• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When is it ethically okay?

When is it ethically justified to abort?

  • Total voters
    72
A woman should and must have the right to end a life of her baby.
 
Nap said:
He already stated he valued the woman over the unborn. Did you not read post #6?
Click to expand...

Really? That’s not what I read. You can copy and paste the part of #6 that you believe is DD making that point.
 
Removable Mind said:
Really? That’s not what I read. You can copy and paste the part of #6 that you believe is DD making that point.
Click to expand...

DifferentDrummr said:
According to my own ethics, a ZEF should be treated as a human being, and therefore terminating it is ethically justified only under a similar set of conditions (for example, a health threat, a rape, a severe deformity, etc.)
Click to expand...

If someone says that a health threat to the mother is a justification for the termination of a pregnancy then obviously the life of the mother takes precedence over the unborn.
 
until it pops out
 
Nap said:
If someone says that a health threat to the mother is a justification for the termination of a pregnancy then obviously the life of the mother takes precedence over the unborn.
Click to expand...

Sorry. That’s not an adequate example. Apparently you missed his list of limitations that he wants placed on women’s rights to abort.

The biggie in his comments is that he wants the yet to be born treated as a human being. That’s reserved for the born only. And it would jeopardize women’s fundamental rights. It would even impact men in some ways. It would create a substantial number of unintended consequences for our society.
 
Removable Mind said:
Sorry. That’s not an adequate example. Apparently you missed his list of limitations that he wants placed on women’s rights to abort.

The biggie in his comments is that he wants the yet to be born treated as a human being. That’s reserved for the born only. And it would jeopardize women’s fundamental rights. It would even impact men in some ways. It would create a substantial number of unintended consequences for our society.
Click to expand...

How is that not an adequate example? It is literally choosing the life of the mother and prioritizing it ahead of the unborn, that is placing more value on the life of the mother than the life of the unborn. The disagreement is that you don't value the life of the unborn versus what inconvenience it may be for the mother.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
According to your own ethics, morals, philosophy, and values, under what circumstances to you believe it's right to end a pregnancy?
Click to expand...

Before viability for me.
 
Nap said:
How is that not an adequate example? It is literally choosing the life of the mother and prioritizing it ahead of the unborn, that is placing more value on the life of the mother than the life of the unborn. The disagreement is that you don't value the life of the unborn versus what inconvenience it may be for the mother.
Click to expand...

Correct, I value the born more, but more in particular women, who have been contributing members of society, more than I value the yet to be born. Women have the ability to reproduce multiple times “if they choose to”.

No government or religion should roughshod over women rights to 100% control their reproductive roles.

Women have zero obligation to proliferate the species. Nor do men.

Abortion for Convenience is your objection? Very few women live a life of convenience. Having the right to self determination is paramount. The ability to get an education and a career is a priority that shouldn’t be denied because of an unwanted pregnancy.
 
Any time at all. Virtually no abortions happen in the last trimester, and it's counterproductive to try and legislate for such a tiny portion of incidents.

Laugh if you will, but I believe wholeheartedly that Ayn Rand was onto something when she said that no man should live for any other man, nor should they demand that others live for them; a human being that can only live as a growth on another has no inherent right to that person's life or livelihood.

Besides, the world has enough criminals already, we don't need to force any more awful parents into existence. Someone who didn't want their child in the first place will probably **** them up royally.
 
Removable Mind said:
This thread topic is just another way of expressing ** or opportunity ** to bring into the discussion ** that women need their rights diminished or dismantled.

Sad.
Click to expand...
While I will agree with you on the whole moral vs ethics point, I would have to say that you are wrong here. Mind you I could be misreading, but it does seem to me that the OP is simply seeking to find where many individuals stand personally despite what they may hold to politically. Given your statement, I would think that he is referring to morals instead of ethics, especially since he is asking for personal ethics.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
While I will agree with you on the whole moral vs ethics point, I would have to say that you are wrong here. Mind you I could be misreading, but it does seem to me that the OP is simply seeking to find where many individuals stand personally despite what they may hold to politically. Given your statement, I would think that he is referring to morals instead of ethics, especially since he is asking for personal ethics.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thanks.....
 
At any point the person with child chooses to, up until going into the process of childbirth
 
For any reason whatsoever in the first two trimesters. For life of the mother or euthanasia for a severely deformed/ill fetus in the third.
 
instagramsci said:
At any point the person with child chooses to, up until going into the process of childbirth
Click to expand...

There's zero restrictions in Canada. But the medical community, not the government, maintains control over the timeframes in which they will perform an abortion.

However...in the US...

There comes a time in a pregnancy that purposely removing a fetus from the womb doesn't always equate to abortion if it can survive.

A mature fetus can't be euthanized by medical providers if it has developed to the point that the chances of survival is significant - even if the "now infant (<----according to the law)" has to be placed on a medical device. In the US, once outside of the womb, and the likelihood of surviving is high, the "now infant" automatically acquires rights.
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
While I will agree with you on the whole moral vs ethics point, I would have to say that you are wrong here. Mind you I could be misreading, but it does seem to me that the OP is simply seeking to find where many individuals stand personally despite what they may hold to politically. Given your statement, I would think that he is referring to morals instead of ethics, especially since he is asking for personal ethics.
Click to expand...

One of my reasons for not using a word like 'morality' is that, for too many people, it has a religious base, even though there's no particular reason that someone's morals have to be based in any religion.

It's kind of a moot point, though, since everyone else on the thread clearly got the idea.

Shame that somebody had to come in and try to hijack the topic with laws and rights.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
One of my reasons for not using a word like 'morality' is that, for too many people, it has a religious base, even though there's no particular reason that someone's morals have to be based in any religion.

It's kind of a moot point, though, since everyone else on the thread clearly got the idea.

Shame that somebody had to come in and try to hijack the topic with laws and rights.
Click to expand...

Do you think that any laws should over-ride a woman's personal ethics regarding pregnancy and abortion?

(on topic because the answer displays one's ethics regarding women & the unborn)
 
Lursa said:
Do you think that any laws should over-ride a woman's personal ethics regarding pregnancy and abortion?

(on topic because the answer displays one's ethics regarding women & the unborn)
Click to expand...

I'd have to say it would depend on how the law was written. It's fine if you disagree with that, but that's my opinion.
 
Lursa said:
Do you think that any laws should over-ride a woman's personal ethics regarding pregnancy and abortion?

(on topic because the answer displays one's ethics regarding women & the unborn)
Click to expand...
We already have laws that override bodily sovereignty. For example, I cannot choose to sell my kidney to someone. I can donate one, but selling is illegal. Same goes for prostitution. So yes there can be laws that could override a woman's personal ethics/morals regarding pregnancy and abortion.

Now i cannot think of what a good law of such a sort would be right now. Certainly nothing the extreme right has ever proposed. I am mostly speaking in the hypothetical/theoretical manner. As with any such law, we must be careful as to how much and why we would limit such sovereignty. But that does not mean that we can't have such a law.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
For example, I cannot choose to sell my kidney to someone. I can donate one, but selling is illegal.
Click to expand...

You ever stop to wonder why the person who was using the kidney to survive isn't allowed to sell it for a profit, but the for-profit business that accepts the donation is allowed to charge as much as they want for it?
 
I answered other because the health part of the life/health exception can be manipulated to mean anything including mental health.
 
SDET said:
I answered other because the health part of the life/health exception can be manipulated to mean anything including mental health.
Click to expand...

Mental health is a interesting argument. During the time of eugenics, it was legal to make sure a mother could not have a child. What is the difference to make a woman unable to have a child or make sure she has a government forced abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom