The Morality of Abortion!

[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.

[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.

[AdrianaAurora]

The rhetoric on abortion continues to embattle and confuse "pro-choice" and "pro-life", "liberals" and "conservatives" alike. Many "liberals" complain that it is irrational and brutal to expect a woman to die so that her unborn child may live. Abortion should be permitted basically on demand, certainly in cases where the health and life of the woman are at risk, and even in cases of incest or rape Besides, they remind us, it is legal. In contrast, many "conservatives" argue that abortion can never be rationalized or permitted, as it is fundamentally immoral to kill an unborn child who is an innocent human being, no matter what the circumstances or the law - regardless of the woman's health, life, incest or rape. At times it seems that the advocates of either position are "talking past" each other, oblivious to the possibility of any moral legitimacy in each's position. Further, there seems as yet to be no structured or principled means by which to circumvent this highly politicized stand-off or to address these tragic moral dilemmas which after serious consideration are commonly acceptable to both "camps".

My point is that just because something is immoral we dont have a right to make it illegal.

The common moral principle often used in these difficult situations is that found in the time-honored theory of natural person - known as the principle of double effect. Properly understood, the principle of double effect evolved in order to address just these types of difficult moral dilemmas - in this case where both of the lives of those affected are innocent, and yet something must be done or will happen which inevitably will endanger one of these two innocent lives. The obvious application for our purposes here is when a woman, who is herself an innocent human being, whose human life is precious and must be respected, is pregnant with an unborn child, who is likewise an innocent human being (from fertilization onwards), and whose life is also precious and must be respected. Since, as natural law theory holds, one may never directly intend to kill an innocent human being, under what circumstances and conditions is it morally permissible: (1) for a woman to undergo an abortion procedure; or, (2) for a physician to help one of these innocents to live, by means of other and different morally legitimate medical actions, and yet permit or allow the other, unfortunately, to die?

My point is no human can prove he alone has the absolute unequivocal answer to that dilemma.

Is abortion moral? An equaly valid question could be wheter it is morally defensible to bring an innocent child into this horrible, pain-filled world. Some people are simply not fit to be parents.

I dont believe that abortion is wrong as such. It could even be argued that abortion is perfectly natural - all creatures that raise their young will abondon them if they cannot raise them properly. Indeed, all females will have have miscarriage if the fetus is unable to live, or reabsorb it if they cannot spare the nutrients.

Another point of thought is - a baby cannot think, even to the level of knowing that it exists, or demonstrate even an instinctual layer of selfpreservation. Ethically, murder is wrong because it robs a person of their right to exspress their preference to continue to live. A neonate has no such preference, being intellectually incapable, and thus no right to life.

Pro life central point is that abortion is wrong not only because its murderous, but because adoption is a viable alternative. This is not entirely the case! While many families are waiting for children, this is because of two factors. First, most of those families are not yet officially waiting, as they have to be approved by the stringent safeguards against adoption by those deemed unsuitable.

Secondly, these families insist on adopting only the youngest babies, which leaves a lot of children as wards of the state. It is untrue to imply, as they often do, that children put up for adoption all find happy homes. Is it not kinder to abort fetus, without fear or understanding of death, than to risk (and the odds are high) that child being abandoned to live alone, unloved and in poverty.