Topic awaiting preservation: Is abhortion wrong(morally) or not? When used for 'unwanted pregnancy' predicaments. (Page 1 of 5)

'medical termination of a pregnancy before the fetus has developed enough to survive outside the uterus'.

Here are some of the articles and other stuff I've found on the matter:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_defn.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm
http://www.prochoice.org/
http://www.prochoicetalk.com/

I know I'm going to regret ever having started this. Please don't take your proletarian anger out on me. It's just a simple question. The answer is tough...
I refrain from expressing my own personal opinion on the matter, for the time being at least.

(Edited by sonyafterdark on 05-19-2005 08:49)

quote:

---

I refrain from expressing my own personal opinion on the matter, for the time being at least.

---

Ok...

Well, the way I see it, it is a personal choice for the woman in question. I don't support laws that force people to be prisoners of their own flesh.

Since a body belongs to the person in question, I feel this is really something that every woman has to answer, personally IRREGARDLESS of my feelings to the contrary or not.

As for the moral question...

As long as the fetus is not able to survive on its own outside of the womb, I see no problem with the abortion.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-19-2005 11:11)

quote:

---

sonyafterdark said:

'medical termination of a pregnancy before the fetus has developed enough to survive outside the uterus'

---

Like say a woman is raped or it's determined a pregnancy would be a health risk or she's like 12 and her mental picture of going through a pregnancy makes her suicidal - I'm understanding about abortion under those sort of circumstances as long as it's done incredibly early on. It shouldn't usually be an issue, but because of the crazy pressures in our society it is.

A while into a pregnancy, though, I find it really screwed up to have an abortion for almost any reason.

That is 100% dependant on how and who defines "moral" and in what context itä's applied.

What's moral or not depends on a multitude of things, from religion to personal or political reasons etc. There is no such thing as a common moral for all humanity.

While most of the humanity agree that it's wrong to take a life (death penalties aside, that's a wholly different can of worms...), the definition of when life starts is quite different from place to place, or human to human.

In one place life starts at conception, in another it starts when the first breath is taken outside the body, other may see it as life is always present since the cells by themselves are alive.

In other words, where it might be perfectly ok to terminate a pregnancy based on some commonly set reasons/limits, that reason/limit will always be wrong or unacceptable to someone else.

There is no yes or no answer to this, and there never will be, just personal views.

I usually tend to lean towards WS point of view with one exception, that's situations where the woman cannot make an informed choice, take for instance a raped 9-10 year old that happens to get pregnant... In that case the desicion has to be made by someone that understands the full situation.
/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

quote:

---

While most of the humanity agree that it's wrong to take a life

---

This depends on the circumstances. Most countries and societies recognize self-defense, and allowed killing of the enemy in times of war.

When circumstances demand it, countries and societies are willing to allow the taking of human life.

So the real question becomes is Abortion a circumstance that requires allowing the taking of a human life?

And I feel it is really up to the woman in question to make this decision - i.e. a personal decision.

I think it is fairly simple:

It should be the choice of the woman involved. I doubt most women take the termination of their pregnancy all that lightly, and probably never really get over the experience.

My own mother had a termination some time after having my younger brother. She discovered she was pregnant only after a series of X-Rays during investigative tests to determine the malignancy of a possible tumour. She was informed that as nobody had been aware of the pregnancy, no precautions had been taken to protect the developing embryo.

My parents made a terribly difficult decision based upon assertions that there was a high-risk of developmental deformity, aware that they had neither the financial nor emotional means to support a badly disabled child.
They sat my brother and I down and explained this to us when they thought we were old enough to understand. The fact that they did this seems to suggest that making the decision influenced them for life.

However - women who return preiodically because they're either too dumb to use a condom, or because they just don't give a flying f***, should be encouraged to seek help. If their lifestyle choices lead to frequent visits to have pregnancies flushed (and this does happen) then they obviously have a serious problem.

We have contraceptives - though you can thank the Catholic Church for the fact that so few women use them (in both the developing and developed worlds). Therefore, blame the Catholics (among others) for unnecessary abortions!

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-19-2005 11:25)

Time to voice my thoughts... Hope my post doesn't get cut out as I've had happen to me before.

The question of when a human life actually begins...
Would anyone have problems with the destruction of 0.5 cc of sperm, for example?

I believe that, in general, people who support the procedure do so because they consider that life begins when the baby is expulsed from the mother's body and takes its first breath or at least not before some advanced development stage deadline (I believe the law sees it the same way, at least in the U. S.). I so hope nobody does simply because they don't give a damn about the 'to be terminated'.

As most other things in life this issue is not black and white either. What is certain, however, is that the... person who's destiny is most affected by the decision to go ahead with the procedure has no say in the matter at all. But is it even a living person to have rights, consciousness, will, opinion in the first place?
Back to the original question. It most (would have) certainly will (been), eventually. A side issue to abortion is if the foetus suffers during its 'termination'. Is it aware that it's being hurt? Does it sense impending doom? Is it in pain? etc. If so, at what stage of 'prenatal' development does this 'awareness' survene. Do any of the people who answer these questions so categorically have the slightest clue?

What about the cause of the issue? Pregnancies don't come about from thin air. And why are there calls for abortion to be performed in the first place, except when the pregnancy is dangerous to the mother or she's 15, etc?

Of the multitude of abortions performed (almost) worldwide each year how many constitute danger to the mother or baby, are carried out to prevent juvenile pregnancy (I do not command the English language exceptionally so please excuse invented or inadequate expressions) or are the consequence of rape? Not all, right? Hmm...

Of those abortions due to other (consensual) causes, how many are the first and last in the woman's lifetime? Hmm again... Hard to tell. Sexual encounters that result in unwanted pregnancies are tantamount to rape. You'd think one abortion is enough to make someone (or a couple) come to their senses and act responsively...

How many of us were planned for? Should 'accidents' be corrected? There are those who say being against abortion is disregarding women's rights and freedoms (of life and death, mind you)... What about the reason for the procedure? What about its rights and freedoms. Oh, yes, it's not alive nor aware... The English language itself refers to the foetus with 'it'. I used to think that this is simply because the gender is unknown until birth. 'It' certainly carries no fault for having been conceived, does it? Tough luck, it interferes with career plans, lifestyle, body weight or the family budget or it's simply an year early. Wham, economics step in.

A thing I find especially disconcerting is the attitude of so many people regarding this issue. It's developed into an industry, of sorts. I mean, there are cliniques especially for this procedure, I think. And many gynecologist offer their services practivally for nothing. Well intentioned, of course... Not to mention all do euphemisms like 'pregnancy termination' or 'birth control' (not the pill) for abortion, etc.

If you were to be conceived today what would your odds of making through to birth be? You need a visa nowadays.

It's like those who are (even quietly) not 'pro-choice' are mad, evil minded, evil doers, retrogade, uneducated, stupid, fanatic, indoctrinated, etc.
Voice against abortion or simply state you're against it then you must be some right wing nut or bloody 'Xian', clearly.

Abortion is a veritable good deed, say pro-choicers. The person the foetus might have been would probably not have wanted to be born or does not deserve to be born to a single mom or family that can barely make ends meat or pay the rent deem practitioners and pro-choicers. As if there'd be nobody to adopt the child, in the whole of the continental U. S. A.! Aaaah, why deal with such hassles when freedom is a clinique away.

I'll just keep on living by my obtuse and outdated system of values and beliefs, thank you. Perhaps it'd have been for the best if I hadn't started this thread or at least not posted...

You just keep on rocking in the free world and start bashing me for the thread. Cheers.

Most women have miscarriages at later stages than the legal limit for abortions from time-to-time without even knowing it.

I can't help thinking that there are greater issues than abortion to waste our energies on.

If life is so sacred, why are children shooting eachother in the school playground? Why are women systematically raped and killed in warzones? Why are people dying from starvation in over-populated, under-developed countries (where it might be better to invest in prophylactics and irrigation than in food parcels)? Why does killing a child with your car go unpunished (or mildly so) while others go to prison for using herbs in a combustible manner?

Is abortion a real issue for some people just because pregnant, emotionally stressed and disadvantaged women are easier targets for righteous indignation than real criminals and murderers?

quote:

---

White Hawk said:

If life is so sacred...

---

That is the heart of the matter. Isn't it?

Every human must decide how they are going to treat life. We have the choice to act in ways consistent with the concept of life being sacred.

I firmly believe that life is sacred and I want my actions to reflect that belief.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Aha! But in the context of enforcing that belief upon other women?

quote:

---

I firmly believe that life is sacred and I want my actions to reflect that belief.

---

And War, Bugs? The Death sentence? What about killing in self-defence?

I understand holding life to be valuable. I agree with that.

But for two of the three (Death sentence not included) reasons above, most societies and countries make exceptions.

The Bible does as well in the case of warfare. And as punishment (Death sentence).

