When is it ethically okay?

[DifferentDrummr]

What is the purpose of this debate? For whose benefit will it serve?

To find out what everyone's personal sense of ethics are, with respect to the issue. I would hope that such knowledge is a benefit to all who are interested.

I do want to edit this post by asking: “To the best of your knowledge, what percent of abortion are performed at 12 weeks and under. How many latter stage abortions are performed on demand, no questions asked?

I haven't researched the latest statistics on either of those questions. In terms of ethical principles alone, I don't believe that those statistics matter.

 

[Removable Mind]

To find out what everyone's personal sense of ethics are, with respect to the issue. I would hope that such knowledge is a benefit to all who are interested.


I haven't researched the latest statistics on either of those questions. In terms of ethical principles alone, I don't believe that those statistics matter.

Then I guess my participation is over....well, at least between you and I.

I'm in favor of abortion on demand, no questions asked, as the judicial restrictions have been laid out by the SC case: Planned Parenthood 1992. It works for me.

 

[Lursa]

Then I guess my participation is over....well, at least between you and I.

I'm in favor of abortion on demand, no questions asked, as the judicial restrictions have been laid out by the SC case: Planned Parenthood 1992. It works for me.

Moi as well. Since no elective abortions take place after viability, to me it's not ethical to make useless, feel-good legislation.

It just supports ignorance (an unreasonable belief that they do occur) and it's also an indication of how little some people...men and women...think of women, that they are so willing to believe, against the data, that women casually would do that.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Moi as well. Since no elective abortions take place after viability, to me it's not ethical to make useless, feel-good legislation.

It just supports ignorance (an unreasonable belief that they do occur) and it's also an indication of how little some people...men and women...think of women, that they are so willing to believe, against the data, that women casually would do that.

I'm mentioning this only because it's an ethics issue: if you want to continue dialog on it, we'll have to do it in another thread (it's too far off-topic).

Just because a women (or man) does something that nearly everyone would consider insane at best or evil at worst does not mean that everyone who learns about it would automatically think less of all women (or all men).

 

[Removable Mind]

Moi as well. Since no elective abortions take place after viability, to me it's not ethical to make useless, feel-good legislation.

It just supports ignorance (an unreasonable belief that they do occur) and it's also an indication of how little some people...men and women...think of women, that they are so willing to believe, against the data, that women casually would do that.

Agree. I don't see a shift of beliefs regarding the underlying ethical question - as far as pro-choice advocates are concerned. There might be some variation with when pro-choice advocates believe the developmental cutoff stage might be (i.e. 12 weeks, 20 weeks, viability, etc).

And the ethical question for pro-life is a given, regardless of how they want to describe their particular reasons for opposing abortion. And those reasons aren't likely to change - unless of course some pro-life women suddenly finds themselves is an awkward pregnancy situation. There is a fair number of self-identified conservative women, women of the Catholic faith - or other religions who don't support abortion at any stage - do have abortions. Guttmacher Institute statistics verifies my previous statement.

One thing is obvious about the vast majority of pro-life - its not about viability at all. It seems most pro-life just simply value the yet to be born over the born, and more in particular women who host the presence of an unborn stage of human life.

For many pro-life, is no distinction between a zygote and an 99 year old adult, unless of course a born person has been sentenced to death by some authority, or put in harms way by government in some war...or a born individual (no matter the age) becomes a burden to pro-life advocate taxpayers.

In other words...

Social services provided to whom many pro-life advocates claim as being irresponsible women and their bastard children - would be ended by most pro-life - if they had the power to do so.

 

[hado117]

According to your own ethics, morals, philosophy, and values, under what circumstances to you believe it's right to end a pregnancy?

when I am the fetus

 

[Lursa]

One thing is obvious about the vast majority of pro-life - its not about viability at all. It seems most pro-life just simply value the yet to be born over the born, and more in particular women who host the presence of an unborn stage of human life.

