Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Blood_Sacrifice

Ethics and legal issues behind abortion

Ethics and legal issues behind abortion   32 members have voted

  1. 1. Morally you support abortion only when

    • The woman's life is at fatal (or similar) risk
      16
    • Rape case scenario
      14
    • Genetic deformities of the fetus
      12
    • As a 'contraceptive method' to unwanted pregnancies
      2
    • All case
      15
    • Never - not even when the woman's health is at fatal risk
      1
  2. 2. Legally when do you support abortion?

    • The woman's life is at fatal (or similar) risk
      5
    • Rape case scenario
      0
    • Genetic deformities of the fetus
      1
    • As a 'contraceptive method' to unwanted pregnancies
      0
    • All case
      25
    • Never - not even when the woman's health is at fatal risk
      1

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

90 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5116

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes conjoined twins is an excellent example /analogy of a mother and child connection.

An excellent example of your comprehension skills. The biology and formation of conjoined is very different to that of a mother and child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent example of your comprehension skills. The biology and formation of conjoined is very different to that of a mother and child.

Mmmmmmmm. You do realize that you are mouthing off to someone who teaches comprehension dont you?!?!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmmmmmm. You do realize that you are mouthing off to someone who teaches comprehension dont you?!?!?!?

Apparently you claim to be a teacher too, need I say more?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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?

I have never been speaking of unviable fetuses. Only viable ones The principles we are discussing cut across many types of humans, including others unable to argue their own cause. In this respect a fetus and a person in a coma, or a child severely disabled, or an elderly man with altzheimers, are all very similar They require the protection of others because, while human, they are unable to defend them selves or plead their own rights..

Yes of course. Humans are a separate form of animal because of our level of self awareness and sapience. That is the reason why, since the dawn of history, humans have distinguished between killing a human and killing an animal. Humans recognise consequence, cause and effect, the permanent condition of death, and many other intellectual/cognitive recognitions, which cause us to value a human life above other life, and to make specific laws for its protection. But today, in many places, non human animals have more protections and rights than an unborn human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent example of your comprehension skills. The biology and formation of conjoined is very different to that of a mother and child.

I've had you on ignore for a year and only begun responding to your posts recently, but this is an example of why i blocked you. Actually many conjoined twiins share organs, parts of the same brain, circulatory system etc They are permanently attached without surgical intervention, and yet one of them can't kill the other, without very special circumstances.

A mother and child are attached for most of the pregnacy by an umbilical cord, but are separate biological entiites, only joined for 9 months, and yet some people still think its ok just to kill the junior partner, without any special reasons or justifications at all.

Tell me. WHY should a woman's human rights; inherently, automatically, and completely, overide her unborn childs.. What is the ethical rationale for that belief.? It can ONLY be justified by deciding an unborn child is non human.

Ps do you understand the term analagous? :innocent:

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had you on ignore for a year and only begun responding to your posts recently, but this is an example of why i blocked you.

You know what, you're still on ignore.
Actually many conjoined twiins share organs, parts of the same brain, circulatory system etc They are permanently attached without surgical intervention, and yet one of them can't kill the other, without very special circumstances.

A mother and child are attached for most of the pregnacy by an umbilical cord, but are separate biological entiites, only joined for 9 months, and yet some people still think its ok just to kill the junior partner, without any special reasons or justifications at all.

If you didn't notice, these are two very different scenarios.
Tell me. WHY should a woman's human rights; inherently, automatically, and completely, overide her unborn childs.. What is the ethical rationale for that belief.?
This has already been addressed, it is her own body, or does she give it up when there is a fetus inside her?

You certaintly thought so when you attempted to justify rape. And I expect nothing less of you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what, you're still on ignore.

If you didn't notice, these are two very different scenarios.

This has already been addressed, it is her own body, or does she give it up when there is a fetus inside her?

You certaintly thought so when you attempted to justify rape. And I expect nothing less of you.

Pathetic.

Societies, values, and laws, change. You do realise that, until the second half of the 20th century, there was no such thing as rape in marriage in the western world, for example.

No married woman had a legal right to refuse sex from her husband at any time, or under any circumstances, because the law accepted (sometimes by implication ) that marriage vows gave explicit and ongoing consent by a woman for sex with her husband.

My point has always been that it is both stupid and pointless to judge the ethics and behaviour of any past society by our own values and ethical standards. If that was the case until 50 years ago, just try to imagine what it was like 500 or 2000 or 5000 years ago.

On the other hand up, until about 50 years ago, a man who promised to marry a woman, and then reneged on that promise, commited a criminal offence called breach of promise, with severe penalties.

160 years ago. the supreme court of the united states ruled that a black man was not a human being. Times and values change And yes, a woman surrenders some of her rights to do what she wishes with her body when she is carrying a child. This is reflected in law, in many places, where a child born with damage caused by its mothers lifestyle while it was in the womb can sue the mother for damages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking from the fetus's point of view is kind of idiotic in the sense that they have no choice in anything to begin with. You can't ask before if they want to be conceived in the first place so you cannot assume that they want to live. Assumption for what somebody wants is a huge problem not just on this subject but everything. (Look at what people assume whichever god a person follows want if you need a prime example)

So what do you? Don't assume a thing. Leave it to the consent of the mother. The mother's choice is the only one that matters here. Anything that forces in to some option that she does not want is wrong.