There is another long thread somewhere out there regarding how I felt about abortion. So I do not have anything additional to post. But what I can say is that we live in a time of where there is a "culture of death" from abortion to removing feed tubes to euthenisia. Today, human life equates with the life span of a dog or cat. In fact, people care about their pets more that potential human life. If you try to abort unborn puppies or kitties in the sac, you will hear an outcry of inhuman treatment in the news.

To see almost full term infants in trash cans piled up is the worst heartbreaking sorrow. I pray constantly for the doctors, mothers and those who encourge the act.

I'm inclined to agree with the general picture painted in the previous comments, I'm not 100% sure but doesn't the foetus start to enter advanced stages after only 3 months? I would say that before that time abortion would be an option but after it should really be replaced with adopton as the alternative option to raising the child.

What people haven't mentioned is the Fathers role in all this, some (perhaps most) circumstances this isn't an issue, but a child is the creation of two people and both can have a very important role in it's upbringing. Sure only the Woman in question has to go through the morning sickness, 9 months of pregnancy, etc. But I still believe that even if the Man and the Woman aren't married both should have some kind of say in it's abortion.

Cheers,

quote:

---

quote:While most of the humanity agree that it's wrong to take a life



This depends on the circumstances. Most countries and societies recognize self-defense, and allowed killing of the enemy in times of war.

When circumstances demand it, countries and societies are willing to allow the taking of human life.

---

True, however that society under certain circumstances allow taking a life does not to me mean that it is generally considered morally "right" to take a life.
Again, a personal view.

On the issue, one thing that really bugs me about this whole thing is the fact that it's very often males that decides if a woman should or should not be allowed to terminate a pregnancy.
As males (yes I'm male) we have no idea what so ever what it's really like to be pregnant and to give birth... How can we decide for them?

As for the value of life... It's invaluable really.
However...
Personally I don't think that any person that has not taken another persons life (as in self-defense, accident or in war), or has not held another human beeing in their arms while life slips away can have a true understanding of how big issue taking or losing life really is.

I haven't been in any of those situations, neither do I personally know anyone who has taken a life, but I have the utmost respect for the feelings and experiences of people who has found themselves in those situations.
Anyone saying that they know better simply doesn't know what they are talking about.

The same goes for pregnancy, if you are able to carry and grow life inside your body and are capable to understand what a unique ability that is, it has to be you that decides if you can do it or not. No one else! Not religion or politicians or peer pressure, I can't decide that for you, only you have the right to that desicion.

To be quite frank, neither has a doctor. If you are a grown woman and the doctor says "you should abort this child, you are in danger" you must have the final say if you are willing to risk your own life for the unborn child.

That's what it's about for me. I can't change anyone elses mind on it, nor do I want to.
If a pro life woman at all costs want to carry to term, fine, do so. But please allow the same respect to the woman that decides she can't. You want your opinions to be respected, right... It works both ways.
/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

DmS, your argument there assumes that ones personal feelings determine the morality of a decision to kill. I disagree very much with that idea.

A human being should be capable of making a judgement about whether or not killing human life is morally acceptable, regardless of its stage of development. Please understand that I am in no way trying to minimize the emotional aspect of our decisions. It's just that if we base what is right and wrong on our feelings, I think we are in huge trouble.

WH, this thread began asking whether or not the decision to kill fetuses was moral and left out how a society should choose to legislate it. I prefer to leave that out of my comments and save it for a different thread as well.

WS, I agree that there are times and places for the lawful taking of human life. I prefer to focus on the specific question of this thread; is it moral to abort fetuses for an unwanted pregnancy?

For those who think it should be left up to the woman to decide... what can you say about the morality of a decision to abort?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

We have covered this topic numerous times here so I am sure many of you know my view. I stand firm in my view that abortion is murder, infanticide on a mass scale. I could rant all day about it, but it would do not good, and degrade the thread into a flame war. I don't want that, so I'll give you all a pass on my arguments from that angle. I think it has been made fairly clear the argueing morality has no effect on the majority of this crowd.

I will instead take this from the angle of why. Why do we have abortions? Why do people feel them necessary? Why? I know this strays from the original question...but it is relevent IMO.

First, I believe that governments and officials who push abortion do it for reasons other than the rhetoric which they dissemate to the masses, a woman's right to choose. They do it as both a means of population control and keeping the birth of the poor to a minimum, since poor people statistically reproduce in much larger numbers. Less poor people, less drain on an overly large and overextended government, less drain on the system. Looking at it from this angle is quite bigoted, a little reverse psychology against the largest portion of the population by the few elite. "It is your right, now keep those little black and white trash babies out of the gene pool and out of our society."

