Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Ethics and legal issues behind abortion

abortion support for abortion pro-life pro-choice morality

  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

Poll: Ethics and legal issues behind abortion (32 member(s) have cast votes)

Morally you support abortion only when

  1. The woman's life is at fatal (or similar) risk (16 votes [26.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.67%

  2. Rape case scenario (14 votes [23.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.33%

  3. Genetic deformities of the fetus (12 votes [20.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  4. As a 'contraceptive method' to unwanted pregnancies (2 votes [3.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.33%

  5. All case (15 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  6. Never - not even when the woman's health is at fatal risk (1 votes [1.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.67%

Legally when do you support abortion?

  1. The woman's life is at fatal (or similar) risk (5 votes [15.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.62%

  2. Rape case scenario (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. Genetic deformities of the fetus (1 votes [3.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.12%

  4. As a 'contraceptive method' to unwanted pregnancies (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. All case (25 votes [78.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 78.12%

  6. Never - not even when the woman's health is at fatal risk (1 votes [3.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.12%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#46    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,055 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:26 PM

View PostBeckys_Mom, on 17 November 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

Attached to her body  is the same thing. When you attach something  it has to go ON something else.  Why split hairs? ..  Fact is you have it worded wrong..
Is the uterus part of her or not? Something attached to the uterus is therefore attached to her.

You're accusing me of saying something I haven't.
You object to my wording but still accept that the fetus is in the uterus and attached to it.

Edited by Rlyeh, 17 November 2012 - 04:32 PM.


#47    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:38 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 17 November 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:



You're accusing me of saying something I haven't.


No...I haven't ...  You said it was attached to her body..  You have that worded wrongly   ( the sentence itself )

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#48    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,055 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:42 PM

View PostBeckys_Mom, on 17 November 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

No...I haven't ...  You said it was attached to her body..  You have that worded wrongly   ( the sentence itself )
There was nothing wrong with the sentence, maybe lack of clarification. Unless you can demonstrate the uterus is not part of her, my statement is technically correct.


#49    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:58 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 17 November 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

There was nothing wrong with the sentence, maybe lack of clarification. Unless you can demonstrate the uterus is not part of her, my statement is technically correct.

I never said anything about the uterus ...I know the embryo attaches itself to the uterus.. The uterus  is a female organ..  Our organs are not attached to us.. they are inside of us..

I was aiming at one simple sentence - The baby is attached to her body..  . .I am saying  that is not worded  correctly.. It sounds as if you are saying the baby is stuck on the outside of her body....  The baby is not an attachment . it comes from  what was an attachment inside the body, but when it grows inside the womb, it is no longer that..  It is INSIDE the womb..  which is INSIDE her body.. Not an attachment..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 17 November 2012 - 04:59 PM.

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#50    Beany

Beany

    Government Agent

  • 3,267 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:34 PM

Again, where is the dialogue about prevention, which is something we could all pretty much agree on? Imagine if all the energy & time & resource spent on promoting one's religious or moral views or political views on abortion were spent on effective prevention programs? Now THAT would make a difference. I just became cognizant of the fact that I identify with women faced with an unwanted pregnancy much more than I do with those who exercise moral judgments about them.

I see the morality as a concept, a way of thinking, as opposed to the very personal reality of women who are burdened with fears & practicality of carrying an unwanted to term, of worrying about how they would be able to support themselves & a baby, provide food, shelter, clothes, education, and love, especially the last if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. I think about the mental & psychological toll that carrying an unwanted baby to term or aborting it would exact, and that we all vary greatly in our ability to cope & thrive, to problem-solve, to make good decisions, our mental, physical, and emotional resources. I think about how little support there is for women with unwanted pregnancies, both economically & emotionally. And I think about the practical aspects of the situation, and how many people there are out there willing to judge & condemn who perhaps would never find themselves in this situation, because they're men or because this particular kind of tragedy has never happened to them nor could they imagine it happening. Mostly, we're all trying to do the best we can often under very demanding circumstances, at times, and the older I get the less willing I am to demand that others meet my expectations or to apply my own measure of morality & beliefs on to someone else.


#51    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,107 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 17 November 2012 - 10:05 PM

Clarification its attached to her uterus, which is INSIDE OF HER, so it cannot be attached TO her. it is attached IN her Not to mention half of its make up actually came from her own parts  in the first place or the fact that it was her part in the first place and does not belong to the other.

