Should abortion be legal?

[Index]

Why do some people want to impose their ideas or beliefs on others? If the mother wants to have an abortion, she should be free to have one.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Thanks for all your responses guys! I think you've all hit the nail on the head - there is no answer! No matter what someone does in this situation is going to be right in some sense, and wrong in some sense. I know I would never have an abortion unless my life depended on it, but part of me thinks that for some people it would be preferable to bringing a child into the world that they then resent for the rest of its life. I know of someone who (allegedly) had seven abortions then had a child she clearly didn't want, presumably because she couldn't have any more abortions. It's hard to see how to prevent situations like that, while still allowing genuine people to make an informed choice.

 

[Revenant]

Why do some people want to impose their ideas or beliefs on others? If the mother wants to have an abortion, she should be free to have one.

I would impose my idea that swindling is wrong, I would also impose the belief that murder was also wrong. It all has to do with doing one's best to protect the rights of others, and us pro-lifers believe it is protecting the fetus' rights to life and happiness.

I agree with Kinsao's response to Sansuikan San's hyposthetical(?) question.

 

[Revenant]

Apologies for the double post, but I found a post on another forum that articulates so well a part of what I would like to say.

Society's acceptance of abortion is the result of a solipsistic culture that values the self over all other considerations.

Once conceieved, the tiny mass of cells will, if left alone, barring any natural problems, become a human being. That it "doesn't feel pain" or "can't think" or "is not viable," is absolutley irrelevant. We are all continuously developing. It does not stop with birth. I am not the same man I was ten years ago, and am certainly not the same as I was at 5. Development starts with conception and ends with death. To stop the development during any stage is murder. No individual should claim a "right" to do this since it necessarily relies on the same individual. My three year old cannot survive without my direct involvement in his life. Does this mean he is "infringing" on my rights? Does this mean I have absolute control over his existence since he relies on me while I do not rely on him? If not, the argument that it is because he has a bunch more cells than an embryo, has developed the ability to experience pain, or can speak in monosyllabic utterances, is absolutely absurd.

To argue that a life can be terminated at any stage is a justification for murder, whether they are an embryo, an unproductive mentally and physically challenged person, or a doddering old woman.

To decide for someone else what constitutes an "acceptable" quality of life is also an exercise in unparalleled arrogance, as well as extraordinarily dangerous. Because someone doesn't have running water, adequate food, or any safeguards against horrific diseases is to condemn billions of people who lived prior to the twentieth century to death (as well as a great many in the 20th century). How can a group of people draw up what is considered a good quality of life for all of humanity? What is it based on, and does it ever change?

Since you can't suggest that killing a human life inside of you is ok, you must naturally refute its humanity. This is a sophistry that is so ingrained in the minds of contemporaries, a view such as the one I offered above will seem intellectually stunted or enveloped in a simpleton's morality, and easily disregarded. Therefore, I can, unfortunately, see no end in sight for this practice.

 

[Kinsao]

FYI, the medical textbooks used for study of medicine and training doctors and nurses, they state that human life begins at conception.

To decide for someone else what constitutes an "acceptable" quality of life is also an exercise in unparalleled arrogance, as well as extraordinarily dangerous.

Thank you for posting this, Revenant. I have often had reservations and thoughts like this when I hear the phrase "quality of life" - not especially in relation to the abortion debate, but in relation to the elderly and people with disabilities.

I prefer to treat "life" as more important, first and foremost, than "quality of life".

 

[Index]

I would impose my idea that swindling is wrong, I would also impose the belief that murder was also wrong. It all has to do with doing one's best to protect the rights of others, and us pro-lifers believe it is protecting the fetus' rights to life and happiness.

I agree with Kinsao's response to Sansuikan San's hyposthetical(?) question.

Swindling or murder directly affect people whilst abortion does not. Why do you think it is your responsibility to protect the rights of others? Who put you in that position, and what makes you capable of judging whether a woman's rights are less worthy of protection than that of a fetus? I would put the rights of the mother above the rights of the fetus because she is already a functioning person and member of society who has a role and place in the world. A fetus is just a living organism that has no such position and is not even guaranteed of living after being born. I would only reconsider the legality of abortion if it was demonstratably affecting the existence of the human race due to negative population growth.

