Abortion or No abortion. What's right and what's moral, etc

[We Never Know]

I am against abortion in most cases because in most cases precation/protection was thrown out the window for pleasure. They knew what would happen, they should take responsibility for their choices.

However in cases of rape, incest, child molestation, etc I have no problem with abortion.

Here's an example....

A child was raped and became pregnant by unwanted force, not choice, something that will haunt her for the rest of here life, should she again be forced to birth that child?

I say no.

Your thoughts.....
Is it right or wrong to force her to birth the child?
Is it moral or not moral to force her to birth the child?

Debate or discuss, I am simply seeking what others think and why.

PS. I put this in this forum because it kinda falls under politics, religion and non-religious plus could be debated or discussed.

 

[sun rise]

First, my attitude is in general terms the Catholic one about the value of life. But I also am aware that is an ideal not a practical concept in today's world.

Background to my further comments:

Canada has a much lower abortion rate than the USA. Why? Because women matter in Canada. Abortion rates don't depend on whether or not it's legal: DEFINE_ME

Canada consistently supports women and babies throughout their lives. Women have easy and inexpensive access to contraception. Should they choose pregnancy, they have good health care throughout the process, including prenatal care.''

In Canada, biological and surrogate parents who have given birth receive 15 weeks of maternity leave, during which time they receive their regular pay and benefits. Afterward, all parents, biological or adoptive, can receive an additional 35 weeks of “parental benefits.” These provide for partial pay, with most receiving at least 55 percent of their average earnings. Either parent is eligible for this benefit and it can be split between the parents. Through the Canada Child Benefit, the government also helps eligible parents with child-care costs with a monthly tax-free payment.

In 2008, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment launched a program to offer low-or no-cost long-acting reversible contraceptives to low-income women across the state. The results were astounding: Between 2009 and 2014, the teen abortion rate was nearly cut in half. In addition, teen birth rates were nearly cut in half, births to women without a high school education fell 38 percent, second and higher order births to teens were cut by 57 percent, and rapid repeat births declined by 12 percent among all women.

I combine my basic ethical thoughts with a very large dose of pragmatism. Given the serious divide on the topic we can yell at each other forever pointing fingers and declaring the other side irretrievably evil.

Instead we should agree that having politicians making medical decisions is stupid and leads to horror stories as we've started to hear. We should honor people having different ideas about this fundamental question of when a fetus becomes a human being. We should follow the example of Canada as proven in Colorado and make it as easy as possible for women to avoid becoming pregnant. And all children who are just becoming sexually developed should know in intimate detail how pregnancy occurs, how it can be prevented

And given what I've been reading about the development of what someday will be an artificial womb, we should start considering how that would impact this issue when it becomes a reality.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There are plenty of situations where I'd see abortion as an undesirable outcome. But I'm not looking to impose that belief on others. Imposing that belief on others appears more immoral than the act itself to me.

Again, just speaking for myself there is a line. Dumb example (so please don't jump on me for the example) might be that late-stage abortions are banned except in situations involving medical risk to mother, or something.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

To me abortion is a matter of body autonomy. Consent to sex isn't consent to completing a pregnancy in the same way that drunken driving doesn't mean forfeiting blood or body tissues to whomever you may have hurt. Or, in a similar way as you can't sign away yourself to slavery, you can't perform any act which forfeits your body's ownership in whole or part to another person. In short, the mother's body never belongs to the unborn child. It must forever and always be her choice to complete the pregnancy.

But just as importantly I don't think you can adequately legally enforce abortion exceptions without sacrificing care, up to and including people dying while others quibble over whether or not the abortion is justified (see: Savita)

Personally, my health problems mean any pregnancy I have is high risk. I use several forms of contraception (some of which are to treat hormone disorder) but even with contraceptives pregnancy can happen. And I *would* end it before it can become a critical situation, regardless of who approves.
And I think people who think of pregnancy and childbirth as merely an inconvenience are seriously in need of researching how common life threatening (and life ending) complications threaten people. And in the backwoods we call the US, likely to make said people financially destitute along with physical and psychological scarring.

 

[Willamena]

Legislating the views of a few onto the majority is what is immoral. And undemocratic.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think that abortion is a right that cannot be misused.
Women are expected to have a responsible and aware sex life with the numerous contraception methods. And abortion should be used as a last resort only. As extrema ratio.


Law 194/1978
The State guarantees the right to a conscious and responsible procreation; acknowledges the social value of motherhood and protects the human life from the very beginning. The voluntary interruption of pregnancy is not meant to be a means of births control.
The State, the region and the local bodies, according to their own specific powers and tasks, implement and develop the medical and social services, and other initiatives which will prevent that abortion is used with the purpose of contraception, and birth control.
The State allows abortion within the first ninety days of pregnancy, whenever the mother demonstrates that carrying out the pregnancy, the delivery and the maternal care will jeopardize her own physical or psychic health, as for her own medical state, or as for her own economic, social and family conditions, or as for the conditions of conception, or as for alleged and predicted anomalies of the foetus.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I am against abortion in most cases because in most cases precation/protection was thrown out the window for pleasure. They knew what would happen, they should take responsibility for their choices.

However in cases of rape, incest, child molestation, etc I have no problem with abortion.

Here's an example....

A child was raped and became pregnant by unwanted force, not choice, something that will haunt her for the rest of here life, should she again be forced to birth that child?

I say no.

Your thoughts.....
Is it right or wrong to force her to birth the child?
Is it moral or not moral to force her to birth the child?

Debate or discus PS. I put this in this forum because it kinda falls under politics, religion and non-religious plus could be debated or discussed.

Similar to you, I wish abortions to be rare in the extreme, or never used at all. But they are morally right for certain cases.
However, I recognize that most abortions are conducted for stable couples who have an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy (I’ll outline the math below), not just whimsy.


Many common forms of birth control, especially those most affordable to many people (I.e. condoms), are far from 100% effective. In practice, they tend to be roughly 95% effective. That is to say, a young couple having sex fairly regularly (as most young couples do) while using condoms every time, will end a year together with the woman pregnant 5% of the time.
Now, 18-44 year olds make up approximately 1/3 of the US population (120 million people). Assuming roughly 1/2 of them have “partnered up” or are otherwise having regular sex, with the males wearing condoms (30 million copulating couples). Then we’re looking at 1.5 MILLION “WHOOPS!” pregnancies (EVERY YEAR!) Many of these are desired (Motzel Tov!! ), but many are extreme, severe, life altering accidents, that the couple in all earnestness, tried to avoid.
For this reason, assuming that the decision is made in the first 20 weeks or so (as more than 97% are) I’m OK with abortions. I feel they are ….unfortunate…but moral, with n harm to any sentient lives.
Of course there are the rare pregnancies, which endanger the mother’s life or would result in a baby destined to die a suffering death inside of a very short period, which medical practice might not detect until later in the gestation. Those are horrible, life-wrenching moments, that could also use abortion.
All of this should be between the woman, and her doctor (and possibly discussed with the male, if that is desired) - although the decision as to whether the woman should get her endometrial lining emptied out is ALWAYS hers in the end.

 

[Willamena]

Women are expected to have a responsible and aware sex life with the numerous contraception methods.

As well, the men.

Law 194/1978
The State guarantees the right to a conscious and responsible procreation; acknowledges the social value of motherhood and protects the human life from the its own beginning. The voluntary interruption of pregnancy is not meant to be a means of births control.
The State, the region and the local bodies, according to their own specific powers and tasks, implement and develop the medical and social services, and other initiatives which will prevent that abortion is used with the purpose of contraception, and birth control.
The State allows abortion within the first ninety days of pregnancy, whenever the mother demonstrates that carrying out the pregnancy, the delivery and the maternal care will jeopardize her own physical or psychic health, as for her own medical state, or as for her own economic, social and family conditions, or as for the conditions of conception, or as for alleged and predicted anomalies of the foetus.

"acknowledges the social value of motherhood and protects the human life from the its own beginning" - clarify?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I am against abortion in most cases because in most cases precation/protection was thrown out the window for pleasure. They knew what would happen, they should take responsibility for their choices.

They knew it *might* happen, and if it did, they didn't plan on wanting to have it. But that's a battle that your view largely won, so why even mention this

 

[Heyo]

Is it moral or not moral to force her to birth the child?

When you ask about morality you'll also have to ask about the moral principles a person holds and how an opinion is congruent with those principles.
Is liberty a moral principle? If not, are you also for forced vaccination?
Is life a moral good? Are you consistent in your opinion, i.e. are you a vegetarian, opposed to the death penalty and war?

 

[stvdv]

Here's an example....

A child was raped and became pregnant by unwanted force, not choice, something that will haunt her for the rest of here life, should she again be forced to birth that child?

I say no.

Your thoughts....

NO
I call it demonic to enforce this too on her

Is it right or wrong to force her to birth the child

Adharmic is how I call it

Is it moral or not moral to force her to birth the child?

Adharmic and not moral.

Sitting on God's chair and judging others while pointing fingers at an innocent one is a weakness, far better to improve ones own stupid imperfect habits

 

[Estro Felino]

As well, the men.


"acknowledges the social value of motherhood and protects the human life from the its own beginning" - clarify?

It means that since the State makes contraception available and affordable, women are expected not to have an irresponsible sex life. And since the State takes care of the children that mothers decide to give for adoption, abortion cannot be considered a solution, unless the pregnancy and delivery jeopardize the psychic and physical health of the mother.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Abortion or No abortion. What's right and what's moral, etc.: Moality is decided by a society. And laws are the sphere of governments (in democracies, by majority vote). Then there are personal opinions. I accept abortion with safe-guards as mandated in the current Indian law. I do not agree to making abortion totally dependent on a woman's will.