Edited by Seeker79, 17 November 2012 - 10:07 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#52    Blood_Sacrifice

Blood_Sacrifice

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 700 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • ...

Posted 17 November 2012 - 10:56 PM

View PostSthenno, on 17 November 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

One thing genuinely puzzles me about the people who are completely opposed to abortion except in the case of it endangering the life of the mother. So, what, you believe that a foetus is the same as a baby and killing it is morally abhorrent, but if the mother is likely to die otherwise then that's OK? Where is the line on that? Does it then follow that it would be completely appropriate for a mother to send her newborn child into surgery because she needed it's kidney? What if a mother doesn't have enough food for her and her son and will starve to death if she has to feed both. Is it then OK to murder the child? I just don't get the logic...

I think that deep down, even people who are completely morally against abortion (well most anyway) do realize that the fetus is not exactly the same as a human being and hence terminating it is not the same as killing a real life.
Forget this case, even the most vocal pro-lifers I have seen are stuck up when it comes to prescribing a legal punishment for abortion. They say it should be criminalized, many of them will even say it's murder - but most wouldn't want to the person to be held up for capital punishment.
In rape cases too, many pro-lifers would actually become pro-choice - but they certainly would not have said the same after the raped child is born.

Personally, even though I am generally morally against abortion, I do realize that the fetus is not the same as a fully fledged human being, and hence terminating it is not the same as 'murder' as we understand murder. I think we kill lives of lesser beings* (directly or indirectly) all the time, and not always to sutain ourselves, but for selfish purposes as well. The basic instinct of all living things is the self-preservation of the species, and since the fetus is slightly 'different' from us humans, killing it isn't morally the same as killing a living-and-breathing human. I think a similar argument could be made for (active?) euthanasia. Doesn't mean I don't find abortion for purely selfish reasons abhorring, but still I wouldn't label it as murder.


*based on human perception.

Edited by Blood_Sacrifice, 17 November 2012 - 11:02 PM.

"I'm not afraid of dying, just of not achieving very much before I do." - Emma_Acid

#53    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,261 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 17 November 2012 - 11:59 PM

View PostSthenno, on 17 November 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Of course you don't have that right - because there's absolutely no situation in which such a right might be neccessary. Conjoined twins isn't an example, it's the only other possible situation in which you could have a person attached to you. And technically, conjoined twins do have this right. For example, a fully developed twin would have the legal right to remove a partially formed one.

Yes conjoined twins is an excellent example /analogy of a mother and child connection. Except that, with such twins the connection is for life  without surgical separation, while with a baby it  separates naturally after nine months. And yes, if one of the twins is not viable as a human being, it may be  removed. So can a baby.

But if both twins are equally viable, aware, etc., the question is much more complicated.  An unborn child is not fully conscious but neither is a person in a coma. The differnce again is that within a few months an unborn child will become fully conscious.
We dont kill people in comas just because they are not aware if they are otherwise capable of living . Why is it ok to kill an unaware unborn child.?
Remember I am not advocating the elimination of a womans rights, just that the unborn be given basic human rights as well, so that a woman my not simply and arbitrarily have an abortion without passing through a series of legal/ ethical hoops Those hoops might only be counselling and advice.
Perhaps more so than the legal framework, I would like people to accept and recognise that an unborn child iS a human being and thus requires sound logical reasons to be killed.
In practice women should be able to have legal abortions, and the state should pay for these, as it does (in australia) for all operations.
However, the concept  or belief that an unborn child has no basic right to a life, and is entirely dependent on the whim of its mother for life, demeans ALL of us as human beings. It is equivalent to saying/believing that the very old, disabled, non-productive and socially dependent members of our society, who depend on others for care and sustenance, and who cost us time money and effort to keep alive and care for, have no inherent right to life.

Edited by Mr Walker, 18 November 2012 - 12:01 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#54    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,261 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 18 November 2012 - 12:24 AM

View PostTaylor Reints, on 17 November 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Legally, I'm with Roe v. Wade. But I don't even think legislature should be involved in the matter of abortion. I believe, also, morally, a woman has the choice to do whatever she wants with her body. Religion should DEFINITELY not get involved, as if they have any say at all in somebody's personal choices.



