When is it ethically okay?

[Lursa]

I think there would be a extremely small sect of woman that do it as a result of impairment or lack of understanding because of drug use, alcohol use or a lack of education.

I believe that a woman should be the primary individual who makes the decision, however those also impacted immediately like a husband or mother or father should be able to take part in the discussion. This is what the whole abortion idea should be centred around, a discussion. Each individual is different, ethics are different and views are different, thus each situation is different.

IMO, a parent should be involved in this decision for any minor..it is a medical procedure that like any other, has the risk of complications.

But many people and the law disagree with me. I do see the other side of it and it's valid. But still believe the parents should be told.

 

[goldkam]

IMO, a parent should be involved in this decision for any minor..it is a medical procedure that like any other, has the risk of complications.

But many people and the law disagree with me. I do see the other side of it and it's valid. But still believe the parents should be told.

No doubt, in many cases the minor cannot make a sound or clear judgement and if they are able the parent needs to be some form of guidance for them. The laws a quite contradictory in these areas relating to age of consent (14 to 18 years) but then the drinking age (21 years) then you are able to drive at between 15-17 years.

 

[maquiscat]

I dont understand that.

For the purpose of your question, are you giving regulations the same weight as law, even though they are not created by a legislature?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

For the purpose of your question, are you giving regulations the same weight as law, even though they are not created by a legislature?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Yes, thanks.

Anything that imposes something regarding abortion against a woman's will or restricts access to the procedure.

 

[Removable Mind]

I think, therefore, I am.

When discussing the weight between a life, and a right to one's own body, I feel like it's important to first establish just as to what constitutes, 'life'. A coworker of mine once posted a meme on Facebook declaring, 'I believe that life starts with a heartbeat'—depicted in the meme was a zygote. I don't feel that life starts with a zygote, nor even a heartbeat. Well, maybe life, but not a person. The point that I start to value the rights of a person, or a human as a person at all, is the point when some sort of consciousness comes into the picture. Unfortunately, It's been a while since I bothered to do any Googling on the different phases of a fetus' development; and even then, what I read wasn't particularly informative.If someone were able to identify the points at which thought is possible, and where thoughts could never happen, then I would simply cite that.

Once we have life established, we come to the uncomfortable choice between a blameless child's right to live, and intimate decisions regarding one's own body. I'm going to be honest here; I don't have an answer for this one. I'd probably lean towards preserving the new person, in most cases, though I would do so while also acknowledging the gravity of encroaching on the woman's rights.

Is it possible for a zygote to develop to say a blastocyst if that Cell is not viable in terms of deciding whether life exists at the moment of fertilization?

But now I have to ask, “So what?”

 

[DifferentDrummr]

No, I've mentioned women's personal ethics several times. I asked previously if you thought there should be laws re: abortion that overcame a woman's personal ethics.

Please keep the discussion honest.

If you want to keep the discussion honest, you should give others' intentions the benefit of the doubt and not be so quick to accuse them of "avoiding" a question.

So then my questions are:

Do you believe that women just have abortions 'for no particular reason?' (There are many lists of reasons why women have abortions and I've never seen, 'just for the heck of it', as a matter of fact, I've never seen it listed that they had no reason.)

Nor have I, but with so many billions of women having lived throughout history, would it be so unreasonable to suppose that somewhere, at some time, a woman did so?

And do you believe that someone other than the woman herself has the right to judge the circumstances of her life and decide that they should override the best interests of the woman? If yes, why?

If she happens to have another life that's completely dependent on her at the time, the best interests of both those lives should (ethically) be considered.

 

[D_NATURED]

My ethics aren't based in any single religion; I've borrowed ideas from various religions and also formed my own conclusions. And I don't care if you 'accept' my ethics or anyone else's.

You don't borrow ethics, you establish them through critical thought, something the various religions have failed to accomplish.

I don't know where the appreciation is, because I don't even know what conservatives think nowadays, much less try to speak for them.

Well, when you imply that doctors can tell when a woman is going to die in childbirth, you parrot their ignorant misogyny. Female healthcare is too important to be relative to the speculations of conservative, religious fanatics. If you're not one, great. This thread, however, fails from being too faithful (willfully mistaken) with the facts, like conservatives are prone to do.

Women die in childbirth without warning. They are entitled to terminate their pregnancies rather than risk death or injury for any man's religion, spiritual or political. This debate has been corrupted by the medically ignorant and the spiritually entitled. If you don't like the word bull****, imagine how much women hate being subjugated by pervayors of it.

 

[bearpoker]

I'd say up to the point where there is verifiable brain wave activity giving credence to a determination of active sentient thought.