As is clearly demonstrated over and over, including in this thread, it is nearly impossible to get pro-life people to address and engage on that. It's just denied or when the questions become too tough, avoided.

And it's ridiculous to enter into an ethical discussion on abortion and imagine that the questions...and answers...arent tough. But why is being honest about it when it comes to confronting what your personal stance actually means in real life so hard?

 

[Lursa]

when I am the fetus

Shoulda sent a teeny tiny telegram out to your mom then.

 

[Lursa]

I'm mentioning this only because it's an ethics issue: if you want to continue dialog on it, we'll have to do it in another thread (it's too far off-topic).

Just because a women (or man) does something that nearly everyone would consider insane at best or evil at worst does not mean that everyone who learns about it would automatically think less of all women (or all men).

My response is relative specifically to my post here on abortion:

When all evidence points to something being factually wrong and people still *choose* to believe it happens, then it's not a far stretch to think that they find it easy to imagine less of the women doing it. The bias, the inability to accept fact, is a strong indicator of how their entire opinion is effected.

And your own description certainly provides a strong basis for my perception.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

In other words...

Social services provided to whom many pro-life advocates claim as being irresponsible women and their bastard children - would be ended by most pro-life - if they had the power to do so.

Despite your and Lursa's admitted prejudices against all pro-life people, I don't support taking away social services for any "irresponsible" behavior, nor would I do so if I had the power.

 

[Lursa]

Despite your and Lursa's admitted prejudices against all pro-life people, I don't support taking away social services for any "irresponsible" behavior, nor would I do so if I had the power.

My opinions on pro-life people and their ethics have been strictly focused on abortion in this thread. There was no prejudice displayed that I can recall.

 

[Lursa]

Just because a women (or man) does something that nearly everyone would consider insane at best or evil at worst does not mean that everyone who learns about it would automatically think less of all women (or all men).

So this is not a response to DD but something I've been thinking about since posted. Just throwing it out there, as this is one way I work out the questions on new aspects to conversations.

Nearly everyone personally believes that the elective abortion of a viable fetus is wrong. That is common ground.

What is not common is how people react to the idea that (if they know that none take place AND know the pain and risks to a woman that would do so unnecessarily) there's no need for a law to prevent it.

There seem to be many that easily imagine that women ARE doing it or would do it. Casually.

For myself, I cannot imagine that. To me, for a woman to casually do that is extremely unreasonable. My natural inclination is to believe that a woman would not do so.

It's like asking, do you believe most people would commit murder if it was legal. Yes or no?

My natural response is no.

How do other people respond to that question? Anyone?

 

[Bassman]

I say never because it is not up to us, but the Almighty God of Creation. That being said, except for ectopic pregnancies I see zero justifiable reason for abortion.

 

[joko104]

I'm willing to go with "unborn human life," but obviously that's still a human life.

And according to my own ethics, you don't unilaterally end a human life unless you have a decent justification. You're welcome to disagree, but don't bother trying to convince me that absolute freedom to abort under all circumstances is somehow ethically superior.

Not even many pro-choicers claim there is an "absolute freedom to abort under all circumstances." If you asked pro-lifers, most will not claim abortion is wrong under all circumstances either - particularly if in real terms that is to declare the mother must die for a fetus that will only survive minutes or days - or even will not be live born after birth due to know extreme birth defects.

I suspect in that situation, if those are the real facts, you would agree an abortion would not be unethical. Am I correct? Or do you claim it is unethical to save the mother's on life behalf of an "unborn human life" that can not be born alive or is so misformed it would only technically briefly survive with nothing but a brain stem of no self awareness until then?

 

[joko104]

A very religious Christian I know has an interesting perspective, noting the Bible does not really address abortion one way or the other. In her view, the true "human,' is the person's soul, which is what separates humans from animals - the person's soul or inner voice.

