The Morality of Abortion!

[Rational Head]

All of us believe in the right of one to possess ones own life. No sane person would argue against the right of one to possess his own life & no sane person would argue that he prefers death to life. If one does he contradicts himself through that statement. Even the fact that he exists to utter those words is an apparent proof of the fact that he prefers life to death. One, after all, is free to die!

One’s right to live-which means: to possess one’s own body is impossible in a society where aggression is a rule। If freedom to aggress is accepted as a rule, most of us would have a hard time holding on to own ones own property–And one’s own body is the most important of ones possessions. Most thinkers and philosophers, though not opposed to the above argument, usually attempts to rationalize abortions by trying to fit it into some moral framework.

The most cited argument is as follows- “A child, yet to be born is just a potential newborn child. It has no reasoning power and resides in the mother’s body. It can have no rights at all.” A newly born child too lacks reasoning power, is incapable of most actions & is dependent on his parents. It is only that it has the power to acquire those skills-In the similar manner a potential new born child is capable to grow into a born child. If a newly born child has the right to his life as it is a potential adult, why is it that an unborn child, which is a potential newly born child doesn’t have it? Needless to mention, the argument contradicts itself.

Let’s hear what the Brilliant Economist, Scholar, Historian, Moral Philosopher & Anarcho-Capitalist, Professor Murray Newton Rothbard has to say on this topic: “Most fetuses are in the mother’s body by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.” Murray they go on to argue that a mere promise is not a legal contract & one can’t have any legally enforceable contract with an unborn child.


I’ll draw an analogy to refute the above argument। Let’s assume for the sake of an argument that an implicit contract has moral & legal validity. I am driving my car through the highway. I meet you in the middle of the journey & am offering you a lift. The vehicle reaches near an abyss & I am now speeding up the car and shouting at you-“How dare you invade into my property? Get down!” Is it right or wrong? If not, why? There is an implicit contract here and one can’t have any such contract with an unborn child, you say? Very well! Imagine it is your new born child that I am giving a lift-with your consent, of course. What if I am doing it to him? This is very much similar to a mother deciding to abort the child. There is an implicit contract with you, you say? Very well! Imagine now, that you agree to me that I can force him to get down from the driving vehicle whenever I want. Am I wrong in doing so? If so, in what sense? Our contract was that I am free to do so & the child, apparently is not capable of making any such contract. This is very much similar to both parents deciding to abort the child. Do I not have the perfect right to aggress against that invader? One should further keep in mind that Murray & other libertarian thinkers do not agree to the legal enforcement of implicit contracts & promises. None of the counter arguments I made above has any validity under such premises.

One should think twice before getting into any vehicle in a Libertarian society. It could be a murder attempt!

P.S:: I am Objectivist and as a general trend, Objectivism is said to be a subset of Libertarianism! (Lol I don't shout hail Ayn Rand!)

[Muskan]

I don’t care about what Rothbard said about it or anything (I have very little or almost no reverence for him).
But I would like to COUNTER QUESTION you.

So why don’t you try to answer that, when you offered a person lift in your car, was he having a gun in his hand with an expression that he is a looter or a contract killer willing to kill you? And if suppose he was someone you knew he may kill you (as in case of pregnancies where doctors warns that the pregnancy may cause extreme problems while there are 50% chances that pregnancy may be safe for mother).
So If the situation is, you doubt that the person you gave lift is safe or not, and during the travel, after sometime, you come to know that he actually is gonna kill you, he is dangerous, will you try to safeguard your *** against the bullets he will shoot in your backward creek? Trying to safeguard yourself may lead to his death you know! Self-defense is righteous because nobody is willing to die, it is clear to you isn’t it?

Second question is, what if someone shoots at your car and forcibly gets an entry? yes I am talking of pregnancies because of rapes. What if a terrorist stops you at midnight on road and enforces his comrade in your car? Will you try to save your *** because if the police sees you with the infamous terrorist or criminal or terrorist, they may shoot you too or you may get shot while police was trying to kill the terrorist or his comrade who entered your car forcibly?
Would you deny the fact that in such situation where your own life is endangered because of the person who forcibly took a lift in your car or whom you accidentally and innocently gave lift in, if you shouts or criticizes that person who forcibly took lift and try to get rid of him anyhow is righteous?

I consider it as righteous. I may try to get a good look of the person whom I assume to give lift, but even then, i may commit mistake in actually assessing if he is a simple honest citizen or a well-known hard-core criminal, terrorist, or killer who can very easily kill me during the travel.
And in the case of such mistake, I will certainly be entitled for safeguarding my life. its self-defense.

Abortion is LEGAL because it is moral.
Abortion itself is not immoral. Although the person going through the abortion may be immoral. That is a woman may go through abortion even when she actually didn’t needed it.
She may be mercurial deciding to have a baby at one moment and getting hooked and then after 3 months, deciding to have abortion. if she is such mercurial, then she is immoral.
But if she is not such, and she righteously needs an abortion, then it is MORAL!

[lucy]

That theory doesn't hold up, because most, if not all, women who even consider getting an abortion didn't want to get pregnant in the first place. Now of course there's a lot of reasons why a woman gets pregnant without wanting to. Those include plain bad luck, nonconsentual intercourse (aka rape), stupidity, lack of knowledge, forgetfulness and so on.
However, all these reasons exclude consent in "getting the passenger into the vehicle".

[Muskan]

One should think twice before getting into any vehicle in a Libertarian society. It could be a murder attempt!

I am objectivist. Yet it doesn’t matter whether the car driver is libertarian or not, but the person who asked for lift can surely be a terrorist, a killer, a burglar a criminal, a rapist too.

[denuseri]

And I quote:

"I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot."

Hippocrates, 4th century BCE.

[Laila]

I am not a friend of analogies for real life problems, because really you can find an analogy for everything to make it sound like your in the right. And then everything gets muddled up because you forget whether you are talking in the metaphor or the real example and it creates misunderstandings... at least in my experience.

I can quote too: “Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose” Nietzsche


The first thing I ask myself when I read your question - Is abortion moral? - is: What is morality. You first need to define this before you can ask if abortion is it or not. and Morality is one of the vaguest, haziest things to define in an international forum such as this. (You and I probably wouldn't say stoning a woman to death is moral - in other cultures it is... etc.)

For me, personally, I wouldn't answer the question at all. I think it is a question that every woman has to answer for herself and it is NObody's business to interfere. I personally wouldn't - but I don't judge others who would or have.
My own mother has had an abortion because she was pregnant with a man whom she didn't love and didn't want to stay with under any circumstances, she was basically alone with me and my brother and already felt like she couldn't handle it. I would never judge her for that - and not just because she is my mother. She did draw her consequences from that and had her tubes tied afterwards.

But even though I couldn't have an abortion - I always argue Pro-Choice. And I think the reason for that is, that those who argue Pro-Life never JUST argue pro life. Usually it comes with a religious agenda - and that agenda, while using human rights as long is it helps them, completely disregards them when it comes to areas where they are less convenient.
Its no coincidence that in this American election people always talk about Abortion AND Gay rights. I know we don't talk about that and I don't want to offend anybody, but I won't try to argue about morality with someone who doesn't want to grant gays the same rights as everybody else, just because they are gay and at the same time say 'You can't give a a bundle of cells no human rights JUST because it might not be a human jet."

Also, I feel that especially in the States, the issue is pushed to ridiculous proportions - so much so, that I feel it really isn't about the issue at all. It is about a conservative outlook and policy. If this was really about human rights and saving lives people would start where children die every day from hunger, war and genocide. Or wouldn't even start there - would make sure that kids in their own country had health care to get medical treatment if they need it.

In this world of intertwining cultures there are very few things that can definitely said to me moral or immoral - i don't presume to be in the position to make that choice for abortion.

Because where does it start and where does it stop? Is for a man masturbating wrong, because he spends sperm in waste? There are cultures where this is true.
And what about birth-control? What about the morning-after pill?
The pope says condoms are wrong and thus sanctions AIDS to keep spreading in Africa. I personally think THAT is immoral.
Another example for how easy morality is to stretch - how many people do you think I would have on my back for calling the pope immoral?

So my conclusion - the only morality that exists the the one that we have in our heart - our coincidence. And nobody can answer this question for someone else. After all, Kant says "Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another."

[mkemse]

To me the reality of Abortion is simple, Pregnancy is part of the Female Reprotuctive System, and to me No Court, Goverment or other Legal Enitiy has any right to decide what ANY women does with her Repductive Sytem, it is owned by thw omen, it is part of her system, and thus is not a Governement, owned System or owned by any other enity on Earth
The issue of the right to have an aborion has to remain a private personal matter between the Women, her Husband and her doctor and not the Government or other enitiy their of
If the Governement is allowedo r the Courts are allowed to determine whether she can have an abortion, what is then ext next, they start to dictate who Women can go out with, Marry?? ect
Leave abortion where is belongs, a Perosnal Private Mastter between the Women her Husband or Boyfriend as the case might be and her docotor, not to the Governement or Courts System

[Thorne]

Well said, Laila. I just want to add my two cents worth.

As far as I'm concerned, any discussion of morality is silly. If two people are of the same culture and religious background, their moralities are going to be quite similar. If they are from different cultures, naturally they will have differing views of morality.

Any law which would force any person to do something which is injurious to himself or to others, is a bad law, and probably "immoral". Any law which forces any person to adhere to a moral code which they do not believe in, is a bad law. Given that, the law must still protect the people, which naturally forces us to prevent people from doing harm to other people.

So the question becomes, who do we consider people? That will vary from place to place, culture to culture, religion to religion. In some cultures, a child wasn't considered to be a person until it was several months old, at least. In many early Christian religions, a child is not a person until it has been baptized. So how could abortion be considered immoral, in those cultures?

In my opinion, the question of abortion can only be answered by the mother of the fetus. No one else has any right to determine the "morality" for her. And until men are capable of bearing and delivering children, they have absolutely no right to tell any woman she cannot do as she wants!

[mkemse]

Well said, Laila. I just want to add my two cents worth.

As far as I'm concerned, any discussion of morality is silly. If two people are of the same culture and religious background, their moralities are going to be quite similar. If they are from different cultures, naturally they will have differing views of morality.

Any law which would force any person to do something which is injurious to himself or to others, is a bad law, and probably "immoral". Any law which forces any person to adhere to a moral code which they do not believe in, is a bad law. Given that, the law must still protect the people, which naturally forces us to prevent people from doing harm to other people.

So the question becomes, who do we consider people? That will vary from place to place, culture to culture, religion to religion. In some cultures, a child wasn't considered to be a person until it was several months old, at least. In many early Christian religions, a child is not a person until it has been baptized. So how could abortion be considered immoral, in those cultures?

In my opinion, the question of abortion can only be answered by the mother of the fetus. No one else has any right to determine the "morality" for her. And until men are capable of bearing and delivering children, they have absolutely no right to tell any woman she cannot do as she wants!

Thank you my point exactly the only one who control the life of the fetus should be the mother who has it nobody else, be it the Governement ect

[AdrianaAurora]

Very often (especially in US) groups who scream PRO LIFE parole are the same who cling to guns and religion. Their religion. They are right, they have all the answers and everyone else is immoral. They argue that they have a right to carry guns and shoot criminals, and apparently they don't need government to regulate that. What strikes me as the biggest hypocrisy of all is that those who argue pro life are usually the same bunch who argue pro capital punishment, "conservative" (though thats a moot point considering they put into office "Mother of All Big Spenders") government spending ie spending as little as possible on welfare projects, preferably nothing.

What is moral? Who has the right to decide that? You? God? In my opinion, any person who panders his religion as the absolute moral imperative and himself as a "prophet authority" should be committed to asylum.

I find it preposterous that those who argue for smaller government, free market and "against those damn liberals telling them how to live" - are the same who think they have a right to meddle into such personal matters of another person.

Whether or not abortion is immoral is irrelevant. No person is better than any other person, no person has the right to tell another what is moral or immoral, no person has the right to tell another person what to do with his/her body.

Whether or not abortion is legal or illegal is irrelevant. Women always had and (most likely) always will have abortions, it is simply the matter of how. Illegal or not, they always found a way, it simply wasn't discussed as publicly. And if that failed - does the word infanticide ring a bell?

You cant force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. As for men having a say in it - until he is the pregnant one, he has no say (that goes both ways, he cant force her to have an abortion or forbid her from having one). Its something even my husband and I disagree on and thats fine - as long as its my choice.