After that, abort only if the mother's life is in danger, and no method of saving the baby while preserving the life of the mother is available.

So I chose "other."

I'm not sure what "sentient" thought is, or if babies have it, even after they are actually born.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

You don't borrow ethics, you establish them through critical thought, something the various religions have failed to accomplish.

Agreed. Nor did I claim to borrow ethics. I said only that I borrowed ideas.

Well, when you imply that doctors can tell when a woman is going to die in childbirth, you parrot their ignorant misogyny.

I implied no such thing. To be clear, I'm stating outright that doctors can tell when a woman's chances of dying in childbirth are much higher than normal. That's not misogynistic - unless you want to claim that human biology is itself misogynistic.

Women die in childbirth without warning. They are entitled to terminate their pregnancies rather than risk death or injury for any man's religion, spiritual or political. This debate has been corrupted by the medically ignorant and the spiritually entitled. If you don't like the word bull****, imagine how much women hate being subjugated by pervayors of it.

Do you know of any woman who has had an abortion because she might die? (Even though there's no reason to think that childbirth would be unusually dangerous for her?)
I'm not implying that her interests are unimportant, but I definitely believe that the interests of the life she helped create have importance also.

And I'm not bothered at all by the word bull****; I just avoid it around here to keep the silly filters out of my post.

 

[Lursa]

If you want to keep the discussion honest, you should give others' intentions the benefit of the doubt and not be so quick to accuse them of "avoiding" a question.

This is your OP, I believed that meant you had read all the responses. I mentioned it several times and I have asked you to justify your acceptance of the violations on rights/impacts on lives of women multiple times in this thread. And I dont remember seeing that directly addressed. Just more questions.

Nor have I, but with so many billions of women having lived throughout history, would it be so unreasonable to suppose that somewhere, at some time, a woman did so?

So you dont see that as a very demeaning thing to just speculate about women? Esp. if you dont heven know? To just assume women have them frivolously?

And again, still no answers to the questions re: the reasons.

If she happens to have another life that's completely dependent on her at the time, the best interests of both those lives should (ethically) be considered.

Good. Why? And when it comes to self-determination, a future, bodily sovereignty, etc, why is ok to violate those things for one rather than the other?

Anything that you do to act against a woman's will regarding a pregnancy has those impacts...and possibly more but you keep acting like the physical impacts are insignificant. But yeah...up to including costing her her life or health in a manner that you cannot predict or control.

Why do you believe it's acceptable to violate those things for a woman in order to give (the exact same things) to the unborn?

My answer: I believe the born are more entitled to those things than the unborn. The unborn may not even survive to take advantage of such things. Or may be born severely defective. A born person is already a contributing member of society.

Actually, it's one of several of my answers. But that's good for now.

 

[ataraxia]

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

Some easy ones are pregnancies arising from rape, or when the mother's life is in danger (things like uterine hemorrhage, eclampsia, etc...). Known severe birth defects in utero are a little more controversial, but worth considering.

 

[Removable Mind]

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

DD, I do want to add that most pro-choice women won't have an abortion because of their "moral stances". But that they genuinely see the necessity of having the individual freedom to maintain 100% control over their reproductive roles. I don't know where they acquire those moral standards, but it's not my business. However, I suspect that most women's moral views on abortion are linked to their religious upbringing.

It's also important to remember that most pregnancies are brought to full-term.

Prejudging the term "convenience" as being immoral when it comes to abortion - is merely vilifying women without knowing their circumstances is the MO for pro-life advocates. And herein lies the importance of the right to privacy.

I really dislike the government being able to publish abortion statistics. There wouldn't be many exchanges such as this - because nobody would have a clue about who (what race, ages, or how many abortions occur). To me, even published statistics are a violation of privacy.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

This is your OP, I believed that meant you had read all the responses. I mentioned it several times and I have asked you to justify your acceptance of the violations on rights/impacts on lives of women multiple times in this thread. And I dont remember seeing that directly addressed. Just more questions.

Not the same as asking about the woman's own personal ethics. Don't move the goal posts.

So you dont see that as a very demeaning thing to just speculate about women? Esp. if you dont heven know? To just assume women have them frivolously?

How is it demeaning to existing people if we speculate that an abstract person may have once done a particular thing?

Good. Why? And when it comes to self-determination, a future, bodily sovereignty, etc, why is ok to violate those things for one rather than the other?

It's not a matter of being "okay," because usually the ending is less than ideal for both. It's a matter of what causes the least total harm.

Anything that you do to act against a woman's will regarding a pregnancy has those impacts...and possibly more but you keep acting like the physical impacts are insignificant. But yeah...up to including costing her her life or health in a manner that you cannot predict or control.