Second, as I believe was mentioned above is the big-business of abortion. A relatively small group of business people are making big bucks off of abortion, and I am quite sure a nice portion of those proceeds go toward lobbying, various "pro-choice" interest groups, and many psychological operations, also known as marketing campaigns, to manipulate the public perception.

In the end though, I think the matter of abortions and why they are performed is a reflection more of society and it's advancment into corruption and forsaking of what is important, among other things. Living in excess and overindulgence, on the individual level. Taking for granted the things that are truly special and crucial to who and what we are for the things which mean nothing.

For example, in American society and, I am sure, most western civilizations, it takes two parties to keep a houshold going nowadays (for various reasons) and many abortions are performed for economic reasons, which to me do not even come close to trumping something far more important and meaningful, human life. These are the things which make us human, be it by God's law or natural law, not money, not our job, not our economic well being, but life. As Madonna said, it's a material world. Quite sad but true.

If we all went back to agrarian societies tomorrow, you can be gauranteed abortion would disappear shortly thereafter. Fix society, and the demand and "need" for abortion goes away. This is not to say that we should all go back to farm living, but we have been moving very fast as a species, far too fast for many people to handle, and perhaps we need to find a balance, a center, and these trying times will level off into an era of true prosperity.

What I am undecided about in recent times is the right of the state to legislate, either way, in such matters. If the role of government, first and foremost, is to protect its citizens, should this include the unborn? Initially I say to myself yes, but on second thought, why should government have any say in anything we do personally? Especially, and this is the important part, when government fucks up everything they do. Look at the progress we have made in the war on drugs, the war on crime, and most recently the war on terror. Examples from history should make us want to keep the government out of everything we possibly can, because the results of government legislation more often than not produce exactly the opposite results of that which they intially claim. As Thomas Paine said, paraphrasing here, government is the fruit of our wickedness, a necessary evil. I've been arguing with myself on this one for a while now. If it is society which is messed up, and society is a reflection of government, to an extent, then the problem lies in government, so why should I ask government to legislate more?

There is something new to consider as well. A recent study done at the Hôpital de Bicêtre in Paris show that abortion almost doubles a woman's risk of giving birth dangerously early the next time they are pregnant.

Also, an older study done in the 80s showed that abortion increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy in which the fetus is implanted outside the uterus). There are also a number of other studies released throughout the years linking multiple abortions to future miscarriages and other varius complications.

I have always wondered why these issues are never discussed or considered by the rabid members of the pro-choice crowd, the majority of whom on the front lines are screaming about the possible health reasons for not having abortion. What of the potential health reasons from having abortion? Since it is all about me me me, my rights, my choice, my health, my future, my career, why the silence here?

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 05-19-2005 22:02)

Ramasax, you bring up some interesting points... I don't have much time right now, and I'll try to get back and post more later, but I just wanted to share a few thoughts that popped into my mind as I read your post.

First, abortion has been around for just about as long as women have been having babies. Advances in modern technology in this field have been made to make the process safer because women were having abortions performed and were dying from it.

You would like to examine the reasons why a woman may choose abortion over other options? Here are a couple to start with:

-Fear. Fear of reprisal from family, community, society - Fear of what people may think, what may happen to them when their family or church finds out that they got pregnant out of wedlock... This may seem inconsequential to some - but when a woman's support comes from her family and church and has been taught that it is among the worst of things to do to engage in sexual activity before marriage - who can blame her for hiding the pregnancy from the world and secretly ask forgiveness from God?

-Ability to support the child. In the developed countries, adoption is an option when the means to support an unwanted or unexpected child are not there. However, in countries where the infrastructure does not exist, is not readily available or the population has not been educated that there are adoption choices available, a woman will abort a child that the family cannot support - in some cases, the woman may not even be given the choice.

quote:

---

many abortions are performed for economic reasons,

---

I'm not trying to be combative here, but how do you know this? I've not seen a study yet that breaks down the reasons why women of developed countries are having abortions... I'll have to do some more digging later.

My own personal opinion of the matter is if you want the number of abortions to decrease, remove the stigma of sin from pregnancy out of wedlock. Obviously "the fear of God" is not working to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but neither is it working to reduce the number of abortions. If life is so sacred, why is it such a sin to create one?


(sorry if this is a little scattered, i'm kinda rushed for time... I'll check in again later...)

bugimus, for me moral stems from a common sense of what's right and wrong, according to several definitions I'm not too far off either:
example: http://www.google.com/search?q=define:moral
In order to preserve this common sense, our moral obligations, we have laws, therefore feelings do have quite a lot to do with what's considered moral and not.
/D

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

quote:

---

"The 1967 Abortion Act made abortions legal in Britain. Today, there are 180,000 abortions a year in Britain and 87% take place before 12 weeks. The legal limit of abortion is 24 weeks."
My Foetus, Channel 4 (UK)
<<more>>

---

____________

It is obvious that there are more complex issues at play here, such as the determination of when life officially begins, or whether there are possibly cases that merit a little compromise (the dreaded word). I think a change of focus might be necessary.

I admit I'm a little dubious about the moral consequences of abortion (as I am about many things in this life/world) but without being able to argue the merits of each individual case (obviously impossible) I don't believe this issue can be definitively resolved - especially as the emotional response and staunch division make it difficult to debate objectively.

Perhaps it would be more constructive to step back and discuss a closely related issue:
What leads to these unwanted pregnancies in the first place, and in such alarming numbers? Why are the risks of promiscuity and unprotected sex disregarded by so many?

I can't see the harm in highlighting the issue of sex education. Are we providing children and young adults with a sturdy foundation to make confident and informed decisions about their sex-lives?

It cannot be denied that natural curiosity, individual drives, and (increasingly) blatant media saturation all play influential roles in the development of one's sexual predilection, so education could surely address the moral balance. TV-founded ideals are hardly inducive to responsible sexual attitudes, despite the (negligible) truly informative content.

If humans want sex, a significant portion of them are going to get it whether the rest like it or not. Unwanted pregnancy is not the only potential outcome of unprotected sex. Sexually transmitted disease is a serious issue that most adolescents seem either ignorant of, or absurdly misinformed about.

This isn't surprising when for one reason or another, we're even at odds over contraceptive/prophylactic use! Perhaps the compromise would be to educate our children in a responsible approach to sex, and maybe even finally settle the issue of contraception? ...though I'm loathe to start discussing religion or Vatican politics...

The ambiguity of human nature is such that we're the very cause of our own ailments, and we're never going to solve any prolem without compromise - the very weave of human society. I believe the real moral argument lies in exploring some of these avenues of cause and effect.

Oh, should I have made this a new thread...?

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-20-2005 00:16)

*ADDENDUM*

Actually, I blame the bloody parents.

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

quote:

---

If we all went back to agrarian societies tomorrow, you can be gauranteed abortion would disappear shortly thereafter.

---

History tells us, on every level, that is quite incorrect.

As MD stated, abortions have existed fos as long as women have been having babies.

Abortion is not something that sprung up in modern america. While I can agree with many of your points on some level, you again show this strong delusion about the history of humanity in your persistence that we are so much less moral now than in the past.

I don't know of any culture throughout human history in which abortion was nonexistent, and in most it has been seen as a very viable alternative at various levels, from a "if it needs to be done..." kind of view to a very cavalier or even whimsical approach.

In many societies throughout history, the life of a child even after birth was viewed as fairly worthless, and there are many examples of laws regarding what a parent might do with an unwanted child.

A bit sidetracked, I realize, but needed to be pointed out.

A sudden decline in morality of american society is not to blame for the existence of abortion, and I feel rather certain that very few people make such a decision in any sort of light hearted manner.



(Edited by DL-44 on 05-20-2005 00:32)

DmS, and what do you do when most people "feel" a particular group of human beings don't deserve to live anymore? I'm sure you can think of a few examples from the last century. That is precisely the reason basing our morals on feelings is dangerous because they shift with the tides.

Probably a better word for what I'm describing is ethics. I've always considered morals to be the things that shift as time goes by based on culture and such but ethics are more hard and fast.

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

My own personal opinion of the matter is if you want the number of abortions to
decrease, remove the stigma of sin from pregnancy out of wedlock. Obviously "the
fear of God" is not working to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but neither is it
working to reduce the number of abortions. If life is so sacred, why is it such
a sin to create one?

---

The stigma of out of wedlock births in this country (US) is fading fast and I am not aware of any reduction in the number of abortions. I seriously doubt that would help at all.

Obviously creating life in and of itself is not sinful, what a preposterous notion. The problem is not creating a new life, but creating a life one cannot or does not want to support. For some crazy reason, we have convinced ourselves that sex is simply a recreational activity and should be void of any responsibility or connection with raising up the next generation.

There are reasons why sex outside of marriage has been stigmatized over the years. One of the best reasons is precisely to avoid having children when they cannot be properly nurtured. I would hope that everyone here, atheist, theist and everyone in between, would agree that using abortion as a means of birth control is wrong. A newly formed life in the womb deserves a chance to grow and live just as each of us deserve to live our own lives.

