Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BwareDWare94

Civil Discourse: Morality and Where it Sits in the Abortion Debate

Recommended Posts

We opened a can of worms in the Trump thread the other day. While it's probably an over-discussed topic, I believe we have the collective intelligence to find some common ground and come to something of a collective overall agreement with small disagreements intertwined, which is what all compromises consist of. Disclaimer: whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion is not going to provide a sufficient answer to this question.

 

Where on the spectrum of the abortion debate does morality lie?

 

In my opinion, it lies where abortion is necessary medical procedure in order to keep the mother alive. Otherwise, I don't think an abortion is a morally sound procedure. I don't think the rare occurrences of pregnancy via rape should be held up as the primary reason of why all abortions should be legal. In those particular cases I don't oppose an abortion, though. A woman should not be forced to carry a baby conceived through a rape.

 

Every other reason to have an abortion is morally unsound, in my opinion.

 

What do the rest of you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is immoral to tell a woman that she can't have a medical procedure that she wants. That once she is impregnated for whatever reason, her body is not hers, but is now a babymaking factory. If you view abortion as the murder of a life, then why should a child be murdered in the case of rape? You know there is a difference between a fetus and a baby, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fetus and baby are not her body. They are a separate being. They simply depend on her until they're ready to live outside of her body. My body my choice lacks logic.

 

And if one is sexually reckless, pregnancy is what happens. Deal with it.

 

Also, time to give severe punishments to men who abandon.

Edited by BwareDWare94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not care about abortion and I will admit that I can be insensitive to people who have a strong moral opposition to it. I will do my best to not let that happen here.

 

I very much view a fetus as part of a woman's body. It is entirely dependent upon her and she pays the majority of the price of birthing a child. I can understand men who become closely in-tune with their pregnant wives, but at some point there is a clear distinction between empathy and actually dealing with the physical consequences of carrying a child.

 

I strongly, strongly disagree with your perspective of punishing irresponsible people by forcing them to learn responsibility on the fly, by raising a child.

 

That is almost inevitably going to make the child suffer. This isn't just a "young person" problem, either, because the young people who are irresponsible were probably raised by irresponsible people in the first place. This results in punishing the child because the parents were idiots. Despite the cynicism in your view, it's incredibly idealistic to think that baptism by fire is going to be a universally effective learning approach. With an iterative problem, yeah, that might work. A new employee is going to learn quickest by immersing themselves in things they don't know.

 

But parenting? I question whether you understand the intricate nature of actually raising a child. The first few years are crucial. There is room for error, certainly, but two irresponsible individuals are highly unlikely to adapt their behavior to accommodate a child within the first few years of their life. By that point, the patterns will have been established, and the child's approach to the world will be significantly shaped by those interactions. Ngata's anecdote is encouraging, and I am sure there are more stories like that, but it's idealistic to think that'd be the majority of cases. People are shitty and irresponsible and that extends way further than just young people.

 

I fully agree that we can and should reduce the instances of abortion, because I think most women will view this as an incredibly difficult time in their lives; why not do what we can to make it so women don't need to get to that point to begin with? It's not like women are going out and getting knocked up and thinking "I can just abort it afterwards, don't worry", that's ridiculous. The stigma attached to the procedure alone would rule out that possibility for all but the most shameless of individuals. (Good luck reaching those ones, by the way.) The strong opposition against contraceptives, condoms, and safe sex from the more... "moralistic" corners of this country is downright idiotic and harmful. I can't comprehend how they don't see the link between lack of sexual education and higher instances of abortions.

Edited by OSUViking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fetus and baby are not her body. They are a separate being. They simply depend on her until they're ready to live outside of her body. My body my choice lacks logic.

 

And if one is sexually reckless, pregnancy is what happens. Deal with it.

 

Also, time to give severe punishments to men who abandon.

 

So why is it ok to murder a baby just because the woman was raped?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not ok, really, ever. Now it is more UNDERSTANDABLE when it is something that is no fault of her own and the result of a traumatic experience, then her just being selfish.

 

Also the topic is not if she should be able to. He said she should in the initial post. He is asking where it lies on the morality scale.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's best not to talk corner cases about abortions, but it comes down to the freedom of individuals, if you believe there are circumstances in which a woman should be free to have an abortion, then you agree that there are no scenarios where someone should legislate what a woman does with her body. In the case of abort if X, don't abort if Y, you're saying that a woman has no freedom of choice, and that she is condemned to carrying a child to term without her decision.

 

As long as it is medically safe, any woman should have access to abortion. Most of the time surgery isn't even needed for abortion if it's early enough. If you consider abortion morally wrong, you probably consider condoms and birth control pills as morally wrong too. However personal morals should have zero place in public law. I don't think a country should restrict the freedom and well-being of it's citizens unless those citizens are doing harm to the freedoms and well beings of other citizens.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's best not to talk corner cases about abortions, but it comes down to the freedom of individuals, if you believe there are circumstances in which a woman should be free to have an abortion, then you agree that there are no scenarios where someone should legislate what a woman does with her body. In the case of abort if X, don't abort if Y, you're saying that a woman has no freedom of choice, and that she is condemned to carrying a child to term without her decision.

 

As long as it is medically safe, any woman should have access to abortion. Most of the time surgery isn't even needed for abortion if it's early enough. If you consider abortion morally wrong, you probably consider condoms and birth control pills as morally wrong too. However personal morals should have zero place in public law. I don't think a country should restrict the freedom and well-being of it's citizens unless those citizens are doing harm to the freedoms and well beings of other citizens.

 

 

Again as a preface to this, I am for women having access to it. I hate abortions, the process, and would never really involve myself with someone who has had one, that said I am not involved with any woman but my wife anymore. I wish abortions were never really a thing, but much like you said I think they are more tolerable in some instances, thus you cant really say only if X and Y.

 

I guess I fit in to that rare category because I am absolutely against abortion on principal and am morally against it, and I am a HUGE proponent of contraceptives as that would lower the total number of abortions needed in my mind.

 

I emboldened one part because that is the heart for the debate honestly. Is infanticide a crime, what rights belong to a fetus and son one. Do the rights of the mother, trump that of the child. That is really what this debate is centered on when we leave the religious aspects behind and start talking from a rational standpoint. If you believe they have rights than the mother is absolutely infringing on the child's right to live in abortion cases. If not, it ends there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So why is it ok to murder a baby just because the woman was raped?

I don't know if it's ok per se, but to tell a woman she has to carry a child as a result of a rape is definitely morally unsound, in my opinion. I'd put being raped in the same category as severe health issues because of the pregnancy. In that case why risk her life or, in the case of rape, extend a traumatic experience?

 

However, the question is where the line of morality sits along the spectrum of do or don't have an abortion.

Edited by BwareDWare94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's best not to talk corner cases about abortions, but it comes down to the freedom of individuals, if you believe there are circumstances in which a woman should be free to have an abortion, then you agree that there are no scenarios where someone should legislate what a woman does with her body. In the case of abort if X, don't abort if Y, you're saying that a woman has no freedom of choice, and that she is condemned to carrying a child to term without her decision.

 

As long as it is medically safe, any woman should have access to abortion. Most of the time surgery isn't even needed for abortion if it's early enough. If you consider abortion morally wrong, you probably consider condoms and birth control pills as morally wrong too. However personal morals should have zero place in public law. I don't think a country should restrict the freedom and well-being of it's citizens unless those citizens are doing harm to the freedoms and well beings of other citizens.

 

I don't think there are any similarities between opposing abortion and opposing condoms and birth control. There is nothing even remotely morally wrong with opposing what the individual views as the ending of a human life. Opposing birth control is opposing the many other uses for it. Women don't just take it to not get pregnant. Hell, doctors put very young girls on it in order to make their periods easier. It's not just about contraception. Opposing condoms is downright asinine considering the fact that we can contract diseases and infections sexually. To oppose either birth control or condoms is downright lunacy. While I see how one can come to the conclusion that they are similar, I believe it's a textbook false equivalence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well abortion is still a form of contraception. Sperm and eggs are cells of life, and we don't consider those living breathing humans. The question does really come down to what infanticide actually is. Most abortions do not occur when the fetus is close to fully developed, usually between the first 6-10 weeks. Abortions also have significant health benefits, for instance the pregnancy could be killing the mother, ostracizing her from her social peers, costing way too much money for general health procedures, etc etc.

 

The most common group of people getting abortions are women in their 20's, who is this market aren't afforded the same opportunities as their parents to simply stay at home and be a housewife and raise a child, women have to work just as hard as men (if not harder) to manage a living wage. Adding a child severely reduces further income for women as well. I think that taking a severe dip in quality of life and exposing a child to that would be irresponsible if they were not prepared to raise and love that child. Social and economic reasons being the prime reason most people choose abortions.

 

I just don't really think there is much of a difference between a sperm and egg combined until it's breathing actual air, and that a first trimester abortion cannot be classified as anything close to murder. If you don't want the child inside of you, it's a parasite before it is a human.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't really think there is much of a difference between a sperm and egg combined until it's breathing actual air, and that a first trimester abortion cannot be classified as anything close to murder. If you don't want the child inside of you, it's a parasite before it is a human.

 

See this is where this conversation usually starts in semantics, but you're smart as hell so I would love to hear your reply to this.

 

This usually starts with the premie baby discussion. What happens when a premature baby is born and can do nothing for themselves, including breathing unassisted ? Would it then be ok for the mother to decide she does not want it and have it killed? Technically it is not breathing on its own than a healthy baby in the womb, and still requires all the same attention, if not more.

 

I am not really trying to argue here, moreso try to understand this from a different lens. What is the difference, between two babies who cant function for themselves, but the only difference is that one has passed through a vagina and the other has not ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that was directed at Razor, but if the baby will never be able to survive on it's own then I view it in the same light as pulling the plug on someone in a vegetative state who's only kept alive by machines.

 

I think there is a huge difference between this example and the early stages of pregnancy that Razor mentioned. What you've described I'd imagine is pretty rare, especially in developed countries like the US. Most often the baby will be able to develop into a somewhat autonomous being, whereas this is never the case for a fetus terminated in the usual window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of premie babies, I was at a family gathering last evening where one of my cousins and his wife had their premie out with extended family for the first time. This little fella was born at 25 weeks due to severe spikes in the mother's blood pressure (I forget what the medical term is). Yes, he was in the NICU for several months, but now he's a relatively healthy little fellow and barring any unforseen circumstances, has a chance to live without later complications, at this point.

 

I consider it a life from conception. I don't consider a developing fetus a parasite. A woman's health doesn't start deteriorating when pregnant, for Christ's sake. Pregnancy hormones can do amazing things. The little man I just mentioned, his mother (my cousin's wife) was in a severe accident with a semi trailer when they were about 10 weeks in. One of her legs and one of her ankles was completely mangled. This was in the spring of the year. By the 4th of July last summer she was already able to stand on her own a bit because of the pregnancy hormones. It's not like women all off a sudden become gravely unhealthy just because they're pregnant.

 

Last but not least, I don't care if condoms deaden the sensation for men (and sometimes women, too), and I don't care if birth control isn't the most convenient thing for some young women. If you can't afford to have a child, you can't afford to have completely unprotected sex. Snuffing out a developing life is not a form of contraception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you kill a pregnant woman, why does it count as double homicide? The fetus isnt a baby, its jus a parasite.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you kill a pregnant woman, why does it count as double homicide? The fetus isnt a baby, its jus a parasite.

 

I was going to bring this up. It is universally understood that when you kill a woman who is pregnant that it is a crime for the fetus as well. For some reason someone else kills a baby and its a crime, but when the mother does it, it is ok I guess.

 

 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is immoral to tell a woman that she can't have a medical procedure that she wants. That once she is impregnated for whatever reason, her body is not hers, but is now a babymaking factory. If you view abortion as the murder of a life, then why should a child be murdered in the case of rape? You know there is a difference between a fetus and a baby, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.

Per wikipedia: Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

 

Food for thought: If you view abortion as a murder of life, is aborting fetus conceived through rape considered murder or is it 'a justifiable or a valid excuse'?

 

It's best not to talk corner cases about abortions, but it comes down to the freedom of individuals, if you believe there are circumstances in which a woman should be free to have an abortion, then you agree that there are no scenarios where someone should legislate what a woman does with her body. In the case of abort if X, don't abort if Y, you're saying that a woman has no freedom of choice, and that she is condemned to carrying a child to term without her decision.

Everyone knows the inherent risk of having sex and it was the woman's choice to partake in it. The mother would then be condemned by the consequences of her decision to have sex which she did with her freedom of choice.

 

It does get sticky when you talk about legislating what a women does with her body but at the same time on the other side of the fence from your viewpoint, is it unreasonable to say she should be/is responsible for properly carrying the fetus? Is it unreasonable to say the fetus isn't a part of her body since it is genetically different?

 

Also, there are so many things out there to prevent it from getting to the stage of 'I need to get an abortion.' Birth control, condoms, and Plan B are all widely available and pretty effective. Through the use of those, the odds are heavily in your favor, obviously not 100% effective but the remainder is the inherit risk you carry when you choose to have sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the last paragraph, there are still many people opposed to contraceptives of any kind. I come from a Catholic school and they never taught us responsible sex, only abstinence and how dangerous premarital sex is. The closest we had to legit education was someone coming to talk about STDs, but even she resorted to bullshit facts and scare tactics.

 

I'm all for increasing sex education to reduce the instances of abortions. Again it's not like women want to go through that experience. But I'm against legislating the body and I view pregnancy as circumstances that affect a woman's body. If I can't come to see eye to eye with you guys on that aspect of it then so be it, agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can't come to see eye to eye with you guys on that aspect of it then so be it, agree to disagree.

That's where this stuff always ends in civil debates. You have the faction who think it is killing a child, and others who think they are parasites. That is really all you can do, agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really I don't start these threads with any hope that we collectively agree on everything. I just like to see discussion conducted with respect. You set that boundary from the get go and we actually have productive discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per wikipedia: Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

 

Food for thought: If you view abortion as a murder of life, is aborting fetus conceived through rape considered murder or is it 'a justifiable or a valid excuse'?

 

Everyone knows the inherent risk of having sex and it was the woman's choice to partake in it. The mother would then be condemned by the consequences of her decision to have sex which she did with her freedom of choice.

 

It does get sticky when you talk about legislating what a women does with her body but at the same time on the other side of the fence from your viewpoint, is it unreasonable to say she should be/is responsible for properly carrying the fetus? Is it unreasonable to say the fetus isn't a part of her body since it is genetically different?

 

Also, there are so many things out there to prevent it from getting to the stage of 'I need to get an abortion.' Birth control, condoms, and Plan B are all widely available and pretty effective. Through the use of those, the odds are heavily in your favor, obviously not 100% effective but the remainder is the inherit risk you carry when you choose to have sex.

 

 

Oh for sure, I'm all for people facing the consequences of their actions. An abortion is roughly 500 dollars, a condom can be bought for 1. But sometimes condoms break, morning after pills don't work, etc. Hell Antonio Cromartie had a vasectomy and still popped out a couple more kids. Birth control and contraceptives are a good method to greatly reduce pregnancies, but they won't always reduce the odds to zero. I do think if abortion was the primary option for the mother, it'd be because of lack of education of other contraceptive methods. Otherwise, sometimes unprotected sex just happens, it's not like horny people are rational when they want to fuck.

 

 

As for the premature birth discussion Omerta brought up earlier, I want to say that most abortions occur in the first trimester, because it is far more harmful to the mother otherwise. The earliest premature birth I believe was 22 weeks into the pregnancy, or just over half way through, at the point where an abortion would no longer be a great idea because of the harm it could do to the mother at that stage. If one is willing to go that far into their pregnancy, they are certainly willing to have that child and will do anything to protect it. If you would be willing to go that far and then try to kill it not only would you be morally repugnant, you'd also be incredibly confusing, and perhaps brain damaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point do personal...biases, for a lack of better term, need to come into play, or not, in cases like this?

 

So, a few of you know that I'm adopted (maybe more do, maybe less, I don't think it's ever been a point of discussion. Or maybe it has. I don't remember. I'm getting old.) From what little I know about my biological parents (which is very little, and I'd prefer to keep it that way as to avoid opening a few can of worms that I don't really want to deal with), my coming to be was a massive mistake. Well, mistake is too harsh probably, so let's go with accident.

 

Now, I'm alive, so none of this has any bearing on me now but it's always felt weird to me to be pro-choice when it basically feels to be against my self-interest, despite the fact that, again, I am currently living and none of this has any further bearing on me. Is it wrong, or incorrect, to think, "Well, I'm against this, because that could've been me" despite the fact that stats say it was more likely to happen back in the 80s than it currently is, and that, really, if the person is motivated enough that the legality of things isn't going to matter?

 

Also, things don't nearly need to be as black and white as they are in this thread in regards to either getting an abortion or being saddled with a kid. Adoption is pretty cool.

Edited by Vin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is no God of a Christian bible,as he is depicted. Morality is then nothing more than a word. Nothing you are obligated to live by. Abortion is then just an act to decide to have a kid or not.

Just something else govt is playing with your life with. More people would be willing to have more kids if money wasn't our actual god.

I don't agree with late term abortions though.

Having an abortion may damage your ability to have another. Nothing wrong with that..it's just how biology may work.

It's just another excuse for a separatist debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×