Roe v. Wade actually says that a right to privacy extends to abortion, so it is a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.
The question pertained to my right  to remove  anything attached to my body. I do not have a right to remove a conjoined twin.
For me an unborn child is  the same biological attachment albeit temporary as a conjoined twin. The child is attached  ( from about 5 weeks of development) via an umbilical cord, which provides a life support system like that of a space suit. Eventually it  shrugs  off the life support system, and becomes independent.
I appreciate the legal situation on abortion and how it has grown out of the increased  social, economic, and political power of women in the last half century. i agree that women must be able to have legal abortions to prevent terrible  tragedies, BUT it is both the conditions under which an abortion is allowed, and the basic ethical and legal standing of an unborn child (and the reasons why human attitudes on this issue have changed)   that concern me. If roe vs wade says that an unborn child has NO human rights, then it is a bad law, in principle and in practice. Many countries allow abortions, while recognising the legal rights of a fetus, within limitations.

To allow, legally or in good conscience, any woman to kill her unborn child, we must think that such a child is NOT a human being (because we cannot arbirarily kill any other form of human being)  That makes us redefine what humanity is, in a more restricted and limited way. It has implications for how we define and consider all aspects of humanity.

Ps society and the law define everything we can do in the modern world. No one can simply do as they please. When it involves the killing of another human being, albeit an immature/undeveloped one, this is even more the case. Can a mother kill a baby an hour old? No. Why then, can she arbitralily kill one still in her womb? What is the ethical and philosophical/moral difference?

And this is not a minor or entirely personal event. In america about half a million children are aborted every year, adding up to tens of millions since abortion was legalised.  In australia the figure is about 100000 per year.

I agree with you. This is NOT a religious issue. It is a basic human rights issue involving the conflict of interest between a mother and a child. it has arisen as women's rights have evolved and the unborns rights have consequently diminished. Women have spokespeople and organisations to defend them and speak for them . This is needed for the unborn, who cannot speak for themselves, or plead for their own lives. Even as an atheist secular humanist, the logic, morality and ethics of on demand abortion  appaled offended and upset me.

I carried those values through  as a person who lives with god, into a more general love of humanity and a need to defend anyone's right to life especially an innocent and vulnerable, unborn child.

In the west we often give greater protection, consideration and concern, to animals (pet and domestic) than to our own unborn.

Edited by Mr Walker, 18 November 2012 - 12:33 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#55    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 18 November 2012 - 01:17 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 18 November 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

The question pertained to my right  to remove  anything attached to my body. I do not have a right to remove a conjoined twin.
A conjoined twin and a foetus attached to a woman's uterus are two entirely different things. The foetus depends on the woman's resources, whilst the conjoined twins do not rely on one another's resources, other than movement (perhaps) to be able to walk around. While it requires two individuals to create a child, the woman is the one whom has to endure the most suffering during the entire process. Her body is "transformed" (like Becky pointed out) as a result of bearing this foetus. When it comes to the abortion, I believe that the decision relies on the woman as to whether or not the foetus should be aborted.

That being said, I most-certainly would not want my partner to abort the foetus, and would do everything within my power to prevent her from doing so; however, when it comes to the legal aspectsa, she is within all of her rights to do so... whether I like it or not.


#56    Supersquatch

Supersquatch

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined:30 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth, Milky Way, Local Group

  • Supersquatch powers, activate!

Posted 18 November 2012 - 01:50 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 18 November 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

If roe vs wade says that an unborn child has NO human rights, then it is a bad law, in principle and in practice. Many countries allow abortions, while recognising the legal rights of a fetus, within limitations.

Roe v. Wade never proclaimed that fetuses do not have rights.

View PostMr Walker, on 18 November 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

To allow, legally or in good conscience, any woman to kill her unborn child, we must think that such a child is NOT a human being (because we cannot arbirarily kill any other form of human being)  That makes us redefine what humanity is, in a more restricted and limited way. It has implications for how we define and consider all aspects of humanity.

Not "REdefine." Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court, in 1973, found that fetuses AREN'T people.

View PostMr Walker, on 18 November 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

Ps society and the law define everything we can do in the modern world. No one can simply do as they please. When it involves the killing of another human being, albeit an immature/undeveloped one, this is even more the case. Can a mother kill a baby an hour old? No. Why then, can she arbitralily kill one still in her womb? What is the ethical and philosophical/moral difference?