PS Solipsism might be just one explanation for why people have abortions. What about the person who chooses not to bring a child into the world becuase the conditions for raising that child are not there and so the child may become a burden to the rest of society? In my opinion it is solipsism to consider that your opinion should apply to everyone else. It is also solipsism to suggest that human life is what the universe revolves around.

 

[Revenant]

That is why this issue is so contraversial, cause people have completely opposite views on this. I do not believe as you do. I believe that from conception to death, the person's existence is continuously in development, and at least within the developed countries (I cannot speak for the undeveloped countries, as I know not much about them), there are other options and supports. So I don't feel it is right to intentionally deny an organism that would likely become just as you or I the right to life.

What defines what is a person and what is not? What does having a role in society mean? Would there not already be born people who don't meet this criteria? What of those who cannot function without our continued existence?

The debates always get a bit messy from here on out.

 

[Ma Cherie]

Just a thought and this may be off-topic, but what in situations where there's a huge problem with population? I'm not saying this is right mind you, but I was wondering? :? I'm talking about forced abortions to control population growth, and there are some people out there who believe forced abortions are okay, but are completely opposed to voluntary abortions in countries where it's legal if a young woman decides to have an abortion.

 

[Winter]

I dont get it, the arguement to keep abortion legal is that its 'not' murder, but capital punishment, which no matter what IS a form of organized murder, is legal.

I mean, either killing is wrong, or it isnt; whats with all the wishy-washyness of the issue?

 

[Kinsao]

I believe that killing is wrong (*whisperwhisper* except when someone really pisses me off) and am opposed to capital punishment.

I think the question is, though, whether you consider the fetus to be another human being with equal rights to all human beings, or whether you consider it to be inferior and have fewer rights because of its extremely early stage of development.

Of course, it's been said before and I totally agree, that if the life of the mother is at risk, her life must take priority.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I find it hard to agree with any arguments that look at 'potentiality'. At any given moment we can say A might become, or has a good chance to become B, but I don't think we can base our morality on it. I think moral issues have to be resolved in the present, e.g. looking at what this foetus is right now, is it OK to abort it? Looking in terms of potentiality, are we going to lock up unruly kids now, because of the likelihood they will turn into criminals? No, we deal with what they are at this moment. Yes, we do that with one eye on the future, but it is the present situation that we deal with, IMO.

I don't really believe in the 'sanctity of life'. I believe in trying to look at a situation as a whole - I would call it a 'weak utilitarianism'. I don't accept blanket statements like 'murder is wrong', but prefer qualified statements, like 'murder is usually wrong, but we must assess each case on its own merits', which is more or less what happens in court. Is a woman wrong to kill a man who is raping her and has threatened to start on her daughter next, then kill them both? I would argue she is within her rights, if that is the only way she can defend herself and her child. Is a woman wrong to abort a foetus if she knows she cannot cope with pregnancy, childbirth and raising the child, or giving it up for adoption. I agree with those who believe that adoption is preferable to abortion, but what about the woman's right not to carry the baby to term? Pregnancy and childbirth are a big deal! I think a woman has every right to decide that she can't go through with it.

Having said that, I think it is absolutely crucial that people are educated to understand abortion as a last resort, and that they know about contraception. I am also in favour of raising the age of sexual consent to 18 (it's 16 in the UK at present) to give the message that sex is for adults. I would also consider some way of dealing with people who use abortion as a means of contraception, although I believe they are very rare. I'm not sure what form that would take, but counselling might be a good start. Some education in just how hard it is to be a parent might go some way to preventing unwanted pregnancies as well.

One more thing: IMO abortions should only be allowed up to the time of viability, and revised if that changes. At the moment in the UK it is 24 weeks. I think babies have been born a bit earlier than that, so perhaps it should be lowered.

