of being a mother or to think being without medication during pregnancy is going to completely ruin your life and make everyone hate and abandon you
http://adhdmanagement.com/how-i-survived-pregnancy-nursing-without-adhd-medication/

 

[Belk]

The unborn child is a third party-harmed by the actions of other parties in the case of abortion.

As I do not consider the "unborn" a person I do not agree.

The taking of innocent life is looked upon as a necessary evil in war, not as the goal in itself towards the end in mind. And certainly the "greater good" has nothing to do with eliminating a life merely because it causes me an inconvenience. Otherwise it should be acceptable to kill anyone who just happens to get in my way.

As I said.

 

[fhansen]

As I do not consider the "unborn" a person I do not agree.




As I said.

The difference is that, in war, the taking of innocent life is an evil side-effect, certainty not the objective of a "just war". One doesn't directly take an innocent life in order to further the purpose of war in this case, whether that purpose be self-defense or the defense of others. With abortion, the goal, itself, is arrived at by the taking of the life of the fetus, making the act intrinsically evil.

 

[Belk]

The difference is that, in war, the taking of innocent life is an evil side-effect, certainty not the objective of a "just war". One doesn't directly take an innocent life in order to further the purpose of war in this case, whether that purpose be self-defense or the defense of others. With abortion, the goal, itself, is arrived at by the taking of the life of the fetus, making the act intrinsically evil.

However the goal is not to take an innocent life. The goal is to exert ones bodily autonomy to not be pregnant. The loss of life is an unfortunate side effect just as in war.

 

[fhansen]

No, its not a side effect, because abortion is the very means to the end. One has to determine, choose, to take the life for the purpose of getting what they want. Murdering someone in order to steal from them is not a side effect, for example, while killing innocents in a just war definitely is.

 

[SteveB28]

I revealed no hypocrisy. I never said (nor was I implying) that, in cases of rape, abortion would cease to be immoral. In fact, even if the woman has been raped, it would still be immoral for her to abort the child. However, in case of a rape, it is also immoral to force the woman to go through unwanted suffering. Therefore, both things would be immoral.

Yes, it has a lot to do with the desire to save the foetus (and I wonder why you put ‘save’ in quotes). That was precisely one of the aspects I considered in the ‘on the other hand’ list of things. But, in this case, there is also the desire to save the woman from going through unwanted suffering when she did nothing to consent it.

This is not comparable with women who want to have sex and disregard the consequences, and then try to flee away from undesired consequences through immoral means: this is irresponsibility. In the situation of rape, you have the case of a woman who was essentially forced to get pregnant and never wanted nor consented to it. We must respect her right to choose whether or not to get pregnant; and, since the is already pregnant, abortion can be seen as a ‘this would not be good, but it is the best we have’ way of cancelling it. This is by no means comparable to a woman who chooses to take the risk of getting pregnant, aware that she will cancel it if she actually gets pregnant.

It is not about controlling women, but about respecting their rights. Every foetus has the right to live, and every woman has the right to choose to get pregnant. How do you reconcile them? If the woman has deliberately chosen to have sex, there is no question: she has consented to get pregnant, and now we must respect the right of the foetus to live. But, if the woman never had a chance to consent or refuse to get pregnant, then we still have to try to respect the rights of both parties. It does not make sense to prevent her from aborting, because that is disrespecting her rights: it is preferable to talk and pray about it.

Something similar happens if, for some reason, it is determined that the woman's life will be at risk if she goes on to give birth. In that case, both the woman and the foetus have the right to live. In that case, it also does not make sense to force her to give birth, because that is disrespecting her rights: it is preferable to talk and pray about it.

Meanwhile, just to clarify, I believe it is still immoral, even in cases of rape and life-threat, to abort a foetus. Do not forget that this thread was made to discuss mainly whether or not abortion is immoral, not whether or not abortion should be carried out. However, since, in cases of rape and life-threat, it would also be immoral to prevent the woman from giving birth, this is my conclusion:

• Abortion is always immoral;
• Except for situations of rape or life-threat, it should never be carried out and should be criminalised;
• In situations of rape or life-threat, the woman should be given the right to choose whether or not to abort, and it is perfectly comprehensible and acceptable if she chooses to abort.

However, in most cases (where a woman simply chooses to abort because she had sex irresponsibly but willingly), it makes no sense to give her a ‘second chance’ to let her get away with this one, and she should not be allowed to abort. The rare exceptions of rape and life-threat are more difficult problems about which we cannot make such a universal decision — even though, even then, it would still be immoral.

Just examine the grounds upon which you deign to agree that a woman might have an abortion.

You continually use terms like "deliberate" and "irresponsible", yet you know nothing about the circumstances of the women in question, save for the small number that may be within your circle of acquaintances.

Women may find themselves in a sexual encounter for a hundred and one reasons. They may do so willingly, they may be coerced in some way, they may be ignorant of the outcome (I understand that there are still many young women who believe, for example, that it is not possible to fall pregnant "the first time"), they may be women who are 'bending to the will of the husband' (particularly if they are devout followers of particular religions). And there are those whom you mention, who may be the victims of rape, or who are party to incest.

And of those women who do willingly take part, why do you assume "irresponsibility" when they find they are pregnant? All forms of contraception can fail from time to time, despite the care that may have been taken by the user. Again, subject to certain religious beliefs, women may have their options for contraception limited to less efficient methods. Think of Catholics in this regard. What does the woman do whose devout husband forbids her from using the contraceptive pill or condoms, but also insists that it is her duty to give herself sexually to him?

I see no allowance in your comments for any of these situations. And I dare say I could think of many more.

No, your automatic assumption is that a) except for rape and incest, women always make the decision freely to have sex, and b) any pregnancy that follows is a result of their "irresponsibility".

I complimented you earlier for being prepared to think. Think longer and harder.

 

[Belk]

No, its not a side effect, because abortion is the very means to the end. One has to determine, choose, to take the life for the purpose of getting what they want. Murdering someone in order to steal from them is not a side effect, for example, while killing innocents in a just war definitely is.

No, it as a side effect. No one gets an abortion because they wish to kill their offspring. They get it to not be pregnant. Just like people getting killed is a side effect of war.

 

[fhansen]

No, it as a side effect. No one gets an abortion because they wish to kill their offspring. They get it to not be pregnant. Just like people getting killed is a side effect of war.

I'm trying to find the logic here. It would be pretty hard to prepare for and go into war without the intention of killing. It would be impossible to abort without the intention to "kill their offspring", as you so appropriately put it. You cannot logically separate the intention to be rid of the fetus from the act of killing it in the case of abortion. Other options exist-such as adoption.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Where has anyone made the argument that abortion being a safe medical procedure means it is moral?

 

[KCfromNC]

The difference is that, in war, the taking of innocent life is an evil side-effect, certainty not the objective of a "just war".

But from the OP, even taking the life of enemy combatants is immoral since it deprives them of of a future. Or have we dropped any pretense that the argument in the OP makes any sense at all?

 

[jenny1972]

As I do not consider the "unborn" a person I do not agree.




As I said.

why do you not consider the unborn as people with a right to live? what exactly makes them not a person?

 

[jenny1972]

However the goal is not to take an innocent life. The goal is to exert ones bodily autonomy to not be pregnant. The loss of life is an unfortunate side effect just as in war.

do you support then the legalization of prostitution?