She does not be any human has the ability to prevent God from putting a soul into this lifetime, so in the event of a miscarriage of a malformed fetus, this was God's decision to give that "soul' (ie human) a better body. In this, she does not believe it possible that an abortion prevents the birth of another person because the soul is the person. Rather, it means that soul/person will just have a different body born to a different circumstance and probably different mother. Only the body (package that holds a soul) can be destroyed, not the soul itself and if God wishes that soul to live a human life, no mere human can stop it.

I'm not advocating that viewpoint, but rather pointing out that even particularly Christian people do not agree on the topic of abortion as a spiritual and God's law ethical question.

 

[hado117]

Shoulda sent a teeny tiny telegram out to your mom then.

she couldnt decipher the kicks

 

[Anarchon]

It's none of my business unless it's my child.

 

[Removable Mind]

Despite your and Lursa's admitted prejudices against all pro-life people, I don't support taking away social services for any "irresponsible" behavior, nor would I do so if I had the power.

Good enough.

And the Social Services comment is “my” personal opinion. Nobody else tossed that into the discussion as far as I’m aware. And I didn’t personally accuse you of harboring that belief.

Many persons on this site consider women who have an unwanted pregnancy as committing an irresponsible act, which can lead to births that they can’t afford, and they are unfairly forced to pay taxes that help support the child or children. But if you ask many of those same “individuals”, and I want to emphasize the word, “individuals” if they support women’s right to have an abortion - they’ll argue that abortion is “wrongfully” taking human life, or even worse, women who have abortions are committing murder.

The children who are the product of an unwanted pregnancy has no political voice or have any ability to fend for themselves. So those who complain about paying taxes and terminating Services is their way of stating how they would impose punishment on women for being irresponsible and having children.

 

[Lursa]

she couldnt decipher the kicks

Maybe she didnt know Morse Code?

 

[joko104]

Agree. I don't see a shift of beliefs regarding the underlying ethical question - as far as pro-choice advocates are concerned. There might be some variation with when pro-choice advocates believe the developmental cutoff stage might be (i.e. 12 weeks, 20 weeks, viability, etc).

And the ethical question for pro-life is a given, regardless of how they want to describe their particular reasons for opposing abortion. And those reasons aren't likely to change - unless of course some pro-life women suddenly finds themselves is an awkward pregnancy situation. There is a fair number of self-identified conservative women, women of the Catholic faith - or other religions who don't support abortion at any stage - do have abortions. Guttmacher Institute statistics verifies my previous statement.

One thing is obvious about the vast majority of pro-life - its not about viability at all. It seems most pro-life just simply value the yet to be born over the born, and more in particular women who host the presence of an unborn stage of human life.

For many pro-life, is no distinction between a zygote and an 99 year old adult, unless of course a born person has been sentenced to death by some authority, or put in harms way by government in some war...or a born individual (no matter the age) becomes a burden to pro-life advocate taxpayers.

In other words...

Social services provided to whom many pro-life advocates claim as being irresponsible women and their bastard children - would be ended by most pro-life - if they had the power to do so.

Possibly and I've made that claim many times myself on this forum and elsewhere. But that is not really relevant since the core of pro-choice is that it is irrelevant what other people think. You know i"m pro-choice, but trying to divert it to partisanship doesn't add anything.

I used to think it does, but decided making such a claim is a fundamental conflict with "its the woman's choice." It doesn't matter what pro-lifers or pro-choicers think, do or how they vote. It only matters what what the woman thinks. Playing good-guys versus bad-guys between pro-choice and pro-life advocates doesn't add anything nor do I believe it persuades anyone.

 

[joko104]

I'm going to add to that last message. I do not see being anti-abortion and opposing welfare as a contradiction. Many people, myself included, see a price of freedom is personal responsibility. So a person believing abortion is wrong, but then also the woman has to deal with it on her own, isn't exactly a contradiction as they will claim that unless it is from rape, the woman made the choice to have unprotected sex or at least the risk of sex even if some contraceptive used - and therefore she should bear the consequences including costs, not other people.