 

[Index]

What defines what is a person and what is not? What does having a role in society mean?

Having a role in society means that you are connected emotionally and socially to others. Since one's identity is to a large degree determined by the world in which one exists and by the reflections of one's self that come from other people, I don't consider an unborn fetus a person. Its only connection is a physical one with the mother. Therefore I think that in determining whether the rights of the mother or unborn fetus should be upheld, I would say the mother takes priority due to her inclusion and participation in the social and phenomonological world.

Would there not already be born people who don't meet this criteria?What of those who cannot function without our continued existence?

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here...

 

[Revenant]

This is one of the few issues that I am a bit fanatical about. I know that both my brother and I (were abortions more easily accesible) could have easily been ended, and I know that my wife suggested an abortion at first when she first found out she was pregnant, just cause we weren't terribly financially stable. But I look at him now, and I am grateful to have him.

Ma Cherie, the question you ask is a difficult one, and I cannot answer. The people who support forced abortions and oppose voluntary abortions do not seem consistent, but I would be interested in hearing their reasoning for this.

Winter, I am opposed to Capital punishment, as I am opposed to anything that takes away life unnecessarily. I believe that most criminals by all rights should be locked up for the safety of others (the prison system does need some improvements though), but that a criminal still has the right to life. I am also opposed to the majority of wars, as it seems a lot of unnecessary deaths for oil, or whatever it is they are fighting over.

I find it hard to agree with any arguments that look at 'potentiality'. At any given moment we can say A might become, or has a good chance to become B, but I don't think we can base our morality on it. I think moral issues have to be resolved in the present, e.g. looking at what this foetus is right now, is it OK to abort it? Looking in terms of potentiality, are we going to lock up unruly kids now, because of the likelihood they will turn into criminals? No, we deal with what they are at this moment. Yes, we do that with one eye on the future, but it is the present situation that we deal with, IMO.

I have an a different view of that, since the goal of morality is happiness, then it makes sense to keep whatever ideal conditions for happiness there are as long as possible. There is a reason why we do not let suicidal people commit suicide (padded rooms), there is a reason why I do not easily let the life of a person in a coma go. All have the potential to experience happiness in the future, and so it is with the fetus. A potential criminal probably won't actually kill someone, they may rape, or hurt someone, but only a small percentage actually take the life of someone. At least I always give the benefit of the doubt to the ideal of happiness.

I would argue she is within her rights, if that is the only way she can defend herself and her child.

I would say she is well within her right.

Is a woman wrong to abort a foetus if she knows she cannot cope with pregnancy, childbirth and raising the child, or giving it up for adoption.

I would say she is. In some ways I think the option of abortion causes people to take the easier route. She may have an emotionally difficult time, but most people are more resilient than they think. After a change in conditions, even for the worse, people most often return to their original setpoint of happiness. They work towards this, as the new perceptions they take on enable them to experience more happiness again, and it is happiness that everyone is after.

I agree with those who believe that adoption is preferable to abortion, but what about the woman's right not to carry the baby to term? Pregnancy and childbirth are a big deal! I think a woman has every right to decide that she can't go through with it.

They are a big deal, but I absolutely believe that her discomfort for a the nine or ten months is in the best interest of the unborn being. The unborn being will then be able to experience life, and make his/her own search for happiness.

Having a role in society means that you are connected emotionally and socially to others. Since one's identity is to a large degree determined by the world in which one exists and by the reflections of one's self that come from other people, I don't consider an unborn fetus a person. Its only connection is a physical one with the mother. Therefore I think that in determining whether the rights of the mother or unborn fetus should be upheld, I would say the mother takes priority due to her inclusion and participation in the social and phenomonological world.

Do we decide lives on the role they play in society? A friendless welfare bum who lost his family in a fire, what of him? He gets a small apartment from welfare, and just a bit of money for food. He never talks to anyone, and social services checks on him once a month.