Is the woman who had a baby that is by product of (gang) rape morally superior to a woman who had an abortion after the similar event? Is it moral or immoral to judge either of them for making the choice they have?

Is it moral or immoral to have plastic surgery?

Is it moral or immoral to use contraception?

Is it moral or immoral to whip your partner and call her a slut?

There is no one universal answer, we all have to decide what is right and with what we can live with for ourselves - thats why its called PRO CHOICE.

[Ragoczy]

Curiously, I had a discussion on this topic with my thirteen-year old daughter recently. On the long car rides to and from her classes, I like to torment her by making her talk about substantive issues instead of just listening to music.

The fundamental controversy of abortion is: When does a human life begin?

When does it change from a merging of sperm and egg, from a blob of cells, from a "fetus" ... to a human being, with all of the rights associated with such?

Sadly, that question can't be answered today, because we have no real definition of what constitutes human life. There's no machine that we can point at a pregnant woman and watch the "human" light turn on.

This is not an issue of hypothetical car rides, about consent and withdrawing consent -- it's either about killing a human being or not; all dependent on what defines a human life and when that begins.

It's not about individual, personal morality -- those things that we decide for ourselves are right or wrong -- because there is no such thing when another person is involved. We don't get to decide what's moral or not when it impacts others -- if we did, then murder would be legal if the murderer didn't feel it was wrong.

If an abortion is performed before the fetus has achieved whatever it is that defines a human life, then it's the moral equivalent of clipping your toenails; after that indefinable point and it's murder ... worse, murder of a child.

There are extreme, ridiculous positions on both sides.

I don't believe that sperm and egg conjoined define humanness -- that makes little or no sense. There's no ... substance to three or four, or three- or four-hundred, cells, with no definition or recognizable form, to hold the concept of a human being. To believe that requires a belief in a human soul, which can't be proven to exist.

Worse, though, is the belief that abortion on-demand in, say, the third trimester isn't murder. That's sick and depraved -- to deny humanity and rights to an infant who, if birthed instead of butchered, would survive independent of the mother is unconscionable. What magic happens with the cutting of the umbilical that turns it into human from non-? A twisted rationalization.

Out of the conversation with my daughter, I posed a question, which I now pose to you:

Today, this very minute, you have the power to settle legality or illegality of abortion once and for all. You pick. Then no more argument, no more debate, no more discussion -- your decision stands as the law.

Then, twenty-years from today, we've advanced technology to the point where we can define "humanness", that unique quality that makes a human being different. We build a machine that can detect this and can, once and for all, determine when human life begins. Press the button and the light turns green for human.

If you made abortion illegal and twenty years from now that light turns green only when the cord is cut, well, you have to apologize to all those millions of women who had to endure some discomfort and inconvenience for nine months of their lives.

If you made abortion legal and the light turns green when sperm meets egg ... what on earth can you say to millions of dead children?

Our entire legal system in the US is based on a very simple premise: It's better for the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent. If an accused murderer gets the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't a child?

[Ragoczy]

Is it moral or immoral to have plastic surgery?

Is it moral or immoral to use contraception?

Is it moral or immoral to whip your partner and call her a slut?

Is it moral to kill someone?

Is it moral to rape someone?

Is it moral to steal property from someone?

These are more apt analogies to abortion, because the premise is that another person is involved is fundamental to the objection.

So a question for those who think abortion should be legal:

Abortion on-demand (no edge conditions, just because the woman wants it) in the third trimester? Acceptable or no?

[damyanti]

some discomfort and inconvenience

Is that what you think pregnancy is? What about those women who find pregnancy disgusting and that making abortion illegal is a violation akin to rape?

[AdrianaAurora]

Is it moral to kill someone?

Is it moral to rape someone?

Is it moral to steal property from someone?

It on itself its neither moral or immoral, its a matter of social contract.

Abortion on-demand (no edge conditions, just because the woman wants it) in the third trimester? Acceptable or no?

Above all else, I am for prevention (education, contraception....) where such choice is not necessary.

IMO, no.

[Ragoczy]

It on itself its neither moral or immoral, its a matter of social contract.

So if society decides that rape is okay, you're good with that?

Above all else, I am for prevention (education, contraception....) where such choice is not necessary.

IMO, no.

So, abortion on demand in the third trimester isn't acceptable, in your opinion, but should it be legal?

[the_moirae]

Abortion on-demand (no edge conditions, just because the woman wants it) in the third trimester? Acceptable or no?

Not even addressing the original "argument" of this thread because...well, let's just move on.

Ragoczy (and all those who agree/believe there should be a ban on "partial-birth" abortion) tell me something please. How many women go through their first and second trimesters, arrive at month seven, eight, or nine, march into a doctor's office of their own volition (sound body/mind), and say: "You know, this whole pregnancy gig just ain't working out for me. I've changed my mind."

THERE ARE ONLY TWO REASONS THE QUESTION OF TERMINATION OF A FETUS WOULD ARISE IN THE FINAL TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY: SEVERE RISKS TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OR THE MOTHER/BABY/BOTH SHOULD GESTATION CONTINUE, OR SEVERE BIRTH DEFECT INDICATING THE CHILD'S LIFE WOULD BE UNSUSTAINABLE OUTSIDE THE WOMB.

That this has even become an issue for debate is ludicrous.

[Ragoczy]

Is that what you think pregnancy is? What about those women who find pregnancy disgusting and that making abortion illegal is a violation akin to rape?

Take the other outcome and what about all those children who, I'm sure, would consider death to be a bit more of a "violation"? Well, if they'd had a chance to form the opinion, of course.

If, instead of taking one phrase out of context, you addressed the entire scenario you laid out, you'd see that I was comparing finding out that your (as the decider) decision had a) forced women to go through the pregnancies unnecessarily; or b) killed a bunch of kids.

The point is: which are you more comfortable with bearing the potential responsibility for?

If you're 100% certain when human life begins, good for you. I sure wish you could prove it.

[AdrianaAurora]

So if society decides that rape is okay, you're good with that?

So I do have a choice?

Why should I have any more choice about that than abortion?

Because thats what its all about choice. Its an extremely private and personal issue - and no one but myself, least of all government has the right to make that decision.

[damyanti]

You say that "The fundamental controversy of abortion is: When does a human life begin?"

I don't think its relevant if the fetus is a living being or not...if something is growing inside of me, its my decision.

If someone breaks into my house, don't I have the right to shoot him...after all the bugler is human too?

I am in favour of teaching personal responsibility and education, but you cant force people to be sensible,...even before it was legal it was being done, there were always ways to come about abortive remedies.

Most European countries have a 12 week limit "on demand" and "may be performed after 12 weeks if necessary to avoid serious danger to the woman's physical or mental health; if the child is at risk of being born with a serious physical or mental defect; or if the woman is under 14 years of age" clause. I think thats a very good and reasonable stand.

[Ragoczy]

Not even addressing the original "argument" of this thread because...well, let's just move on.

Ragoczy (and all those who agree/believe there should be a ban on "partial-birth abortion) tell me something please. How many women go through their first and second trimesters, arrive at month seven, eight, or nine, march into a doctors office of their own volition (sound body/mind), and say: "You know, this whole pregnancy gig just ain't working out for me. I've changed my mind."

THERE ARE ONLY TWO REASONS THE QUESTION OF TERMINATION OF A FETUS WOULD ARISE IN THE FINAL TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY: SEVERE RISKS TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OR THE MOTHER/BABY/BOTH SHOULD GESTATION CONTINUE, OR SEVERE BIRTH DEFECT INDICATING THE CHILD'S LIFE WOULD BE UNSUSTAINABLE OUTSIDE THE WOMB.

That this has even become an issue for debate is ludicrous.

It's absolutely relevant. And I'll thank you to note that I didn't say abortion of any type should be banned ... I asked questions. If someone's uncomfortable thinking about the question, then maybe that means they have a faulty position on the issue.

The entire premise of support for abortion is that a fetus isn't human and doesn't have rights. If you disagree with that premise and still support abortion, then you support the murder of children.

Therefore, if a fetus isn't a human life, then why isn't abortion on-demand in the third trimester perfectly okay? Why does even raising the question in this discussion draw such a STRONG reaction?

