Abortion Ethics Discussion

uhh... I don't possibly see how killing humans right now is somehow preferable to the eventual deaths of humans from some potential doomsday scenario?

 

Not talking about killing humans, squishing ants remember? Also not talking about some sudden apocalypse but the slow decay of the earths resources.

 

So you think that as an action abortion is morally acceptable. Whether the women ought to abort however after repeatedly getting pregnant and aborting, you say that after a few times she morally ought not do that.

What moral standard do you use here?

What if hypothetically the girl constantly gets raped, and constantly falls pregnant. Would this have any bearing on whether she morally ought to have an abortion after the third, fourth, or perhaps fifth time?

 

A fetus, regardless of development time, is human. It is not conscious the entire time, but it is definitely still human.

 

Thats not exactly true thats the age old question of nature vs nurture. Most people that were born into messed up situations not only are brought up in a messed up situation but are also hardwired at birth to be abusive wether it be people or drugs. Its not their fault its just a combination of bad genes. They didn't give up its just how there brain works they were dealt a bad hand of cards since birth. Theres a story of a kid who was adopted at birth and came from a family of thieves and drug addicts. In the end he became a drug addict and thief and ended up murdering someone even though the family was as loving as they could be. Its hard to fight who you are,

 

I guess I took my first stance on the rape crime. Thanks for clearing it up.

Though, from my own opinion. I do think the choice is for the woman to make, and it is her who has to deal with the trauma of doing so.

There are good arguments from both sides. I just personally believe the choice should be there. Opposed to it not being there, and a child has to grow in a family that either cannot provide for it, or care for it.

 

I think the fetus has to deal with a bit more trauma than the mother, who is left physically unharmed.

 

Of course killing someone with downs syndrome would be acknowledged by everyone as inherently wrong, but my point is that as a society we have a certain respect for established, living human life, except in the case of unborn fetuses.

It is just as much a crime to kill a person with the barest of mental capacities as, even if it just means they slobber in a wheelchair and shit themselves day after day, as it is to kill the most intelligent people in the world.

Why shouldn't this same respect and equality in law be carried into unborn babies?

 

Your post didn't really address anything I posted, but nonetheless:

Feminists who are actually feminists support the CHOICE for abortion. There is a difference between being a proponent for abortion and a proponent to have a choice in the matter.

They do not exist in two separate fears. The only argument against abortion is a morale one, this seeps into politics and old white men discussing women's bodies.

Have the right sure, but that's not the case, 1/5 children in the U.S. are already living in poverty.

Not sometimes, always, actual people with actual lives trump the potential for adult life all day.

Or someone doesn't want a child, the argument is the right to choose.

You're acting is if a fetus has any understanding of trauma and can feel, or even comprehend anything that happens to it.

You answer your own question, they're not people, they are unborn babies, specifically fetuses who have no comprehension of their own existence.

 

was born in a poor condition many, they were born in the wrong conditions and circumstances, what that person blames the birth, whether to blame god.
may god there is a noble goal to put them there. because they are stronger than most people. and not a few people are successful from a bad neighborhood and a bad situation. so grateful for our lives.

 

So is killing a human is OK depending on how old they are, or how tall they are? How big does a human have to get before their life isn't as important as someone else's future plans?

This is retarded. If someone just says "I want money", and they kill and rob someone for it, there is no support for his "right to choose to kill someone for his own personal benefit". If someone says "I don't want this human fetus to live, because of my own personal (non-life threatening) benefit" and kills a fetus because of it, why would anyone think they have a right to do "choose" to do that?

Saying that it's OK to kill another human because they can't feel/understand their death or are currently not in a conscious state is a horrifying argument. If someone is in a coma, you can't just take a scalpel, open up their brain and vacuum it out because they can't understand or feel the trauma right then, and they aren't conscious -- they can and probably will eventually wake up!

 

Not a human, it's a fetus.

Killing and robbing an individual because you what want they have and "killing" something that has yet to take form and can't actually function and/or exist outside of a body are hardly similar.

It is a fetus, not a human, there are an exorbitant amount of differences and no one needs to potentially ruin their lives so a fetus can grow and eventually become a human they have to then take care of.

There is a big difference between being conscious and having a consciousness.

"when they can and probably will eventually wake up!" From my understanding, going into a coma (non-medically induced) and not coming out is significantly more likely than coming out.



