Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by visceral_instinct, Feb 12, 2011.
Abortion is not eugenics.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I agree with you. A child is a child is a child...
something to think about. do you know that there are people who are against abortion in principle and would never abort but think it less important what actually happens to that child after it is born? there are people who even have children and abuse them but wouldn't abort out of religious principle or belief. there are people who really believe that they are morally justified because they don't abort but having the child dragged through misery and hell means nothing because they didn't abort at least. the same type of people who think as long as they don't divorce, they are morally superior to those who don't have that piece of paper where there relationship maybe nothing but fraught with violence and the couple that is not married may actually care for eachother. following a technicality does not always equate to the real truth. not all those who have children care about them and not all those who have abortions don't care about them. it may seem that way but it's not true. after all, you can't have a punching bag or someone to share in your misery if you are alone. some people have children for the most selfish reasons just as there are people who have abortions for selfish as well as good reasons. they know they don't want to bring a child into a horrible situation or are not ready for it. also, the idea that there are other people who can adopt is really secondary. it's still not their child or their place to decide. i really don't see adoption as the best norm nor that it should become that. i feel it's also cheating the child in many subtle but deeper ways that the general public may not address or care to address.
it's short-sighted to think that abortion is always unethical. it really depends on the situation. sometimes, it may have been the most merciful in the long-run.
True, but you are a destroying a real person based on hypothetical outcomes - given the choice, would you prefer that you never had the experience of living long enough to have one?
first of all, not all situations are hypothetical. some people's situations are not good and would be even more irresponsible to bring a child into it than abort it.
second, not everyone wants to have children. whether i do or not really does not make a difference to this discussion. i wouldn't bring a child into a situation if i couldn't take care of it properly. if i somehow got pregnant, i would have an abortion.
Agree to all of the above. My point is, whose choice is it to abort? Not the childs and as the person most affected by that choice, it seems strange that the same people who would oppose mental/physical/emotional abuse of a child on the basis that they lack choice and need protection, would oppose the right of the child to decide whether he/she wants to take on these difficulties or not
For example, are there children, who have not been aborted, who when asked, would choose to have been aborted rather than face their difficult lives? Are there children born of rape who would prefer they never existed? We have the luxury of being alive to make that choice. Is it right to deprive a child, who does not even know what it means to be alive, of the same choice?
Would you for example, extend that luxury of choice to a mother who changes her mind after the child is born?
I oppose abortion philosophically as being unethical to take away consent from someone who is not able to defend himself or herself.
The future is always hypothetical.
I can envision a world that completely outlaws abortion, but the reality is that nobody would go along with it.
What would they not like?
• Necessary registry of menstrual activity in order to ensure that no accidental deaths (e.g., miscarriages) are missed.
• Necessary investigation of every miscarriage to determine accident, negligent homicide, or outright murder.
• Necessary registration of all men who have helped conceive an unintended pregnancy, in order to identify serial inseminators.
• Necessary social welfare program to ensure that mothers obliged to deliver unintended babies to the world can raise those children.
• Necessary investigation and possible prosecution of all men who refuse to raise the children they father.
• Necessary registration of every "broken" condom.
• Necessary registration of those volunteering to adopt children in need of stable homes.
• Necessary escalation of criminal charges against all accused rapists whose crimes conceive a pregnancy in order to represent the second victim, e.g., the fetus/child.
We're looking at a world in which a woman can be prosecuted for failing to report an aberrant menstrual cycle because it might mean she miscarried, a person has died, and nobody would otherwise know.
And as the world moves forward into that state of conduct, the rules will necessarily tighten. Women will be required to undergo periodic ultrasounds because, let's face it, one thing humans are good at is finding ways to evade the law.
Is it really impossible to imagine technology in your underwear that can alert police of a high concentration of blood or other chemicals in a vaginal discharge that might signal an aberrant menstrual event?
A large contributor to abortion is the fact that people are so damnably neurotic about sex.
In the end, the question people don't like to ask about abortion is: How far are we willing to take this standard of life?
After all, the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of conceptions. It would be easier, I think, and probably more productive for the human species in general, if we all simply grew up and started treating our sexuality responsibly.
But that probably won't happen anytime soon, so the question remains: How far are people willing to go in order to make this happen?
What would you say to the knock on the door: "Good morning, ma'am. Police Department, Uterine Enforcement Section. Please open the door."
What would anybody say?
"Raise your dress and remove your underwear ...."
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Life begins at conception, they say. Very well, although that sounds quite absolute.
At what point do people say enough? At what point do the life-at-conception advocates think enforcement has gone too far?
How many doctors invested with police authority do you want poking around your body to check for signs that you might have been pregnant? How often would you be willing to undergo such screenings? How many times do you want to explain that the drop of blood they found on the bathroom floor is from when you cut yourself shaving your legs—"See, here's the nick!" But, of course, that's what they all say, and some of them will even cut themselves to hide evidence of their crimes.
These are the implications. That is, if a child is a child is a child, then abortion is murder.
How many people should we let get away with murder simply because enforcing the principle as law is too expensive, complicated, or intrusive?
The first chapter of Huxley's Brave New World comes to mind. That would be a way out of the abortion question.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well you see your opinion is based on the notion that the unborn can be classified as a person, as 'someone'. Many women who abort do not think of a child as being a person or even a baby but that's besides the point I guess. You ask is it right to deprive a fetus of its potential growth and my answer would be that its not right for a woman to be forced to deprive herself of the future she would have for herself. If its between the life of the unborn or the life of the living I say the life of the living takes priority over that of the unborn. Women who change their mind after birth only need call social services and they would take it off her hands but that also is a different scenario. The point of this is that most women who abort are saying no to being pregnant at all. They don't want to carry for nine months and most of these women report the feeling of relief once the abortion is done. I support abortion philosophically on the grounds that forcing a woman to have children despite her feelings and life situation is tantamount to burdensome slavery.
Sam there are lot's of people who wish they never existed we usually think of them as those on suicide watch.
You may find this interesting. Its not going to change your opinion of abortion but it puts a face on the women who abort and why they choose to do so
Also here are the accounts of women who have aborted and didn't feel a lick of guilt:
Not at all. In fact, this is the point. Child abandonment did not start with abortion, it has a long and varied history, with changing moral concepts as to what constitutes a person. e.g. in ancient Greece, a child was not regarded as a person until a special ceremony five days after its birth. Before that parents were entitled by law to abandon their children. If someone else found and adopted that child, it was still not a person, but was brought up as a slave.
So yes, the concept of personhood seems to go hand in hand with the right to the choice of life.
Do they constitute the demographic that is usually aborted? Assuming you can retroactively designate such.
Abortion isn't child abandonment. Do they constitute the demographic of those aborted? What a silly question. Can you tell me how many people have thought of or attempted suicide? Would you know?
All of this talk of personhood etc is irrelevant the moment a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be pregnant. Its talk for those who have to debate abortion not for those who've made the decision to abort. I don't care if people think abortion a terrible evil, that's fine. What bothers me are people trying to dictate to other women what they should legally have access to on the issue.
this is because we disagree on some important fundamentals. i don't think the child is the most affected as much as after they are born. i also don't see abortion on the same level as a lifetime of mental/physical/emotional abuse. i made that clear before.
also, i don't think your take realistic at all. a fetus can't decide what difficulties they would or would not choose so extending that decision as a right is ridiculous. it's the responsiblity of the parent to decide and ascertain that as to what they are bringing that child into. i think abortion is merciful and ethical with all things considered as long as it's carried out as early as possible.
i think this type of logic is ridiculous. we tend to think that it is worse to stop a child from being born than just letting it up to chance and let happen whatever happens. they also did not have a choice to be born either. again, it ends up with the parent to decide based upon various factors within themselves and their situation.
and yes, there are people who would rather not have been born or wished they could change the past.
I don't necessary consider what is legal to be what is ethical. First of all, because I'm Indian and we know that laws have very little to do with morality and everything to do with what is politically convenient
Second, because I believe in the right of choice even when it is uncomfortable for me. So I would never support any ban on abortion, because everyone should have the right to choose what they want to do with their lives. Its also why I don't support the ban on child labour.
Thats your prerogative
A long, long trail a-windin'
I won't disagree with the general principle, but I'm considering the practical outcomes of the abstract assertion that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder.
I find that a curious mix of issues, but I can to a certain degree see your point. If I'm perceiving it clearly, however, I would still contest.
While endorsing child labor does have some short term practical merit, I stand with Oscar Wilde: "The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible."
That would virtually eliminate child labor and do much to reduce the abortion rate.
We've a long way to go, this human species.
I think the moment a woman gets pregnant she is choosing for two people, herself and her child. There is no "me" anymore because everything she does has an effect on the child. If smoking and drinking is negligence then abortion is abandonment, of the worse kind, because no one else can rescue or adopt that child.
We have no argument there. I think many laws are unrealistic myself.
lol. damn, your ethics are scary, to put it nicely.
you see the person as just a womb for children. there is some aspect of a strange lack of humanity and impersonalness in your argument that seems so ethical. interesting.
rescue or adopt the child? you think all children should be born and anyone should be able to raise them if they can? you seem to think you are speaking on the behalf of these unborn children as if their ideal is to be raised by others. i don't find your point of view loving at all but rather exploitive of both the mother and child.
Yeah, they have the miserable handicap of being consistent with my beliefs and free from political correctness.
Tell me, what is your opinion of a woman who takes drugs or alcohol or smokes in her pregnancy after knowing that it can have lasting terratogenic effects on the fetus?
I don't see the person as just a womb for children. But once there is a child in the womb, its pointless to pretend that you can continue to go on as though it never happened.
i was finding how blatantly contradictory it was juxtaposing your stand not being against child labor and then being so concerned about bringing kids into the world and abortion being worse. i'm sure those children enslaved would thank you. lol
to me your argument is example of what i was talking about earlier.
this is actually a lie. it's not pointless. we do things all the time to maneuver situations as best as possible or find solutions.
I don't support the ban on child labour because I think children under 14 years of age also have the right to eat. They are the demographic which makes up the biggest chunk in the infant mortality rate statistics. Also my mother used to be one of them
You mean its bad for young children to work and so its better to kill them before they are born? I prefer the option where the children have some chance for survival, rather than no chance at all.
That's only true if she wants to be pregnant and have a baby. A woman who isn't ready to have a child and is pregnant isn't thinking there is no 'me' anymore nor is she thinking about the fetus save how to get rid of it.
Should ensure that she does not get pregnant. or take the morning after pill. Lots of us have to face situations in life we may never be ready for. Killing people to avoid those choices seems to be a rather drastic option, don't you think?
Separate names with a comma.