Could it be because the humanness of a "fetus" in the seventh, eighth, ninth month is self-evident? Well, then, we're so damn sure that seven-months-minus-a-day is the magic number for humanity?

The other premise is that it's the mother's body, so her choice. If that's the case, then what difference does it make which month the abortion occurs in? If it's her body and choice that's so important, then it shouldn't matter.

The abortion argument is so full of hypocrisy that it disgusts me.

"It's not a human being ... but we won't allow it in after the seventh month." Because we're sure that's when it becomes human and seven months minus one day it isn't, so it's perfectly all right to kill it then.

"It's the mother's body and choice ... except when the baby's so formed that it makes me feel icky." It's either her choice or it isn't, until you can conclusively demonstrate when human life begins.

"Life begins at conception, so abortion is murder ... except for rape or incest." Because the crimes of the father affect the humanness of the child? My ass.

[Ragoczy]

You say that "The fundamental controversy of abortion is: When does a human life begin?"

I don't think its relevant if the fetus is a living being or not...if something is growing inside of me, its my decision.

If someone breaks into my house, don't I have the right to shoot him...after all the bugler is human too?

I am in favour of teaching personal responsibility and education, but you cant force people to be sensible,...even before it was legal it was being done, there were always ways to come about abortive remedies.

Most European countries have a 12 week limit "on demand" and "may be performed after 12 weeks if necessary to avoid serious danger to the woman's physical or mental health; if the child is at risk of being born with a serious physical or mental defect; or if the woman is under 14 years of age" clause. I think thats a very good and reasonable stand.

If it's your body, why a 12-week limit? Why bother?

[craven]

I am not sure of this thread has become somewhat blurred whilst the two aspects are of course connected the morality of abortion is different from the legality.

Now as damyanti points out here in Europe when life begins is clearly defined and there have been several test cases and more recently in the UK a parliamentary debate on this subject. We know legally when life begins and therefore when it is legal for a woman to have a termination.


This is not up for debate, or in any way questionable.

Now the morality issue, hmmmm tricky one, and of course dependant upon ones own judgement, this is quite simply the only answer here.

No one else can possibly impose their feelings or beliefs on the woman considering a termination, it is down to the individual concerned, end of.

Ones own moral code may well be representative of or reflective of the society in which one is immersed or educated, however it is just that at the end of the day, ones own moral code.

I have never been involved in such a decision, but have no doubt what so ever that the decision to terminate has never been reached without much soul searching or lightly.


Only the woman concerned should be able to make such a choice free from peer and social pressures.

[craven]

Each case is different and unique, to impose carte blanche rules or moral codes is unjust and quite simply wrong.

It should always be down to the individuals concerned to decide rationally free from moral stigmas and pressures.

[Ragoczy]

So I do have a choice?

Why should I have any more choice about that than abortion?

Because thats what its all about choice. Its an extremely private and personal issue - and no one but myself, least of all government has the right to make that decision.

One of the government's role (at least in the US) is to protect the individual from others. That's why we have laws ...

Murder harms another, so there's a law.
Rape harms another, so there's a law.
Theft harms another, so there's a law.

If life begins before birth, shouldn't that citizen be protected from harm by others? If it doesn't, shouldn't abortion on-demand in the ninth month be perfectly okay?

[Ragoczy]

I am not sure of this thread has become somewhat blurred whilst the two aspects are of course connected the morality of abortion is different from the legality.

Now as damyanti points out here in Europe when life begins is clearly defined and there have been several test cases and more recently in the UK a parliamentary debate on this subject. We know legally when life begins and therefore when it is legal for a woman to have a termination.


This is not up for debate, or in any way questionable.

Now the morality issue, hmmmm tricky one, and of course dependant upon ones own judgement, this is quite simply the only answer here.

No one else can possibly impose their feelings or beliefs on the woman considering a termination, it is down to the individual concerned, end of.

Ones own moral code may well be representative of or reflective of the society in which one is immersed or educated, however it is just that at the end of the day, ones own moral code.

I have never been involved in such a decision, but have no doubt what so ever that the decision to terminate has never been reached without much soul searching or lightly.


Only the woman concerned should be able to make such a choice free from peer and social pressures.

I see, so 12-weeks is the law of the land an no one should impose their own feelings or beliefs on others, regardless of whether they feel and believe that the law is immoral and harmful to others.

