Is Abortion Ethical?

[Mr Spinkles]

Mr. Spinkles, you do not believe in asking easy questions, do you?

No sir.

On the other hand, maybe I find this question especially difficult at the moment because I am in the process of re-thinking and clarifying to myself my position on abortion. I mention this to you because you've asked me a question, and yet I don't know how to answer it at the moment. And it may take me a while before I have thought through my position on abortion sufficiently to offer you an answer to your question.

Don't worry, there's no rush, and there's no "right" answer necessarily--it's just a question I'm throwing out there.

painted wolf-- In your post, you said you feel that

as a question of pure ethics, I can say that I would be hard pressed to justify this procedure to myself. However, I can see instances when this is nessisary and ethical. (life of the mother, extreme deformation of the fetus)

That's great, you've answered the first part of my question--when is abortion ethical, and when is it not ethical. Now answer the second part: why is this your view?

 

[painted wolf]

Why is this my view? ok, I'll try to have a go at this one.

On my not personally getting an abortion.... I made a deal with creator long ago that when I was ready to be a mother I would be, but not before then. Thus far Creator has kept his/her/its end of the bargan. When and if I ever do become pregnant I know that it will be because I am ready to be a mother. I'm not shure that, knowing that I held a person to be inside me (parasite or no ) that I could take that life. Motherhood is a very sacred thing to me.

Conversely I personally would not like for someone elce to be dictating to me what I can and cant do with my life and body. I dislike others preaching to me about what is 'good' and 'evil' and thus could not force my ideas or faith on another person. As a woman I am very aware of the stuggle my gender has had over the centuries to secure rights that men take for granted. From the right to choose who to marry to the right to vote to the right to decide what is best for her in terms of reproduction. If men can take that right away from women then what is to say they won't want to start taking the others too?
For men to tell women what they can and cant do with thier own bodies legaly just make us little more than baby factories for them and little more than meat/posessions.
I for one am not willing to go back to that sort of culture. I come from a culture where women were equil to men and in some cases better off then them socially, the idea of being a mans underling simply because he is a man and I am not disgusts me.

sorry to rant but its late and I do feel strongly about this issue.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's okay, painted wolf, I don't think you ranted I enjoyed reading your post. But I'm still not clear on a couple of things.

If men can take that right away from women then what is to say they won't want to start taking the others too?

Ah yes, the classic "slippery slope" argument...reminds me of the old "well if we let two women marry, what's to say they won't start letting a woman marry a dog?" Anyway...

In explaining why you feel an abortion would be unethical (in most circumstances), you suggested that pregnancy involved "a person to be inside me". Later, you referred to abortion as men telling "women what they can and can't do with their own bodies legally". So, does abortion "take the life" of a "person inside you", or does it simply involve altering a "woman's own body"? Which is it?

I want to hear your personal view here, not what the law says/should say. You say you feel strongly about this issue, so let your strong views on this question come out.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If it is not for nature to decide which entity lives or dies, then how come nature is deciding all the time? How can you ignore that organisms all over the world are dying all the time, by natural causes? Can you stop it? Can you become the controller of who dies?

In case you did not notice, mankind has always taken life (and always will). There are things like the inquisition, the holocaust, executions, wars, purges, etc. wherein people do not die of natural causes. So yes, I would say that mankind has a large impact on who (or what) lives and dies. That hamburger you ate for lunch was a living organism just days ago.

But it was not a misunderstanding, you know very well that the fetus is a human in development. I was just making a statement, at your discretion of course. You could have jumped in and explained to me why a fetus is not a human in development, if you were so inclined. Is it that me presenting this fact offends you because it is easier for you to ignore it for sake of your argument?

For the fifteenth time in this and other threads - you do NOT know what is in my mind. Here is how it works: You write a post and I read it (this is where I understand your position). Then, I write a post and you read it (this is where you understand my position). There seems to be a significant breakdown in the system because you insist on telling me what I know. Perhaps if I tell you sixteen times it will sink in (but I doubt it).
I understand (by reading your posts) that you believe that a fetus is a human being. That's how I know your position. I do not share that belief with you (this is where you have to read my post). This will let you determine my position.
In other posts in this thread, Linus and I exchanged our beliefs on when a fetus becomes a human. I read his answer (and he, mine) and now we know what the other believes. We do not have to agree with each other, but we both understand what each of us believes. Give it a shot. I'll even restate my position again for you (watch closely, it follows in the next sentence). I believe that the fetus becomes a human at the moment of delivery - not before. Let me know if I need to tell you seventeen times.

Such emotions are based on physical attachment. Of course you find no value in my position. That is because you find most value in physical attachment. By making my argument "hollow" and "indefensible" I am sure it becomes easier for you to ignore (or "transcend", as you put it).

See the above statement about the exchange of ideas.
Allow me to demonstrate my position for you (yet again) -
If my wife has a breast removed because of cancer, I will NOT love her less. If she should lose both legs in a car accident, I will NOT love her less. I love the person that she is inside - NOT the physical being that is her body. I would venture that anyone that does not grasp this concept has probably never truly loved. I have no such emotional (not physical) attachment to any fetus, anywhere, at any time. I hope that I never cross that line. If you do not agree with me, fine - but do not tell me what I feel.
So, as you can see (if you choose to), I do not ignore your point - I disagree with it. Tough loss, to be sure, but you'll bounce back.

No, they may say that they are aware, but apparently if they take that risk anyway and it results in pregnancy then either they weren't quite as aware as they should have been, or they are blatantly irresponsible. Both choices are out of ignorance. In the case that they weren't fully aware of the possible consequences, there is obviously some degree of ignorance. In the case that they are blatantly irresponsible, there is ignorance, an IGNORING of the life that results! It is all IGNORANCE. The end.

This one is gonna be tough. You were so close to getting it right, it breaks my heart. Your thorough search of a dictionary led you to the word IRRESPONSIBLE, and you had it. Alas, you're ability to read other's minds led you to determine that they were ignorant. And here, you lost it.
In the English language, many words look alike, some sound alike, and some are even spelled the same. Often, two words that look alike have no bearing on each other.
Now, I realize that you have some trouble with English. Let me be of assistance to you - compare these two entries from Webster's Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : [size=-1]UNAWARE[/size], [size=-1]UNINFORMED[/size]

-and-

Main Entry: ig·nore
Pronunciation: ig-'nOr, -'nor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ig·nored; ig·nor·ing
Etymology: obsolete ignore to be ignorant of, from French ignorer, from Latin ignorare, from ignarus ignorant, unknown, from in- + gnoscere, noscere to know -- more at [size=-1]KNOW[/size]
1 : to refuse to take notice of
2 : to reject (a bill of indictment) as ungrounded

See how the words LOOK similar, but have totally different meanings? Let me demonstrate how this works by using them in a sentence:
Joe is ignorant of proper usage of many words in the English language. This causes other people to ignore his posts.

As I stated before, your emotional attachment is based on a physical one. The fact that you value what your wife is over what the fetus will be proves this point. This is your law for higher value through your physical attachment.

See above (for the eighteenth time).

What is it that you think I have misunderstood? The value of your physical attachment? What "ignorance" means?

I must say that if anyone on this board should understand "ignorance" ...

It is to your credit, Para, that you have demonstrated colossal patience with me. I know it must be very trying to nurse me through this debate, where I am unable to see your point of view. Stay with me, I'll promise to do better.

Learning at the knee of the Master,
TVOR

 

[painted wolf]

well, I had a nicely written responce for you Mr Spinkles but then I hit control instead of shift and *pift* there goes my answer... So to sum it up because I don't want to retype it again.... *sigh*

If this didn't have an actual historical basis, than it would be a slipery slope argument. However womans rights have been taken away on numerous occasions in different times and cultures and I see no reason to think that it will never happin again. However if you know of a culture and time where women were allowed to marry dogs then please share.

What I feel is right for my body is not nessisarily what another woman would feel is right for thier body. I firmly belive that. While I may have a connection with the fetus within me another woman may not for reasons I may never, and frankly have no real right knowing. I can not make that sort of decision for someone elce and honestly I would not want someone elce to make that sort of decision for me. It is my choice, I just happin to choose not to.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm picking through each sentence of your post, painted wolf, and I'm still not finding an answer to my question: "does abortion "take the life" of a "person inside you", or does it simply involve altering a "woman's own body"? "

The only statement you made in that post that hints at answering this question was when you said "What I feel is right for my body is not nessisarily what another woman would feel is right for thier body". So are you saying that you personally feel that a fetus is only a part of a woman's body, and not a human being that should be (according to your personal ethics) kept alive (except in special circumstances)? Is that how you personally feel, or is that how you think the law should view this matter? If that is how you personally feel, why did you say earlier "I'm not shure that, knowing that I held a person to be inside me (parasite or no ) that I could take that life"?

If this didn't have an actual historical basis, than it would be a slipery slope argument. However womans rights have been taken away on numerous occasions in different times and cultures and I see no reason to think that it will never happin again. However if you know of a culture and time where women were allowed to marry dogs then please share.

Point taken!

 

[painted wolf]

This is how I personally feel... I firmly belive in personal responciblity. I firmly belive in both those statements. My morality is mine, not everyones. I find it immoral to force my personal ideals on others... again sharing and learning are not forcing.
I have a friend who had to make this choice, I stand by her in that. The decision is not easy and while it was not the choice that I would have made for myself, it was her choice not mine. I honor and fully believe in her right to choose that for herself.

does this help any?

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

does this help any?

With all due respect, painted wolf, not at all! To be honest, I'm a bit aghast that you've managed to evade the questions I've posited in four consecutive posts :bonk: Your beleif in personal responsibility, personal morality, and not forcing your ideas on others are great...seriously, I'm glad you feel that way...but what in the world does that have to do with my questions: Why do you feel abortion is unethical for you? What exactly is it that makes abortion a 'bad' thing? Is a fetus a human being, or just part of a woman's body, in your view?

Here is an example of a response that answers my questions: "A fetus is not a person. Abortion causes emotional trauma to women. To cause oneself emotional trauma is self destructive and therefore unethical."

Here's another one: "A fetus is a person. Abortion takes the life of a (very small) person. To take the life of any person when it is not absolutely necessary is unethical."

Notice that neither of these answers contain anything about whether or not this view should be enforced by law on others.

So could I please get an answer--any answer--that actually addresses the questions I have asked? Pretty please?

*edit*

I find it immoral to force my personal ideals on others... again sharing and learning are not forcing.

So share your view already! Now's your chance--what are you waiting for? :bonk:

 

[The Voice of Reason]

So share your view already! Now's your chance--what are you waiting for?

I think Spinkles is looking for something like this:

I do not view the fetus as a human being until the moment of delivery. At that point in time (and not a moment sooner), I feel that the newborn baby has the full compliment of rights bestowed upon every other person. For this reason, I do not view abortion as unethical.

TVOR

 

[Pah]

I think Spinkles is looking for something like this:

I do not view the fetus as a human being until the moment of delivery. At that point in time (and not a moment sooner), I feel that the newborn baby has the full compliment of rights bestowed upon every other person. For this reason, I do not view abortion as unethical.

TVOR

Ditto!!! - which would include pre-mature delivery when viablity exists.
-pah-

 

[painted wolf]

in my previous post I did answer this question... to me motherhood is sacred. Thus purposely taking that life negates that sacred duty. This is why I personally would probably never get an abortion.

Am I any closer to a Mr Spinkles appoved answer?

wa:do

 

[Michelle]

I have avoided the threads on abortion primarily because I understand both sides of the issue. However, whether or not they are legal or not, there will always be chop shops to perform abortions

As early as 2000 B.C., in Egypt and Mesopotamia, there are records of drugs that caused miscarriages, but the Egyptians had a high view of life, even mummifying fetuses. The Assyrian Codex in 1100 B.C. stated that abortion was punishable by impalement. Persian law in 600 B.C. called abortion willful murder. Though abortion was not practiced in the land of Canaan after 1400 B.C. it is clear that the infant sacrifices were used as a means of population control

Secondly, from a Christians point of view, death is a good thing if you believe in heaven and hell.

Peter in the Apocalypse says that the children born abortively receive the better part. These are delivered to a care-taking angel, so that after they have reached knowledge they may obtain the better abode, as if they had suffered what they would have suffered, had they attained to bodily life. But the others shall obtain salvation only as a people who have suffered wrong and experience mercy, and shall exist without torment, having received this as their reward

We cannot stop abortions and history proves it. So I feel abortions are ethical

Ethical
1 : of or relating to ethics
2 : involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval
3 : conforming to accepted professional standards of conduct

as long as we conform to standards of care accepted by the health profession.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

in my previous post I did answer this question... to me motherhood is sacred.

In your previous post you said abortion violates motherhood's sacredness, but you didn't explain how. You might as well have said "abortion is bad because abortion is bad".

Thus purposely taking that life negates that sacred duty. This is why I personally would probably never get an abortion.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So abortion is wrong for you because you feel it neglects a duty, a duty to preserve the life of a fetus (and later, the child). Gotcha.

Am I any closer to a Mr Spinkles appoved answer?

Yes, it looks as though you've finally answered the question....though I would have preferred a simple yes or no answer to the question "is a fetus a person?".

 

[painted wolf]

Is a fetus a person.... I don't know, how do you define a person?
I don't have an answer that I fully agree with yet on that one.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You said abortion takes a life. I don't see how you could say abortion takes a life if a fetus is just part of a woman's body...are you suggesting a fetus may be another species?

 

[painted wolf]

no, obviously I'm not thinking fetus is another species.

But at what point does a fetus go from being a clump of 'possible person' to a full fledged 'person'. This is where this sort of debate gets annoying and tricky. I don't pretend to have all the answers, or to eaven know all the questions.

I think that those involved in shuch a decision should discuss it carefully and throughly to make shure the choice they make is the best one for all involved.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

1) Of course it's annoying and tricky, but rather than avoid it altogether, I'm challenging people in this thread to try to figure it out.

2) How can you say abortion takes a life on the one hand, but argue that some fetuses may be clumps of 'possible person' on the other hand? How do you square these two statements? If it's a clump of possible person, it's not taking a life any more than wearing a condom is taking a life. Both prevent a 'possible person'.

I don't mean to nag you or anything, but the point of this thread is to challenge people to justify why or why not abortion is unethical, and when.

3) In order to make a choice that is the best one for all involved (an ethical choice), we need to know how many people are involved. In other words the first thing we need to do is figure out which, if any, of these is a person: fertilized egg, embryo, fetus (I've probably left some out).

I guess I'm trying to challenge those people here who personally feel abortion is unethical...I don't see how you can think it's unethical unless you think that it takes the life of a (very small) human being whose life should otherwise be protected. If you don't personally think abortion takes a life, on what grounds do you assert that you personally think abortion is unethical? I realize these are difficult questions, all I ask is for people to do some honest reflection on them.

 

[chuck010342]

The question is not "do you think abortion should be legal or illegal?" This has nothing to do with whether you are pro choice or pro life.

The question is, do you personally feel that abortion is ethical? Do you personally feel that abortion is a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing? Why do you think this?

Based on what I've heard from the vast majority of pro choice people, I would think most of us will agree on whether or not we personally feel abortion is good or bad, ethical or unethical....

A lawyers car breaks down in the middle of the Gheto. The lawer calls for a tow truck on his cell phone. The lawer is soon surrounded by thugs who want to take his car and all of his money. The tow truck arrives just before the beating begins. The tow truck driver takes the leader of the thugs aside and "begins a five-sentence introduction to metaphysics" "Man this ain't supposed to work like this" the truck driver says. "this world aint supposed to work like this. Maybe you don't know it but this ain't the way its supposed to be" "I'm supposed to do my job and you thugs arn't suppsed to rob this dude of his car or money." The leader of the gang steps back and him and his crew leave the area. They didn't leave because of the speech of the tow truck driver but because the lawyer was smart enough to call the cops as well as a tow truck.

The point of the story is that the world is not what it is supposed to be because sin entered the world. With that in mind abortion is unethical because it is a result of sin. Who ever heard of an unwanted pregancy in the garden of eden? I also think that abortion is unethical because God thinks so.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey chuck--wasn't that from a movie? I think it was called "Grand Canyon" or something?

Also... about this:

I also think that abortion is unethical because God thinks so.

How do you know what God thinks?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Spinkles -

You are one tough cookie. I know you are Pro-life, and would like to agree with Chuck. Yet, you force him to defend his statement about "God thinks abortion is unethical"!!
You are doing it to me again. I was gonna ask him to defend that statement (of course, I'm on the other side of the aisle). I admire the fact that you want him to defend his beliefs based on logic, not faith, especially when I know you want him to be correct.

Very impressed,
TVOR

PS - If I am not mistaken, this is the second time you have invoked the "Warner Brothers' Rule" on me. Last time, you had me arguing your position for you, now, you take my position for me. I'm watching you...