Of course I see people who use actual abortions as birth control sickening when done in high numbers they need to learn responsibility and how to use preventive birth control but it's still not a reason to make it illegal.

"But but Jinxdom every person has a right to life". Prove it because last time I checked we all die. Sure we can have the right to live peacefully but a right to life? Good luck enforcing that because everybody dies(at least physically as far as proof goes and to cover my butt).

I crawled out of a women and spent every lingering day after to get back inside. That reason alone is why I believe in choice, choice/consent is the difference between rape and sex. I will never betray that trust.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol. So they just float around inside of you?

Someone failed biology.

They are attached INSIDE the body Not to the body.( like your post previously read ) ..They are called internal organs for a reason .Medical experts will say they are connected inside not they are attached to the body .. When a woman is carrying a baby, it too is internal it is attached inside her NOT to her body

When you said the baby is attached TO her body.. you make it look as if it is on the outside..

My garage and conservatory are attached TO my house.. which indicates, they are attached on the OUTSIDE.. ,,It would look strange if they were attached INSIDE... Hence why I worded the sentence - attached to my house. I am indicating they are on the outside and not on the inside

Now do not come back to me again pretending you do not follow .. I read enough clap trap on here as it is ..

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you claim to be a teacher too, need I say more?

Yes, he claimed to be a teacher; on top of that, years ago he claimed that if a person allowed their child (I don't remember whose child, exactly) to go on top of a roof, and believe that if they jumped off, they would fly... they would actually be able to fly. I remember that conversation. It was around Christmas (December of 2009 I think) one year.

And this is why I don't take him very seriously. And this is an ad hominem attack, before you self-proclaimed experts in formal logic deconstruct my post.

And, sorry; I thought this was directed at Mr. Walker, because he claimed on different occasions to be a teacher... which I had a hard time believing. The misunderstanding was at the fault of my own, but my point still stands about Walker.

Edited by Alienated Being
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you said the baby is attached TO her body.. you make it look as if it is on the outside..

Given the context, you have to be pretty daft to come to that conclusion.
My garage and conservatory are attached TO my house.. which indicates, they are attached on the OUTSIDE.. ,,It would look strange if they were attached INSIDE... Hence why I worded the sentence - attached to my house. I am indicating they are on the outside and not on the inside
You're arguing semantics. It is your assumption I was indicating the fetus was on the outside.
Now do not come back to me again pretending you do not follow .. I read enough clap trap on here as it is ..

So don't add to it. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pathetic.

Societies, values, and laws, change. You do realise that, until the second half of the 20th century, there was no such thing as rape in marriage in the western world, for example.

Notice I never said anything about marriage?

Anyway it is clear you're one of these people who thinks law makes right.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never been speaking of unviable fetuses. Only viable ones

Why would we be talking about viable fetuses, if Roe v. Wade made it a state interest for abortions after viability?

Yes of course. Humans are a separate form of animal because of our level of self awareness and sapience. That is the reason why, since the dawn of history, humans have distinguished between killing a human and killing an animal. Humans recognise consequence, cause and effect, the permanent condition of death, and many other intellectual/cognitive recognitions, which cause us to value a human life above other life, and to make specific laws for its protection. But today, in many places, non human animals have more protections and rights than an unborn human.

So you are telling me that an unviable human fetus is more sapient and aware of its surroundings than any other adult animal?

Yes, he claimed to be a teacher; on top of that, years ago he claimed that if a person allowed their child (I don't remember whose child, exactly) to go on top of a roof, and believe that if they jumped off, they would fly... they would actually be able to fly. I remember that conversation. It was around Christmas (December of 2009 I think) one year.

Beckys_Mom, right? http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=169536&st=135#entry3197675

Edited by Taylor Reints

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're arguing semantics. It is your assumption I was indicating the fetus was on the outside.

No, because there is a clear difference between the two ( Inside and outside ) The baby is attached to her body = Indicated it is attached on the outside.. it does not indicate it is inside.. ... There are many women who have their babies attached to their bodies... AFTER the kid is born, and they carry them in a baby harness lol

Anyhoo, I think you know exactly what I mean.. you just get chocked on a bit of that ego to admit you made the error lol :P

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because there is a clear difference between the two ( Inside and outside ) The baby is attached to her body = Indicated it is attached on the outside.. it does not indicate it is inside.. ... There are many women who have their babies attached to their bodies... AFTER the kid is born, and they carry them in a baby harness lol

From the article I posted

"A UCSF-led research team has identified the first molecular step that allows a week-old human embryo to attach to the uterus."

Are you saying you read this as "embryo to attach to the outside of the uterus"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.