It should come as no surprise that I think human rights trump women's rights on this topic. I see nacent human life as about as innocent as it comes and the thought of snuffing it out for any of the reasons thus far mentioned in this thread as a very wrong choice.

Sorry WH, I'm not addressing your last post although you bring up some very good points.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I've had a chance to do some looking on statistics regarding the reasons cited for abortions:

The most commonly cited reference comes from The Alan Guttmacher Institute The page I have referenced gives a fairly comprehensive rundown on the demographics of abortion in the US.

From the Women's Issues Guide at About.com these were the reasons cited: (These also originated from AGI, however this site lays them out much more nicely...)

quote:

---

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

---

From the Demographics section, I found this interesting:

quote:

---

Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion claimed they were Protestant, while 27% claimed they were Catholic.

---

AGI also stated that abortion rates in the US are on the decline: Continued Here

What does all this mean to me? I'm not entirely sure yet - the 12.2% of women having abortions because their parents or others objected to it actually was higher than I expected.

The point I was trying to get at Bugimus and ran out of time to more clearly articulate is this: Church organizations seem more interested in damning a woman and castigating her for her sin rather than offering forgiveness and options. The message that sex and the consequent pregnancy out of wedlock is such a horrible, awful thing is driven so much and so hard that when it does happen, all she may consider is that she is a horrble, awful person - and doesn't want her church to know. I was raised Christian. In my summers at chruch camp, when the "adults" were not around, we would talk about the "naughty" subject. Some of the girls were sexually active, and when the topic came around to what would happen if they *gasp* got knocked up, the majority of them said they would get abortions - not because they weren't ready to have kids - but because they were afraid of what the people at chruch would say. They were afraid of judgement. In a sense, these girls felt the only option they had was abortion - because they couldn't let the church or their parents know. Rather than being understanding and proactive by sending the message that yes, it is wrong but we can help you and still love you anyways, as a good parent would, the opposite message was being given. Instead of saying that the life you are carrying is beautiful and sacred let us help you give it a chance... I think you get the point. I'm sure that the church I went to was not the only instance of such things happening. This is what I was driving at with my prior statement.

I don't think the morality of abortion will ever be easily determined, because it is so intertwined with when one believes life begins. But I think WH said it best: "I believe the real moral argument lies in exploring some of these avenues of cause and effect."

quote:

---

DL: History tells us, on every level, that is quite incorrect. As MD stated, abortions have existed fos as long as women have been having babies.

---

Sure, it has existed, but when has it ever been a profitable industry? Perhaps abortions would not disappear entirely, but I'll wager it would decrease dramatically if life and society in general were simplified.

One may think the industry aspect adds safety for the women who have abortions, and they may be right, but it also adds ulterior motives.

quote:

---

DL: Abortion is not something that sprung up in modern america. While I can agree with many of your points on some level, you again show this strong delusion about the history of humanity in your persistence that we are so much less moral now than in the past.

---

You just love calling me on this one don't you DL?

I wasn't talking morality though or my delusions though, I was talking more along the lines of a level of corruption and "take it for granted" attitude in a society and/or government, which is more cyclical than linear IMHO.

quote:

---

DL: I don't know of any culture throughout human history in which abortion was nonexistent, and in most it has been seen as a very viable alternative at various levels, from a "if it needs to be done..." kind of view to a very cavalier or even whimsical approach.

---

Interesting. Who had a whimsical approach?

quote:

---

DL: A bit sidetracked, I realize, but needed to be pointed out.

---

Of course. Thank you.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 05-20-2005 07:22)

Bugs: I can see exactly what you are thinking of with this:

quote:

---

DmS, and what do you do when most people "feel" a particular group of human beings don't deserve to live anymore? I'm sure you can think of a few examples from the last century. That is precisely the reason basing our morals on feelings is dangerous because they shift with the tides.

Probably a better word for what I'm describing is ethics. I've always considered morals to be the things that shift as time goes by based on culture and such but ethics are more hard and fast.

---

Basically, that's what laws are for, that's also why laws are hard to change.

I'll turn this around on you, if not commonly decided feelings, what then, is moral based on?

(btw, ehtics is usually defined as "a set of moral principles or values" or "the study of morality")

/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

I stated quite clearly at the beginning of the thread that I was talking about cases when the unborn child is merely unwanted (regardless of the cause: financial, career, etc.) without there being another, objective, reason to the abortion like danger to the mother, for example.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:
As for the moral question...As long as the fetus is not able to survive
on its own outside of the womb, I see no problem with the abortion.