Or let's take someone who is in a coma. They have been in a coma for quite some time, and as most coma patients go, they are neither moral persons nor moral agents. They don't have cognition, so they cannot be social people (and therefore be emotionally connected to anyone). I don't think that in their case, we can say it is alright to put them out.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here...

What I am saying is that non-viability doesn't seem a valid reason to end anyone's existence. A fetus isn't 'viable' apart from the mother, but then so are so many people not viable without our continued assistance.

Also, there are already a lot of people that are a burden on society, but that isn't grounds to end them, so I don't see how that justifies the end of a fetus either.

 

[Index]

Do we decide lives on the role they play in society? A friendless welfare bum who lost his family in a fire, what of him? He gets a small apartment from welfare, and just a bit of money for food. He never talks to anyone, and social services checks on him once a month.

Or let's take someone who is in a coma. They have been in a coma for quite some time, and as most coma patients go, they are neither moral persons nor moral agents. They don't have cognition, so they cannot be social people (and therefore be emotionally connected to anyone). I don't think that in their case, we can say it is alright to put them out.

What I am saying is that non-viability doesn't seem a valid reason to end anyone's existence. A fetus isn't 'viable' apart from the mother, but then so are so many people not viable without our continued assistance.

Also, there are already a lot of people that are a burden on society, but that isn't grounds to end them, so I don't see how that justifies the end of a fetus either.

I'm not attempting to justify ending or terminating life. As I mentioned earlier, and you yourself have too, the arguments about this can go either way and often get heated. My point however, is that in such a situation, the decision should be left to the mother (for reasons mentioned above such as role in society) rather than to a third party. In this way a mother who shares your views on the issue is able to express her freedom to those views by not having an abortion, and at the same time the mother who considers abortion a viable option is also able to exercise her right to have one. Arguments for and against abortion are more than necessary, just as any discussion about ethics, morality or indeed most issues, but in this case I think the final decision about what view to subscribe to should be left to the individual.

 

[Sensuikan San]

Well!

I finally made it! Joined the club, so to speak!

... I received a "Red Ball" - a negative rep. point for my posts on this thread !

and .... from the comment that came with it - I would be surprised if I was alone ...!

Apparently someone (anonymous, of course!) ""Really doesn't agree with me" ... !

That's all. They don't agree with me!

I don't think my posts were offensive. I think that I was honest, open, serious, balanced and qualified in my views. I did not display vitriol, extreme language - or even try to incorporate humor into a serious debate ...

... but "Mr/Mrs/Ms. X or whoever" .... "Really doesn't agree with me."

....and didn't have the courage of their conviction .... or even courage at all ... to leave a name !

And that and only that is what pee's me off !

I'm old enough to not like, respect or approve of snarkey, self righteous, pompous, self serving, arrogant, snotty little cowards who hide behind anonymity!

Had they given their name - this post would not exist. Respect would have been given as due.

I don't agree with a lot of people on many things on the forum ... I think we can all say the same. But is that a reason (or a weak, mealy-mouthed excuse) to try to penalise?

I think not! If that were the case - we would all, I'm sure, be handing out the "neg. reps." hand over fist - every day!

Don't get me wrong ... and this is the serious part of my post ... I'm not concerned with the bad rep. (actually ... it amuses me! I wondered when and how I was actually going to get one ...now I know!) :clap:

What concerns me ... and interests me deeply .. is that it should have happened on this thread!

I feel that it demonstrates to us all just how deeply this topic is of concern, and just how seriously it is taken by all. Obviously - just by disagreeing with my point of view - "somebody" is pretty pee'd off!

Nothing wrong with that! We all experience that feeling!

But by the nature of their action, and knowing the status of this topic in the world ... I am prompted to ask of "somebody" :

What's your next step?

Will you hang around an abortion clinic, rifle at the ready ... ready to kill or maim ....and demonstrate to us all how strong is your view on the sanctity of life?

Anonymously, of course ....

?W????

P.S. - If I ever, EVER give anybody a bad rep. - I pledge here and now that I will sign it! That's the way I was brought up, and that's the way I brought up my kid.