By this logic, apartheid should still be legal in South Africa. It was the law of the land and morality is a personal thing and no one should possibly impose their feelings or beliefs on others.

[craven]

So to make your point or force your own moral codes onto others you feel able or rather I guess justified in choosing which laws to quote to me as right and wrong LOL

The law dictates in the UK that life begins at 12 weeks, period, termination up to that point is perfectly legal.

No I do not believe in apartheid, not sure how you have connected the two very distinct and separate issues to be honest but never mind.

Let me explain simply, yes apartheid was immoral, and the overwhelming majority of that country, backed up by international political support through democratic change and legal processes changed the law, and thus an immoral system was made illegal.

Now until the UK government as a result of overwhelming pressure from its citizens makes terminations illegal for pregnancies less than 12 weeks it is very simply a moral debate for the individuals concerned and NOT you.

Your views are of course to be respected, but can NOT be seen as right and there for the moral code for all to follow.

Termination is legal, and as such the choice to decide upon this course of action is a moral one, morals are personally developed.

You may choose to try and impose your own moral viewpoints upon others that is of course your prerogative, but and this may come as a shock or not, I am not really sure, but individual moral codes are highly unlikely to change or alter laws, unless as in apartheid there is a majority of similarly held views.

As the laws currently stand i can only assume that you are in the minority, politicians don’t after all tend to pander to the extremist or minority elements of their electorates now do they.

I personally think that war, hunger and poverty are all immoral, but cant really see anyone making them illegal.

[Muskan]

I personally think that war, hunger and poverty are all immoral, but cant really see anyone making them illegal.


War for self-defense is not immoral. It was moraly correct to fight against Hitler.

Hunger and poverty can not be said immoral, because if it is, then 2/3rd of the world is immoral. Hunger and poverty can be the result of immorality though, but in this world, you will find many riches who are rich just because they are corrupt and immoral, our politicians comes in same group.

[craven]

i think you may have taken me a little to literally to be honest, i feel that to wage war is immoral so yes i agree to defend against it is not, as in the second world war i do though feel that hitlers aggression was immoral.

I also feel that the existence of poverty and hunger is immoral and not those afflicted by these circumstances, so i feel the conditions to be immoral and not as you say the two thirds of the world that are poor and hungry.

[shayna{L_D}]

i cannot believe this is a thread


i wont comment for fear of getting banned


*smh*

[Ragoczy]

So to make your point or force your own moral codes onto others you feel able or rather I guess justified in choosing which laws to quote to me as right and wrong LOL

The law dictates in the UK that life begins at 12 weeks, period, termination up to that point is perfectly legal.

No I do not believe in apartheid, not sure how you have connected the two very distinct and separate issues to be honest but never mind.

Let me explain simply, yes apartheid was immoral, and the overwhelming majority of that country, backed up by international political support through democratic change and legal processes changed the law, and thus an immoral system was made illegal.

Now until the UK government as a result of overwhelming pressure from its citizens makes terminations illegal for pregnancies less than 12 weeks it is very simply a moral debate for the individuals concerned and NOT you.

Your views are of course to be respected, but can NOT be seen as right and there for the moral code for all to follow.

Termination is legal, and as such the choice to decide upon this course of action is a moral one, morals are personally developed.

You may choose to try and impose your own moral viewpoints upon others that is of course your prerogative, but and this may come as a shock or not, I am not really sure, but individual moral codes are highly unlikely to change or alter laws, unless as in apartheid there is a majority of similarly held views.

As the laws currently stand i can only assume that you are in the minority, politicians don’t after all tend to pander to the extremist or minority elements of their electorates now do they.

I personally think that war, hunger and poverty are all immoral, but cant really see anyone making them illegal.

My point was that just because something's legal doesn't make it moral or right.

I do find it interesting that it's okay for unaffected parties (in the form of the international community) to seek to impose their own morals on South Africa through legal, legislative change, but not okay for someone who believes abortion is immoral to seek the same thing in their own country -- that gets criticized.

In addition, I'd point out that I haven't stated my own, personal position on this issue yet. Simply asked some questions and pointed out some asinine positions and hypocrisy, on both sides of the debate.