Legally, a fetus isn't a human being. Morally and ethically, I don't find much of a difference between the stages before viability and after conception than before conception.

Posted Image

#57    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,261 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:41 AM

View PostTaylor Reints, on 18 November 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Roe v. Wade never proclaimed that fetuses do not have rights.



Not "REdefine." Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court, in 1973, found that fetuses AREN'T people.



Legally, a fetus isn't a human being. Morally and ethically, I don't find much of a difference between the stages before viability and after conception than before conception.
Then it is not such a bad law

Then the supreme court got it wrong. I understand why they made such a decision, but it did redefine centuries of understanding about what defines a human being  How would you feel if the supreme court decided tha  people with altzheiners spina bifida victims of thalidomide or quadraplegics or those in an indefinite coma were not human beings? An unborn human being iS a humna being. What else can it be> The court can decide the respective rights of different types of human beings having varying functionality, but it cant ethically decide what form of a human being, IS a human being. Once upon a time, courts held that black people were not human beings. Did that make it so?

Before concetion there is no new genetic or physical entity, only two separate parts. After conception a new, unique and individual, human has come into  physical and genetic existence.



Are Blacks human beings? Believe it or not, there was a time when the Supreme Court's answer to this question was no, not if they were slaves.
It was 1856. Dred Scott, a Black slave, had been taken north of the Mason-Dixon line into Illinois and Wisconsin where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise.
Scott sued for his freedom and lost. The Supreme Court ruled that the Compromise was unconstitutional. Congress, they said, had no authority to limit slavery in that way.
In the Court's mind, the choice to own slaves was an individual decision, a private matter for each citizen to struggle with apart from interference by the state. If a person, in an act of conscience, chose not to keep slaves, that was his own decision, but he could not force that choice on others. Every person had a private right to choose.
Dred Scott, as a slave, was declared chattel--human property. He was a possession of his owner, and the owner had a right to do whatever he wanted with his assets. Three of the justices held that even a Negro who had descended from slaves had no rights as an American citizen and thus no standing in the court.

http://www.str.org/s...Article&id=5116

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#58    Supersquatch

Supersquatch

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined:30 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth, Milky Way, Local Group

  • Supersquatch powers, activate!

Posted 18 November 2012 - 03:12 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 18 November 2012 - 02:41 AM, said:

Then it is not such a bad law

Then the supreme court got it wrong. I understand why they made such a decision, but it did redefine centuries of understanding about what defines a human being  How would you feel if the supreme court decided tha  people with altzheiners spina bifida victims of thalidomide or quadraplegics or those in an indefinite coma were not human beings?

Note that a person with a disorder is COMPLETELY different from an unviable fetus.

View PostMr Walker, on 18 November 2012 - 02:41 AM, said:

An unborn human being iS a humna being. What else can it be>

A fetus is Homo sapiens, and just because it is human means it is not OK to kill; even though there is no problem killing an animal?

Posted Image

#59    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,107 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 18 November 2012 - 04:01 AM

Yet people are tried for two murders when when some drunk driver kills a mother and a child in utero.... A lot seems to be based on the perceptions of the parents.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#60    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,055 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 18 November 2012 - 06:05 AM

View PostBeckys_Mom, on 17 November 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

I never said anything about the uterus ...I know the embryo attaches itself to the uterus.. The uterus  is a female organ..  Our organs are not attached to us.. they are inside of us..
lol. So they just float around inside of you?
Someone failed biology.

What is your body once you've excluded all the organs, muscles, bones, nerves, flesh? They make up your body, logically anything attached is attached to your body.

Quote

I was aiming at one simple sentence - The baby is attached to her body..  . .I am saying  that is not worded  correctly.. It sounds as if you are saying the baby is stuck on the outside of her body....  The baby is not an attachment . it comes from  what was an attachment inside the body, but when it grows inside the womb, it is no longer that..  It is INSIDE the womb..  which is INSIDE her body.. Not an attachment..
The uterus is part of her body, therefore anything attached to the uterus is attached to her. I can't make it anymore simple.

Edited by Rlyeh, 18 November 2012 - 06:13 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users