 

[Revenant]

Index, the decision is already up to the mother, and beyond my vote (which would definitely not be solely dependant on the candidates view of abortions), I have little say in the matter. I would still argue, in the hopes that one of our many voices would persuade a women to allow the unborn their own existence and hopefully happiness.

Sansuikan San, negative rep is quite normal on other forums, and are hardly so civil as the neg rep you recieved (i.e. 'you are sh*t and I hope you die' is just one of the reps I recieved). I'm surprised I haven't gotten any on this forum. I neither sign good nor bad reps, and will continue the same practice. Although, just to counterbalance the neg rep you got, shall I give you good rep.

 

[Index]

Index, the decision is already up to the mother

Except in countries where abortion is illegal, unless you consider backroom ad hoc clinics at unafordable prices a good option?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

This is one of the few issues that I am a bit fanatical about. I know that both my brother and I (were abortions more easily accesible) could have easily been ended, and I know that my wife suggested an abortion at first when she first found out she was pregnant, just cause we weren't terribly financially stable. But I look at him now, and I am grateful to have him.

I think your personal experiences have given you a valuable perspective. If I had similar experiences I might feel differently, but the issue of abortion hasn't affected me personally. I'm glad that everything turned out well for you in the end.

I also think that the fact people disagree can be seen in a positive light, as it encourages debate and so ensures that we think hard about important issues like this.

 

[Kinsao]

I'm very surprised that you got bad rep, Sensuikan-san. I actually went back to look at your posts, and they seem to me a very fair and balanced expression of your opinion.

I have a personal policy that I never bad rep anyone. Generally speaking, if their posts and the views expressed in them are so offensive as to seriously piss me off, I take the line that the person must have big problems and a short bitchy comment from me isn't going to help much. It's much more constructive to debate through posting (or pms if necessary).

I hope whoever gave it to you gets the message that, although this forum is very polite in terms of rep, it's totally cowardly not to put your name. kashii:

And, yeah, disagreement is good, it generates the discussions. Let's keep it fair and reasonable, everyone have different opinions but that's no reason why there can't still be a civil debate.

 

[Mycernius]

I have looked over this thread since Tsuyoiko san started it. Although I voted a while back, I feel that I must finally post. I have answered to the following
1. Yes - but only if the mother's physical or mental health is in danger
2. Yes - as long as it's early
3. Yes - it should be entirely the woman's choice
Although non of them really fit my actually view, they are the closest to it. I do believe abortion should be legal, it avoids bringing unwanted children into the world and avoids backstreet abortions where the woman could easily suffer and die. The term unwanted children might seem harsh to some people, but in some cases these children would be punished, beaten and even killed by the parents if they were allowed to come to full term. There are parents in this world who have wanted children and still treated them as punch bags, how do you think an unwanted child will be treated?
I do believe in that it should be the womans choice. As John mentioned, a womans bond to a baby is often much stronger than a mans. It is easier for a man to say get rid of the child, it is not part of us in the way that it is part of a woman. We cannot feel its first kick or the happiness that some pregnant women give off, knowing that they are carrying a new life. Some women who have undergone abortions because their boyfriend has pressured them into aborting have suffered emotional stress and depression.
There was one choice that was not on the poll, but I feel it is important in todays modern age:
Yes - if their is a risk of passing on severe disability.
There are inheritable genetic conditions that are passed through families. Unborn children can now be tested to see whether they will be disabled by these conditions before the upper limit on abortions passes. While it is hard for the parents, they can have a choice of bringing up a child with a disability or aborting it. There was a programme on BBC Radio 4 called It's my story about this very subject. It is worth listening to and is available for listen again on the BBC site. You'll find it Here under It's my Story
There is one thing I do not agree with on abortion and the whole abortion issue. That is the way that politicians, especially in the US, use it as an issue to gain votes. I find it cynical and disgusting that these people manipulate this issue to gain power. I really think that a majority of politicians, mainly men, don't really care about it. Just smile, say the right thing and get the votes kashii: