When is it ethically okay?

[DifferentDrummr]

Not if she doesnt believe that abortion is unethical. She can have one early term...most people find that acceptable. She can give it up for adoption. She can have it and live with his family or her family (support network). She has options.

OTOH I dont ever support people being irresponsible about birth control, but that's also my personal ethical stance.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with most of this. However, the first sentence opens the door to a lot of ethical problems.

Specifically, is it ethical for someone to do whatever they believe is ethical?

 

[MrWonka]

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

This should have been a multiple choice poll as there are many situations when it is, however, the general rule is that whenever the mother's pain and or danger to the mother would be greater by continuing the pregnancy than it would be by terminating the pregnancy, and when the pregnancy could not be terminated without killing the child.

So generally that means up until viability, but also after that if the mother's life is at risk. There may also be further concessions made for certain types of birth defects as well.

Rape is obviously a valid case, but so long as all the previously mentioned cases are covered that would include rape as well.

 

[Lursa]

Believe it or not, I actually agree with most of this. However, the first sentence opens the door to a lot of ethical problems.

Specifically, is it ethical for someone to do whatever they believe is ethical?

Depends what it is. Cheating on a spouse? Do most people believe that's ethical even if they do it? No but it's not against the law.

If somebody drops a $20 bill, if a person believes that's ethical, they pick it up and give it back to that person. Most would agree. Maybe not all. Is it ethical to keep it? Depends on the person. I wouldnt believe it was.

Is getting a divorce ethical? There would be many different 'beliefs' on the ethics regarding that. Are any right or wrong?

 

[maquiscat]

Depending on what you're asking, it can be very much about personal ethics; in other words, whether the woman is "doing the right thing" or not.

If you're asking about her legal rights, I'm fairly sure that she can abort the baby, but that isn't really the topic of the thread.

I was trying to determine if you saw a difference, on a basics level as opposed to practical, between a woman's right to end a pregnancy vs a supposed right to an abortion specifically, given the wording you used. I didn't want to take beyond that as a thread jack. Just curious.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Specifically, is it ethical for someone to do whatever they believe is ethical?

Since ethics are based upon beliefs to begin with, it will be ethical in their mind. Or to reverse it, if I, for example, found an action to be unethical, the fact that others found the same action ethical makes no difference.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Since ethics are based upon beliefs to begin with, it will be ethical in their mind. Or to reverse it, if I, for example, found an action to be unethical, the fact that others found the same action ethical makes no difference.

I'm not convinced it logically follows that whatever a person believes is ethical is automatically ethical.

Imagine every possible action gets assigned to somewhere on an "ethics spectrum," from the most saintly to the most evil. You, Lursa, I, as individuals, will likely disagree about where to demarcate the set of unethical acts from the ethical ones, and (as you both seem to imply) none of us is right or wrong to pick that dividing point where we do. However, I suspect that we, along with most other humans, would pick dividing points that "cluster" along some general area on that spectrum.

So there obviously would be some things that we all could agree are unethical, even outside our individual minds. Right?

 

[maquiscat]

I'm not convinced it logically follows that whatever a person believes is ethical is automatically ethical.

Imagine every possible action gets assigned to somewhere on an "ethics spectrum," from the most saintly to the most evil. You, Lursa, I, as individuals, will likely disagree about where to demarcate the set of unethical acts from the ethical ones, and (as you both seem to imply) none of us is right or wrong to pick that dividing point where we do. However, I suspect that we, along with most other humans, would pick dividing points that "cluster" along some general area on that spectrum.

So there obviously would be some things that we all could agree are unethical, even outside our individual minds. Right?

An opinion is an opinion no matter how many people agree or disagree with it. All matters of ethics are, in the most basic of forms, opinions. All are subjectively reached.

Mind you, as a group, whatever the group is, we can agree upon a set of common ethics, and then, within that context, objectively determine if situations are ethical or not. But that is only because a set of opinions were accepted as the standard.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[DifferentDrummr]

An opinion is an opinion no matter how many people agree or disagree with it. All matters of ethics are, in the most basic of forms, opinions. All are subjectively reached.

Mind you, as a group, whatever the group is, we can agree upon a set of common ethics, and then, within that context, objectively determine if situations are ethical or not. But that is only because a set of opinions were accepted as the standard.

That ethics are based in personal opinion doesn't make them completely arbitrary.

If we go back to the hypothetical spectrum of actions - with saintly at one extreme and purely evil at the other - there are certain actions that almost every human will rate as being close to one of those extremes. And yes, there will be much more disagreement and variation on where to place many other actions. But if human opinion were completely arbitrary, the distribution would be entirely random. Bottom line, there's more than just a standard-setting agreement at work here.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

At any point prior the to the child's parent(s) giving them a name and/or making a public declaration claiming the child for their household, such as signing their names to the birth certificate.

 

[AGENT J]

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

For me own ethics i had to answer other because its a combo...

anytime before viability, 22 weeks is fine by me
anytime after that if theres increased risk to the moms health
anytime after that if theres increased risk to the babys health (defects etc)
as for rape and incest i dont see them needing and special acknowledgement under my ethics they would already be covered by default

i simply cant treat the viable woman, a known entity and citizen as a lesser violating her human and legal rights vs the ZEF a non viable unknown enity that could never come to be

legally RvW is just fine by me, any reason at all up to 24 weeks with all others being for medical reasons

 

[DifferentDrummr]

I realized that I didn't post my list yet.