I don't agree with that view point, but such a pro-life stance is not a self contradiction. For example from the opposite direction, I think if the woman does have the child is it her financial and time responsibility as it was her choice - and the man's fully as well, though I do not mean that as an absolute standard. Why should I pay for other people's kids instead of my own?

 

[marke]

A very religious Christian I know has an interesting perspective, noting the Bible does not really address abortion one way or the other. In her view, the true "human,' is the person's soul, which is what separates humans from animals - the person's soul or inner voice.

She does not be any human has the ability to prevent God from putting a soul into this lifetime, so in the event of a miscarriage of a malformed fetus, this was God's decision to give that "soul' (ie human) a better body. In this, she does not believe it possible that an abortion prevents the birth of another person because the soul is the person. Rather, it means that soul/person will just have a different body born to a different circumstance and probably different mother. Only the body (package that holds a soul) can be destroyed, not the soul itself and if God wishes that soul to live a human life, no mere human can stop it.

I'm not advocating that viewpoint, but rather pointing out that even particularly Christian people do not agree on the topic of abortion as a spiritual and God's law ethical question.

In theological terms a case may be made for saying ti was in some respect God's will for Hitler to have murdered so many Jews.

However, an equally strong if not stronger case may be made for concluding it is also God's will that Hitler and tens of thousands of his wicked insensitive brutal barbarian supporters are now in hell suffering the beginning of the eternal fiery wrath of God in judgment for those crimes.

Bottom line: Don't kill babies and don't support baby killing or you will face the wrath of God.

 

[joko104]

In theological terms a case may be made for saying ti was in some respect God's will for Hitler to have murdered so many Jews.

However, an equally strong if not stronger case may be made for concluding it is also God's will that Hitler and tens of thousands of his wicked insensitive brutal barbarian supporters are now in hell suffering the beginning of the eternal fiery wrath of God in judgment for those crimes.

Bottom line: Don't kill babies and don't support baby killing or you will face the wrath of God.

I suppose if you write your own religious book declaring you are God's 21st century spokesperson you then could quote yourself as proof that is what earns God's wrath. In the Old Testament at least, God ordered lots and lots of babies killed. He also directly killed a lot of Jews.

Clearly, you believe if it is God's will that a new soul be brought into this world, he is powerless against the greater power of a woman to stop his doing so. Not a very powerful God you have if your God is weaker than any woman.

If the Bible is the standard, it can not be claimed that God is against dead. In fact, that is the only thing God has unquestionably made certain for everyone, no exceptions. God's test of a person could be entirely different than what you claim it is.

I've seen paintings depicting Jesus saying to bring the children to him. Never, not one time, was there a pregnant woman in those paintings - and those were by some of the most devote and strict Christians this world has ever known.

A lot of people say God's will is whatever they say it is. If you don't like something, then certainly God doesn't like it too.

I'm curious if you care to answer. Do you believe people have a soul that is separate and distinct from their own body in that the person as a soul will extend after dead?

 

[vegas giants]

In theological terms a case may be made for saying ti was in some respect God's will for Hitler to have murdered so many Jews.

However, an equally strong if not stronger case may be made for concluding it is also God's will that Hitler and tens of thousands of his wicked insensitive brutal barbarian supporters are now in hell suffering the beginning of the eternal fiery wrath of God in judgment for those crimes.

Bottom line: Don't kill babies and don't support baby killing or you will face the wrath of God.

I'm not too worried about it. Lol

 

[Lursa]

In theological terms a case may be made for saying ti was in some respect God's will for Hitler to have murdered so many Jews.

However, an equally strong if not stronger case may be made for concluding it is also God's will that Hitler and tens of thousands of his wicked insensitive brutal barbarian supporters are now in hell suffering the beginning of the eternal fiery wrath of God in judgment for those crimes.

Bottom line: Don't kill babies and don't support baby killing or you will face the wrath of God.

And what if you dont believe in God?