• 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
Well 20 weeks is a nice round number, so that's why I chose it. Regardless of views on abortion I think most people can agree that people have a right to self defense, and I'd certainly never force a woman to continue a pregnancy that might kill her. And I see no harm (and quite a bit of good) in terminating a pregnancy where the baby has no chance of ever surviving outside the womb.

So that's my ethical considerations.

Thanks
 
So would it be correct to interpret this as meaning you believe that abortions are ethically okay at any time?

Roe vs Wade allows women to chose their own health decisions up to viability.

Do you agree Women should be able to choose?
 
Abortion is murder. But mothers have had control of the life of their unborn since the species began. So I support the right of the mother to do whatever she wants. I also think that if a man disowns the baby early in the pregnancy he should not be held responsible later in any way. He's made his intentions clear and the mother can either abort or keep it and raise it on her own.
 
Anytime within the parameters of Roe v Wade.

As I said only 1.3 percent of abortions take place past 21 weeks.

Also remember there are only 4 doctors and 3 clinics in the USA ( as of 2013) who perform abortions past 20 weeks.

It takes a highly skilled doctor to perform these and the medical need for the abortion must be a greater for the woman than the risk of delivery.

So it sounds like your personal ethics are a perfect match with Roe v Wade. Were they the same before that decision?
 
Let’s talk about “Privacy” in a different light.

DD, the aggregate information collected on abortion becomes a discriminatory tool for anti-abortion groups and even individual pro-life advocates that is used in invasive ways against the female sex. Individual names aren’t necessary to fuel disdain and the harassment at the only places that abortions are conducted.
RM, I have always condemned that kind of behavior, and those places need to make sure that their patients don't experience it. There also need to be other places (hospitals, physician's office, generalized clinics, etc.) that perform the procedure.

Requiring applications from Universities and medical research organizations to get abortion data - should be necessary. Managing such information should be highly confidential.
To my knowledge, the same rules apply as for any other type of medical information. If I'm mistaken, please show a source that says otherwise.
 
Roe vs Wade allows women to chose their own health decisions up to viability.

Do you agree Women should be able to choose?

I believe that most women understand that they're choosing to end another person's life, and if they want to do it ethically, they need some justification for doing so. Please remember that this thread is about ethics and not law.
 
So it sounds like your personal ethics are a perfect match with Roe v Wade. Were they the same before that decision?

Yes, Roe is a perfect match with my ethics.

I was about 11 years old when the Thalidmine babies made headlines in the USA.
A US news reporter had taken the drug Thalidomine early in her pregnancy.
News reports surfaced in Europe that a number of babies were being born without arms or legs, sometimes all the limbs were affected and that the cause was the Thalidomine drug they had taken during pregnancy.
The news reporter wanted an abortion and pleaded for a legal abortion in the USA.

She was denied an abortion in the US and eventually went to Sweden where she had her abortion.
I thought it was horrible that The United States was so backwards with their laws they would not even allow abortions in these therapeutic type cases.

I cried for the women and their babies that were affected by the Thalidomine drug.
I cried for the woman in the USA who could not have a legal abortion in their country .


I was a young married woman and the expecting a planned baby
when the Surpreme Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of legal early abortions in the United States.

I was so happy about the Roe vs Wade decision.

Finally women in the USA were allowed to be first class citizens and were granted the right to privacy regarding their reproductive
Medical decisions.
 
RM, I have always condemned that kind of behavior, and those places need to make sure that their patients don't experience it. There also need to be other places (hospitals, physician's office, generalized clinics, etc.) that perform the procedure.


To my knowledge, the same rules apply as for any other type of medical information. If I'm mistaken, please show a source that says otherwise.

Abortion statistics can be found as easily as the daily sports. The government, being privy to collecting abortion stats can be found at CDCs Abortion Surveillance System publishes collected data in a public database anything you want know about abortion.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6624a1.htm?s_cid=ss6624a1_w
 
I believe that most women understand that they're choosing to end another person's life, and if they want to do it ethically, they need some justification for doing so. Please remember that this thread is about ethics and not law.


You have previously said that her personal ethics are relevant...so then why would her decision be questioned? (as any decision she makes is legal and not part of the question)

So again, what ethical justification *in your opinion* places the unborn's needs and future ahead of hers?


I have answered it of course, and am happy to copy it again.
 
Last edited:
I believe that most women understand that they're choosing to end another person's life,

Ah. Sorry, this is a detail that should be investigated because it definitely has ethical relevance.

I do not recognize the unborn as a person. Many many people do not recognize the unborn as person.

So while I believe all women 'understand' that they are choosing to end a life, they do not all attach the same 'ethical considerations' to the status of the unborn. They dont all consider it a person.

Leaving legal considerations out of it, why do you think someone else should attach more 'meaning' to the life of the unborn? (If you do)
 
You need a justification for your Christian Sharia.

I have done so more than once in the thread. If you read it and find my justification worth discussion, feel free to do so.
 
I have done so more than once in the thread. If you read it and find my justification worth discussion, feel free to do so.

Law has to be secular.

Science is no help, religion is off the table.

And medical ethical structures allow for compromise.

I don't need to read the thread to know DOA when I see it.
 
Law has to be secular.

Science is no help, religion is off the table.

And medical ethical structures allow for compromise.

I don't need to read the thread to know DOA when I see it.

And the secular law says that the unborn has no rights, including a right to life.

Since you seem to agree with that, why the criticism?
 
And the secular law says that the unborn has no rights, including a right to life.

Since you seem to agree with that, why the criticism?

Looks like I misread your comment, sorry.
 
I believe that most women understand that they're choosing to end another person's life, and if they want to do it ethically, they need some justification for doing so. Please remember that this thread is about ethics and not law.

Wait a minute. You’re not just leaving the law and Constitution out of the arguments, but also science. Science has established the developmental stages of human life.
 
Wait a minute. You’re not just leaving the law and Constitution out of the arguments, but also science. Science has established the developmental stages of human life.

Science describes only how a human life develops. I'm not aware of any scientific study stating that a fertilized, implanted egg is "not a human life," or that a developing human does not have a human life before viability.
 
Science describes only how a human life develops. I'm not aware of any scientific study stating that a fertilized, implanted egg is "not a human life," or that a developing human does not have a human life before viability.

I’m not aware of any zygotes, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus named, “person”.
 
Not that I used the word 'person' in the first place, but playing semantics gets your argument exactly nowhere.

Selective memory won’t get far either. See YOUR post #181.

DiffferentDrummr said:
I believe that most women understand that they're choosing to end another person's life, and if they want to do it ethically, they need some justification for doing so. Please remember that this thread is about ethics and not law.
 
Selective memory won’t get far either. See YOUR post #181.

I think it really surprises people when they are confronted with the facts that show they dont own the moral High Ground in the abortion debate.

They go in assuming it's pretty clear and ethically almost all focuses around 'immediate physical' harm to a woman or the unborn and are completely unprepared to look at the realities of the impacts, ethically, on women and society. When it's not black and white, they are unable to articulate their ethical reasoning...or once they discover it's not so 'ethical' after all, they refuse to acknowledge it. Hence, few direct answers and only more questions to avoid.
 
I believe that most women understand that they're choosing to end another person's life, and if they want to do it ethically, they need some justification for doing so. Please remember that this thread is about ethics and not law.

Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy.

Women know if they have an abortion ( elective or otherwise ) ,the pregnancy will end and there will not be an infant born from that pregnancy.

An unborn is not yet a person.

Only the born are persons.

As I have mentioned many times before; I had 6 known pregnancies.
I have 4 children ( now grown) and I miscarried 2 pregnancies.

BTW:
the medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion.
 
Last edited:
Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy.

Women know if they have an abortion ( elective or otherwise ) ,the pregnancy will end and there will not be an infant born from that pregnancy.

An unborn is not yet a person.

Only the born are persons.

Calling an unborn a person just sidesteps the fact that it's still a human life.
 
Calling an unborn a person just sidesteps the fact that it's still a human life.

Exactly, thank you. It just implies the unborn has the same status as a born 'person.' And it's also a legally defined term, which makes it less relevant to the ethical aspects of discussion.

If you choose to believe personally that the unborn is a person, from an ethical perspective, and the pregnant woman does not, is she supposed to conform to other people's ethics regarding it, and if so, why?

Otherwise, I'm just guessing but I think you'd say no and she'd be perfectly justified in making her decision based on her own personal ethics, correct?
 
Back
Top Bottom