To me, abortion is ethical when:

* the woman was raped, in which category I include spousal rape, date rape, and incest. If the sex isn't voluntary, the pregnancy isn't voluntary. To force a woman to go through it under those conditions would be involuntary servitude.
* the woman is legally underage. The reasoning behind this one is the same as above: an underage person can't give informed consent to sex. Granted, some young people are mature enough to do so before the legal age, and others aren't mature enough after that age, so it's definitely arbitrary, but one has to draw the line somewhere.
* the pregnancy is medically deemed high risk, either to the mother or the child
* tests in utero show the child to be so disabled that it has no reasonable hope of leading a normal, productive life
* multiple embryos (such as from fertility drugs) where all of them can't reasonably be expected to survive, IOW, partial abortions.

 

[Removable Mind]

I realized that I didn't post my list yet.

To me, abortion is ethical when:

* the woman was raped, in which category I include spousal rape, date rape, and incest. If the sex isn't voluntary, the pregnancy isn't voluntary. To force a woman to go through it under those conditions would be involuntary servitude.
* the woman is legally underage. The reasoning behind this one is the same as above: an underage person can't give informed consent to sex. Granted, some young people are mature enough to do so before the legal age, and others aren't mature enough after that age, so it's definitely arbitrary, but one has to draw the line somewhere.
* the pregnancy is medically deemed high risk, either to the mother or the child
* tests in utero show the child to be so disabled that it has no reasonable hope of leading a normal, productive life
* multiple embryos (such as from fertility drugs) where all of them can't reasonably be expected to survive, IOW, partial abortions.

DD, I want to be clear about you utilizing the term/word “ethics/ethical” to express what “you believe” to be a behavior (abortion) as being right or wrong based on selective circumstances, which you have outlined above.

The reason I want some clarity is because sometimes the words ethical and moral are used as though they mean the same thing.

Ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.

A couple of examples to ponder:

A defense lawyer’s morals may tell him or her that murder is reprehensible and that murderers should be punished, but his or her ethics as a professional lawyer, require him or her to defend his or her client to the best of his or her abilities, even if he or she knows that the client is guilty.

Another example, a doctor may not euthanize a patient, even at the patient's request, as per ethical standards for health professionals. However, the same doctor may personally believe in a patient's right to die, as per the doctor's own morality.

Base on your list, I have to assume that you want an external authority to maintain total legal control over women’s reproductive roles. Am I correct?

 

[Peter King]

For any reason up to say 18 weeks and after that only in case of saving the mother's life or in case of extremely deformed fetuses.

 

[Lursa]

Base on your list, I have to assume that you want an external authority to maintain total legal control over women’s reproductive roles. Am I correct?

And where do a woman's ethics regarding her own pregnancy fit into that?

 

[Removable Mind]

And where do a woman's ethics regarding her own pregnancy fit into that?

Exactly. And that’s actually where I would have gone after a reply.

Women have the right to exercise their moral beliefs, which can be based on ethical teachings that they’ve acquired via a religion or even their personal beliefs.

The right to privacy includes the right of belief. Isn’t that a core element of the First Amendment?

 

[Removable Mind]

For any reason up to say 18 weeks and after that only in case of saving the mother's life or in case of extremely deformed fetuses.

What would you accept as punitive consequences for having an abortion at 19 weeks simply because a woman decided that she didn’t want to be pregnant because her life circumstances changed?

 

[Lursa]

Exactly. And that’s actually where I would have gone after a reply.

Women have the right to exercise their moral beliefs, which can be based on ethical teachings that they’ve acquired via a religion or even their personal beliefs.

The right to privacy includes the right of belief. Isn’t that a core element of the First Amendment?

Yes, agreed.

 

[Removable Mind]

Yes, agreed.

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.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

DD, I want to be clear about you utilizing the term/word “ethics/ethical” to express what “you believe” to be a behavior (abortion) as being right or wrong based on selective circumstances, which you have outlined above.

The reason I want some clarity is because sometimes the words ethical and moral are used as though they mean the same thing.

Ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.

A couple of examples to ponder:

A defense lawyer’s morals may tell him or her that murder is reprehensible and that murderers should be punished, but his or her ethics as a professional lawyer, require him or her to defend his or her client to the best of his or her abilities, even if he or she knows that the client is guilty.

Another example, a doctor may not euthanize a patient, even at the patient's request, as per ethical standards for health professionals. However, the same doctor may personally believe in a patient's right to die, as per the doctor's own morality.

Base on your list, I have to assume that you want an external authority to maintain total legal control over women’s reproductive roles. Am I correct?

I disagree with you on definitions.

While ethics can refer to rules from an external source, it is by no means necessary that they do. For clarification, my intention has always been for this discussion to refer to one's own principles.

If you want to discuss what should or should not be legal, let's do it on a different thread. There are already at least 60,000 to choose from.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

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.

You present no set of ethics of your own, but immediately start attacking those of other posters. That's what's sad. And disgusting.

 

[Removable Mind]

I disagree with you on definitions.

While ethics can refer to rules from an external source, it is by no means necessary that they do. For clarification, my intention has always been for this discussion to refer to one's own principles.

If you want to discuss what should or should not be legal, let's do it on a different thread. There are already at least 60,000 to choose from.

Disagree all you want. You’re welcome to research the definition.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Disagree all you want. You’re welcome to research the definition.

You got your clarification. What else are you here to demand of me?

 

[Removable Mind]

You present no set of ethics of your own, but immediately start attacking those of other posters. That's what's sad. And disgusting.

Disgusting? So is the belief women don’t deserve the right to control their own reproductive roles.

 

[Removable Mind]

You got your clarification. What else are you here to demand of me?

Ummm, how about telling us why you value the yet to be born over women?

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Disgusting? So is the belief women don’t deserve the right to control their own reproductive roles.

Even Lursa was honest enough to answer questions about women's responsibilities in that area. Clearly you are not.