 

[Valjean]

I am against abortion in most cases because in most cases precation/protection was thrown out the window for pleasure. They knew what would happen, they should take responsibility for their choices.

So an accidentally pregnant woman doesn't deserve an abortion? You'd force her to abandon her education and dreams, and raise an unwanted child in poverty, subsidized by your tax dollars?
Why? Whom does this benefit?

Would you refuse a kid who'd scraped his knee, showing off on his skateboard, a bandage, on the grounds that it was an avoidable injury?

However in cases of rape, incest, child molestation, etc I have no problem with abortion.

So it's not a matter of the rights. The fœtus does not have any right to life or claim of moral consideration. You're willing to kill it for the comfort or convenience of the mother, as long as she is not to blame.

Your 'right-to-life' stance, therefore, seems not to be a moral position at all, but mere vindictiveness; a punishment for her violation of your personal ideas of propriety.

A child was raped and became pregnant by unwanted force, not choice, something that will haunt her for the rest of here life, should she again be forced to birth that child?

I say no.

Your thoughts.....
Is it right or wrong to force her to birth the child?
Is it moral or not moral to force her to birth the child?

Debate or discuss, I am simply seeking what others think and why.

PS. I put this in this forum because it kinda falls under politics, religion and non-religious plus could be debated or discussed.

The religious anti-abortionists claim abortion is a violation of the rights of the fœtus; that the fœtus has a moral claim of right-to-life.
The pro-abortionists claim a fœtus lacks the features that would confer any claim of moral consideration.
The religious claim that the human genomic sequence itself confers a right to life, regardless of whether it's carrier is a "being" in any sense of the word. They apparently hold that killing anything with human DNA is murder.

The claim of an exception for rape or incest strikes me as morally inconsistent. Is abortion a crime against the fœtus, or the sensibilities of the community? Is it OK to kill the fœtus if it inconveniences or discomfits the mother, or not?
Isn't justification by virtue of inconvenience what the abortion rights supporters are claiming?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are plenty of situations where I'd see abortion as an undesirable outcome. But I'm not looking to impose that belief on others. Imposing that belief on others appears more immoral than the act itself to me.

Again, just speaking for myself there is a line. Dumb example (so please don't jump on me for the example) might be that late-stage abortions are banned except in situations involving medical risk to mother, or something.

The only thing wrong with your limitation is that it is very rarely ever the case. Late stage abortions that are not medically needed are expensive and not covered by insurance. And the doctors that offer them are rather choosy about their patients. The only thing that bothers me about that sort of restriction is that it can be abused by antiabortion people.

I would have no problem with that limitation if there was a penalty included against those that tried to abuse the lsw.

 

[Valjean]

Legislating the views of a few onto the majority is what is immoral. And undemocratic.

And so is violating the rights of the few by majority. Isn't it wrong to deny the rights of the weak or powerless, just because they inconvenience the powerful?

The issue revolves around the claim of fœtal rights--the few--vs majority rights.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The only thing wrong with your limitation is that it is very rarely ever the case. Late stage abortions that are not medically needed are expensive and not covered by insurance. And the doctors that offer them are rather choosy about their patients. The only thing that bothers me about that sort of restriction is that it can be abused by antiabortion people.

I would have no problem with that limitation if there was a penalty included against those that tried to abuse the lsw.

My main issue with my example is more that I haven't thought it through, don't have a view on what 'late-stage' means, or how it could be structured in a way that is 'fair' to exceptional circumstances, amongst other details.

Mostly I don't think they're a meaningful percentage of cases, and do think they're used for political purposes.

But in answering about morality, and how my morals 'should' effect others, I'm thinking it's in that realm, to some degree. A view I know not all would share, but there it is.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And so is violating the rights of the few by majority. Isn't it wrong to deny the rights of the weak or powerless, just because they inconvenience the powerful?

The issue revolves around the claim of fœtal rights--the few--vs majority rights.

Heh...you guys are on the same side, but disagree who the few are, I think.

 

[Valjean]

It means that since the State makes contraception available and affordable, women are expected not to have an irresponsible sex life. And since the State takes care of the children that mothers decide to give for adoption, abortion cannot be considered a solution, unless the pregnancy and delivery jeopardize the psychic and physical health of the mother.

Forcing an unwanted or unaffordable child on a woman will have lifetime ramifications. This seems a harsh and useless punishment for 'irresponsibility," or the typical impulsiveness of youth.

In most other areas of irresponsibility we endeavor to undo any harmful effects. Why do we make an exception for unintended pregnancy, when there's such a simple fix?

Several posters have also commented on the unreliability of contraception, even when used responsibly. There are also the issues of contraceptive availability and reproductive education. Contraceptives are not so universally available and affordable as you seem to think, and many people are abysmally ignorant of their usage.

 

[Valjean]

Heh...you guys are on the same side, but disagree who the few are, I think.

LOL -- we both support abortion rights, but disagree on who's rights are being violated, or maybe who has a claim to what rights, and why.