You are still comparing a human and a fetus. They are very different and a fetus isn't rewarded the same rights as human, because it is not a human.

 

What kind of fetus do you think it is? You think women are aborting fetus kittens or something? It is literally human.

Why do you put "killing" in quotations? You are literally killing it, don't make it seem like the action is ambiguous.

Anyway, go on and prove to me how those actions are hardly similar.

It is a human. That being said, your argument can be extended so that people can murder babies who have already been born, and the severely mentally ill (who even fall into a lower tier than just "can eventually grow to be a (normal) human"), on the ludicrous basis that just feeling obligated to support another person grants you the right to kill that human?

So what % of coma patients don't have to wake up to make it OK for a person to "choose" to murder them? And is that number even comparable to our current pregnancy success rates?

It literally has human DNA, and is a growing, self-replicating human. Saying it is not a human is objectively false.

 

its true it's about a political issue, I read in some American newspaper there are 11 states considering legalizing abortion ..
yes, because in your country abosi is legal and always commemorated every 5 years if I'm not mistaken. this not just about the United States this about SOMETHING FOR ALL.
for me: I have already explained to be an abortion if certain conditions, this applies to all countries.
in your country, is being debated on the legalization of abortion. alright.
ILLEGAL in my county.

I want to build knowledge and sharing of ideas, and we can take middleway, I knew it was right to have an abortion of the fetus. back to the original question.

I am not a political question but morraly.

so why do not I give you a definitive answer to you because you are just in the US not represent all of the world. thanks

 

Making abortions illegal won't stop abortions: while I acknowledge that some people use abortions like contraception, I don't think these examples should be able to spoil it for the many parents who wish to have an abortion for very understandable and serious reasons. It takes a lot for someone to "end" their -I suppose you could say- potential baby.

Look back to when women had to literally go to some shady place and stick a coat hanger up there to abort a baby they couldn't either financially, emotionally or physically cope with having. People against abortions normally call themselves "pro life" - but as soon as women are denied access to places like Planned Parenthood (granted this isn't all that specific organisation helps with) or other abortion channels then these people then take a disinterest in the now born child who grows up in a lack of financial, emotional or physical capability by it's parent(s) and end up in the care system or worse.

Also there is the case of rape, which of course can in itself cause serious emotional damage to the victim, never mind having to give birth to your abuser's child. But I think arguing this point takes away credibility from cases where the intercourse was consensual but the pregnancy was unplanned, accidental or simply decided against after weighing up the options later - because all too often these people are simply told they are being selfish, cruel or worse.. when in fact they are usually putting the potential child's predicted interests first.

Ultimately though, being a predicament that I myself cannot be in, I don't think I'm in a position where it's acceptable for me to judge anyone's choices or prohibit anyone's access to a service in the first instance.

 

Its True... abortion can be done with stealth can be done with medications, foods that cause a miscarriage, or doctors who provide such services. it happened in my country although my country is illegal for an abortion.
it is a fact that although abortion remain illegal but morally we see greater for illegal, can be legal if there are conditions that must be fulfilled. when poverty becomes a problem, in my country has no family planning that uses anti-pregnancy medications/drugs, or we can use a condom. is a major task for the government and anti-abortion activists.

 

Yes, we know that fetus isn't "awarded" the same rights as a fully grown and functioning fetus.

My question was, why is this equality in law that is given to all other forms of human life not extended to the unborn?

How can you quantify human life? Would killing a newly born human be a greater crime than aborting a baby 1 week from its due date?

You simply cannot argue that a fetus is not human. Being human is not a matter of awareness or intelligence. It literally refers to the DNA shared by all "humans", and also by the unborn.

Saying a fetus is not human is saying a newborn is not human.

 

As far as I'm aware - and correct me if I'm wrong - in places where you have the choice of abortion, you cannot terminate said foetus 1 week before the due date. This being because at a certain level of development it is a functioning human with experiences. We share DNA similarities with obscure, inanimate things (like 50% with a banana, I recall - I may be deluded though, sue me); so we have to go beyond DNA and think about experiences and suffering instead.

 

human embryos are indeed human beings and, as such, deserve a level of respect that is incompatible with treating them as disposable research material

May This may help you ...
Human Embryos are indeed human beings

this argument about a fetus.

 

My example provided was hypothetical.

But if we are defining human life, exact human DNA is absolutely a way to do this.