---

No baby, even carried to full term, can survive outside the womb without a lot of care. Babies can't regulate their body temperature. Some don't start breathing on their own (the slap on the but ring a bell?). Most need to stay in an incubator. Not to mention the ones that are premature.

Indeed. I think the human race is no more 'depraved' today that perhaps before the start of the industrial revolution. However, the important point is that today modern industry and technology (including medical) can be used for good as well as evil, both on a massive scale and with great efficiency. Let the definition of 'evil' be as loose or make it as precise as you want, you can't deny that the knowledge humanity has aquired is used for some evil. I'm not talking specifically about abortion but mass killing in general: war, policing, organized crime, etc. Thus comparisosn to the past are irrelevant and a way to avoid the issue.
I also agree with Bmus' liberal view on governments.

Those who put their trust entirely in the government or expect it to solve all of their personal issues and problems are gravely mistaken. The government needs to kave only enough power to fulfill its duties. None more!!!

If you think your government cares for you are gravely mistaken.

If you think your life has anywhere near as much value to strangers as to people outside your family or close friends you are gravely mistaken.
And sometimes not even your family or your closest friends really give a damn about you.

These are some reason why abortions happen. Where is the father? Gone with the wind.
It is said that a people is alive so long as its womanhood endures. They define a nation. They keep a nation alive. Not its army, not its government, not the men who go off and get themselves killed in wars...

Ultimately, the only reason a woman can be said to have any prerogative of choosing whether her unborn child is to live or not is that it's she that is bearing it, carrying it to term, delivering it.
Yes, it's true, we (men) all think we know what an ordeal this can be. We don't. But...

let's just say for a moment that abortion is morally correct beacause of this specific fact. When it happens for the first time. The first time (only) it's just stupid, stupid is what stupid does. The woman as well as her bloke are STUPID. What about the second, the third... It's just bloody cruel and Godless. Are condoms that expensive or unsafe? Aren't they cheaper than an abortion? Okay, let's just say that they can 'soften' the feeling so they won't do for some people. What about a diafragm? What about contraceptive pills? Can cause cancer or hormonal imbalance so they won't do... Or is it that people just don't give a fuck, literally. The only conclusion possible is that a few minutes of pure bliss are worth more to an individual than a human life, the life of their offspring. Time and time and time again. Talk about selfishness.

And if society condems you for having a child outside of wedlock, does this give you the right to have an abortion to save face?

So many people rave and rant about women's right and freedom to choose. Why didn't women who had abortions choose or make their partners choose to use a condom?

Mayhaps they never heard of such advanced technology in yonder hills. Bloody horny peasants.

What about them city dwellers... Can't afford them rubber hats, hmm? Pepsi showers don't work so don't frolick then ya stupid pauper arses!!! Show some f**king responsability and respect for life ya selfish pricks and prickses.

You just keep on rocking in the free world.

(Edited by sonyafterdark on 05-20-2005 09:45)

quote:

---

Bloody horny peasants.

---

yeeeeehaaaw...

And what about all the people that risks family, career, life and whatnot for an orgasm... ?
There's quite a few of those around. Face it, the sex-drive is what controls 90% of all our actions, even in our "evolved, intelligent" state as the "ruling spieces" of this planet.

As long as there is a genetic desire to have sex at any cost our "intellect" is seriously shortstacked in that draw... The church can try to change that, the politicians can try, heck, anyone can try but no one will succed unless they remove the genes and hormones that controls this, and then where would we be...

With this in mind, there will ALWAYS be different opinions on the right/wrong/moral/immoral/ethical/unethical aspects of abortions, like it or not, they will not go away.

Over and out/D

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

The correct spelling is succeed, not succed .

Is it against them hormones to use contraceptives? Please read more carefully.

Can none of the people in the 'western world' that get stuck with unwanted pregnancies afford contraceptives?

quote:

---

I prefer to focus on the specific question of this thread; is it moral to abort fetuses for an unwanted pregnancy?

For those who think it should be left up to the woman to decide... what can you say about the morality of a decision to abort?

---

Who then decides what is "moral"? We need to decide that first, before we can start talking about whether or not something like this is moral.

Since I feel this is a personal decision, to be made by the woman in question, then it really boils down to whether or not she feels it is moral, and can live with the decision to abort or not. For me, that is the bottom line. If the woman in question has decided that she needs to abort the child, then there really is nothing that can be done to stop her - if it is not legal, she will find an illegal way to have it done.

Quite simple my dear mad scientist. If you are a 'Xian' then you take the New Testament as a moral guide to living. If you're not then you find some other source to tell you what you should know yourself, just as you know so may other things by heart.