And again, you ignore that doctors quoted in your own article say that it would be "ridiculous" for a woman never to have children just because of those impacts.

Why do you believe it's acceptable to violate those things for a woman in order to give (the exact same things) to the unborn?

My answer: I believe the born are more entitled to those things than the unborn. The unborn may not even survive to take advantage of such things. Or may be born severely defective. A born person is already a contributing member of society.

Actually, it's one of several of my answers. But that's good for now.

No it's not. You've got a nice double standard going.

You expect me to say why it's acceptable to violate certain things for a woman in order to give them to the unborn. Yet you fail to claim why it's acceptable to destroy the unborn so that the woman can escape any potential impact of pregnancy. Not to mention, you still haven't answered why it's acceptable for a (hypothetical) woman to voluntarily become pregnant and abort because she changes her mind.

 

[Lursa]

Not the same as asking about the woman's own personal ethics. Don't move the goal posts.


How is it demeaning to existing people if we speculate that an abstract person may have once done a particular thing?


It's not a matter of being "okay," because usually the ending is less than ideal for both. It's a matter of what causes the least total harm.


And again, you ignore that doctors quoted in your own article say that it would be "ridiculous" for a woman never to have children just because of those impacts.



No it's not. You've got a nice double standard going.

You expect me to say why it's acceptable to violate certain things for a woman in order to give them to the unborn. Yet you fail to claim why it's acceptable to destroy the unborn so that the woman can escape any potential impact of pregnancy. Not to mention, you still haven't answered why it's acceptable for a (hypothetical) woman to voluntarily become pregnant and abort because she changes her mind.

Avoid avoid avoid.

You refuse to answer my questions. You refuse to support your own comments on ethics when asked.

Sorry. No more answers for you.

 

[Lursa]

you still haven't answered why it's acceptable for a (hypothetical) woman to voluntarily become pregnant and abort because she changes her mind.

This one is easy. I have answered it. More than once. "Because altho I value the unborn, I value all born people more." That's why I feel it's ethical for her to abort.

What answer were you looking for? And then I spelled out WHY I valued the born more.(And you just dismissed it)

And it's a dishonest question. If she didnt plan on or want a kid when she had sex, she didnt 'change her mind' about anything. She always had all her options: have a kid, put one up for adoption, abort.

Again, you just keep up asking for more because you dont want to be pinned down on your own position. That's how weak it must be then, if you cannot support it.

*I* have not hesitated to do so.

 

[Lursa]

Some easy ones are pregnancies arising from rape, or when the mother's life is in danger (things like uterine hemorrhage, eclampsia, etc...). Known severe birth defects in utero are a little more controversial, but worth considering.

You didnt explain how those things seem ethical/unethical to you. Why do you hold those opinions?

 

[Lursa]

Prejudging the term "convenience" as being immoral when it comes to abortion - is merely vilifying women without knowing their circumstances is the MO for pro-life advocates. And herein lies the importance of the right to privacy.
.

I know, the response to that was total BS. Just an excuse in hindsight to again, avoid looking like he's disrespecting women. His comment re: 'aborting for no particular reason' was completely dismissive of women's lives...the entirety of their lives...and empty of fact...which apparently he hadnt bothered to explore. He just chose to assume that.

 

[Bodi]

Just to be clear, the mother should die with the child if there is medical emergency?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

If God deems it so...

 

[Lursa]

According to my ethics, yes. And also according to my ethics, there are extraordinary circumstances in which killing a person is justified. Those circumstances are always tragic, but they can't be dismissed just by claiming that someone is a person.

So you didnt address the examples I wrote, you just gave the easy answer without relating it to actual ethics where there might be conflicts.

Like this one:

The unborn that is the result of rape is somehow equal to a born person but it's not ok to kill the toddler that is the result of rape? Why? What is the distinction you see there? If they are equal as you wrote?

 

[Lursa]

Depends on the need itself. If it's one life or the other, my ethical position is that the mom is justified in choosing her own over the unborn.


That last bit sounds odd to me, because I consider the unborn to be "equally human" to born people.


I would say that both have equal value. Either one may have to give something up (ethically, again) for the sake of the other.

A life is more than just breathing.

How can it be ethical if the govt has to use force of law to act against the woman's will? It ignores her own self-determination, her bodily sovereignty. It's a direct invasion on/in her person. (Good-bye privacy, we now must monitor the status of the life inside you. Good-bye due process...and yet, pregnancy is not a crime and there's no probable cause. More rights thrown out the window.)

The unborn has no will. It is also completely intertwined physiologically with the mother so it has * no bodily sovereignty*.

It is not aware of any govt force against it. It does not suffer anything. A woman has all those and does all those when force is used against her will.

How is it ethical, specifically, to use govt force to provide those same exact things *potentially* for the unborn that the govt is taking/violating from the woman (a future of her choose, self-determination, bodily sovereignty?) They are the exact same things. Why do you believe the unborn is more entitled to them? (And the unborn cannot be accorded those things unless the woman consents...otherwise it's against her will and not equal.)

The questions about ethics are about rights and the entirety of a person's life....not just a right to breath. Not just the heartbeat of one over the other. It's completely dishonest to try and frame this discussion...if it's about ethics...by basing it just on the right of one's opportunity to breath over the other's.

Because there is almost no one that ever says the woman's life should be sacrificed to give birth. That's too easy, it's simple for most. You want answers to the tough questions? Let's see yours.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

A life is more than just breathing.

How can it be ethical if the govt has to use force of law to act against the woman's will? It ignores her own self-determination, her bodily sovereignty. It's a direct invasion on/in her person. (Good-bye privacy, we now must monitor the status of the life inside you. Good-bye due process...and yet, pregnancy is not a crime and there's no probable cause. More rights thrown out the window.)

The unborn has no will. It is also completely intertwined physiologically with the mother so it has * no bodily sovereignty*.

It is not aware of any govt force against it. It does not suffer anything. A woman has all those and does all those when force is used against her will.

How is it ethical, specifically, to use govt force to provide those same exact things *potentially* for the unborn that the govt is taking/violating from the woman (a future of her choose, self-determination, bodily sovereignty?) They are the exact same things. Why do you believe the unborn is more entitled to them? (And the unborn cannot be accorded those things unless the woman consents...otherwise it's against her will and not equal.)

The questions about ethics are about rights and the entirety of a person's life....not just a right to breath. Not just the heartbeat of one over the other. It's completely dishonest to try and frame this discussion...if it's about ethics...by basing it just on the right of one's opportunity to breath over the other's.

Because there is almost no one that ever says the woman's life should be sacrificed to give birth. That's too easy, it's simple for most. You want answers to the tough questions? Let's see yours.

Believe it or not, you had me in your camp right up until about. . . the last 4 posts.

Because you've stated that you refuse to answer any of my questions while you continue to ask me dozens, you've made it more than clear that you have no desire for anything other than a one-sided discussion. (And it's too bad, because some of those questions could actually make for a good discussion.) This is not a game that I have either the time or the inclination for. You may consider yourself ignored by me for the life of this thread.

 

[Lursa]

Believe it or not, you had me in your camp right up until about. . . the last 4 posts.

Because you've stated that you refuse to answer any of my questions while you continue to ask me dozens, you've made it more than clear that you have no desire for anything other than a one-sided discussion. (And it's too bad, because some of those questions could actually make for a good discussion.) This is not a game that I have either the time or the inclination for. You may consider yourself ignored by me for the life of this thread.

That's just an excuse from you to get out of answering the tough questions. You have been very dishonest frequently in this thread.

I have answered you consistently and honestly until I decided to stop and 'let you catch up.'

You've even been reduced to lying...saying that I'm not open to discussion...the proof that you lie is that I keep asking questions. And up til recently, I answered yours.

You cant explain your own ethical position honestly...which means IMO, it's not all that ethical.

Otherwise, you would have, instead of continually asking more questions and then getting personal to avoid the tough questions.

You certainly hold no moral High Ground on the topic at hand, much less in debating. If you were truly interested in the topic and the ethics surrounding it, you'd be the 'bigger man' and answer them anyway. But no, you choose to stoop to tactics to avoid answering.

Anyway, I'll continue to participate in the thread, whether you respond to me or not. You have displayed an amazing level of moral cowardice in a thread that seemed to have potential. Certainly my ethical perspective will be/has been communicated for all to read.

 

[Lursa]

Asked early in discussion, answer avoided:

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.

So, since it's about personal ethics, isnt "pro-choice" the correct application towards abortion in the US?

Still open to discussing an answer.

 

[Lursa]

Responded very early in the discussion. No answers:

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?

Very interested in seeing answers to discuss.

 

[Lursa]

Asked early in thread, no answer was forthcoming:

Now you're just using a large number for the purpose of scaring people.

Excuse noted after multiple sources provided upon request, and then more excuses that minimized the risks those factual numbers posed.

I'm using factual numbers. The real numbers ARE scary. and...'real.' And every single pregnant woman faces that risk.

IMO, you are equivocating because you dont want to acknowledge just how risky, how significant, pregnancy is. Always.

But since your thread is about ethics, I would still ask that you justify your position with such significant risks to women?

Not answered. Certainly still worth exploring the ethics if there was an answer.