As for ways of 'terminating': jump down the stairs, perhaps? Totally legal... Yes, there certainly are ways.

Yes, there are three sources, a Higher Power, Man, and Nature.

And how one sees Abortion morally depends on what source one draws from.

I tend to see it as drawing from Man/Nature.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-20-2005 13:00)

Just another quick sidenote -

Ramasax said:

quote:

---

Interesting. Who had a whimsical approach?

---

I'd say the Roman view could be called whimsical (or close to it anyway).
Abortions were very common, and it was just as common to have the child, and then decide whether to keep it or abandon it on the street (at which point it was free for the taking for anyone who might want it...)
At different stages there were different laws regarding the age at which a child was finally considered a person. I know that at some period a father had the legal right to kill his child up until the age of 12 years, no reason required.

quote:

---

You just love calling me on this one don't you DL?

---

As much as you love believing it



Secondary sidenote: is this a discussion or a spelling bee?

sonyafterdark ... since you seem so hung up on the contraceptive question:

From the Alan Guttmacher Institute (from the link previously posted...)

quote:

---

54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.

8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or poorly educated.

49% of the 6.3 million pregnancies that occur each year are unplanned; 47% of these occur among the 7% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy who do not practice contraception.

As much as 43% of the decline in abortion between 1994 and 2000 can be attributed to the use of emergency contraception.

---

What does this say? It says that more than half the women having abortions were taking steps to avoid being put in the position of having to make the choice in the first place.

<edit>Weird linky stuff... crazy gremlins...</edit>

(Edited by Moon Dancer on 05-20-2005 18:24)

quote:

---

DmS said:

I'll turn this around on you, if not commonly decided feelings, what then, is
moral based on?

---

They can be based on anything we want them to be based on. I maintain that true morality is based on God's laws. They can be summed up with the big 2 which are "love God with all your heart mind and soul" and "love every one else as you love yourself". The way I am supposed to behave in every possible situation can be derived from those.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Who then decides what is "moral"? We need to decide that first, before we can
start talking about whether or not something like this is moral.

---

There will be no consensus. I will advocate what I think to be closest to the truth and hope that others do the same and I pray we all make the best decisions we can.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Simple.

It is her body. It is her decision.

Whether it is moral or not is up to her, not up to any of us.

If anyone else finds it immoral, that is their privilege.

That privilige does not extend itself beyond their skin.

We do not have the right to impose narrow religious views on others, whatever the subject matter.

As for;

quote:

---

While most of the humanity agree that it's wrong to take a life

---

Better take a closer look at "humanity". In India and parts of China they still murder girl babies in the remote area. The Indians still immolate or just shoot or hack to death wives, daughters or sisters who are viewed as having brought 'shame' on the family.

Iraqui's have been killing Iraquis for thousands of years for no other reason than pride. Same for the whole region.

Afghans, Pakistanis, Africans, North Americans etc. Life is cheap, so is the talk about how much humanity reveres it.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

There will be no consensus. I will advocate what I think to be closest to the truth and hope that others do the same and I pray we all make the best decisions we can.

---

In the light of this statement, then only a Law can protect the right of an individual to their own body, because we cannot find a consensus on who decides what is moral. Without a moral consensus, some will say one thing is moral (and should be allowed, like polygamy), and others will say it is not moral (like polygamy). So, we need a Law to regulate it.

Currently, the Law says that it is moral and ok in the US. How long this will last, depends on whether or not Mr. Bush wins his Supreme Court nominee battle in the Senate right now (The Fillibuster Dilemna) to tip the Supreme Court in the direction of the far Right. If the nominees do not get elected, then it will stay as it is, until the next battles. If they do get elected, then it will most probably be changed.

Thus, it comes down to this at the moment :

quote:

---

It is her body. It is her decision.

---

If Dumbya gets his proctors on the supreme court, I predict the real-estate market in Canada will enjoy another boost and Immigration Canada will be inundated with applications from free-thinking...or just plain "Thinking" Americans.

Welcome y'all.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

But now we've switched back to discussing the legality of aborting fetuses. Let me ask a more specific question. WS and Ehtheist, do either of you think it is moral to abort a fetus for sex selection? I'm not asking the legality since it is perfectly legal to do so in our enlightened society, I'm asking your personal views of doing that.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

If the alternative is for the child, once born, to be unwanted, unloved and uncared for or even exposed, as some societies around the world still do, then I ask you, which is the more moral action?

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Again, I must ask Moral according to what?

If you are asking me personally, whether or not I consider it moral - as long as the person in question can live with the consequences, yup.