abortion and morals

[Faust]

how can we solve the abortion issue if we still want to be moral? It seems to me to be an unsolvable problem. Either way you're still killing a future human, millions of abortions have been done in the West, that's a genocide. but then, where does life start??? Someone could say ejaculating my sperm on my socks is murder and it's killing a future human, is this plausible?

[average]

anyone else care about the 'abortion issue'? me neither.

if the conditions are right, the baby will be aborted.
whether its moral or not is a matter of point of view, and is dependent on the disposition of the viewer.

case closed.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

I have a theory that if we ignore the moral implications of abortion they'll go away. I'm currently in the process of testing this theory and as such cannot comment on any suggestions that I may be wrong. Nevertheless, I will engage in light banter about scones. I feel that scone-inspired revelry--or 'crazy sconery' as some call it--is consistent with the spirit of topic brought up in the OP.

On a slightly more serious note, I don't think killing folks is inherently wrong. Someone isn't doing me a great disservice by shooting me in the back of the head when I least expect it. That is, of course, assuming that being shot in the back of the head isn't overly painful. I've never been shot in the back of the head--not even a little--so I really wouldn't know. Now it does strike fear into the hearts of the living to know that dudes are going around shooting folks in the back of the head, so we could say it's wrong on those grounds, but that doesn't seem to apply to abortion. I'm not overly worried about being aborted, as I'm not stoned or religious enough to think I could be 'born again'. Another argument against homicide is the fact that people get mega sad when folks they love die. Thus, by killing some dude, you're probably going to hurt somebody. An abortion could and does cause emotional distress in some, but not to the degree of regular ol' homicide by my thinking.

It seems to me that abortion is wrong, but not super uber incredibly wrong to the point where our moral compulsion to prevent it should take precedence over all other considerations. That said, yes, super and uber are redundant terms. Nevertheless, there are benefits to legalized abortion. I walk into incredibly controversial territory here, but research has demonstrated that legalized abortion reduces violent crime. That alone doesn't justify it, but I think it should still be considered when thinking about such things. Add to that the fact that desperate ladies have been known to kill themselves with coat hangers (yes, I've totally given up on being light-hearted here), and that abortion can sometimes save the lives of some ladies, and even the fact that children born in unwanted pregnancies tend to have worse lives than others; and I can't help but feel that the procedure should be legal.

That is, though, just this little birds opinion on the matter, and it all really comes down to the values of any given individual. If someone feels that murder is wrong on the face of it, then my perspective on this topic doesn't quite hold up. So make of it what you will.

[Sapius]

EI: It seems to me that abortion is wrong, but not super uber incredibly wrong to the point where our moral compulsion to prevent it should take precedence over all other considerations.

Seems reasonable; a living proof is capitol punishment. Similarly, we could also view abortion as justified given reasonable justifications. But simply getting pregnant knowing that some vague justification will get me off the hook should be strictly scrutinized, for the option of contraceptives does exist. But who will convince those that think using contraceptives is a sin??

Of course, when a traveling contraceptive salesman was told how lovely his children were, he replied he was actually taking back customer complains; but unfortunately that doesn’t happen, and jokes aside; I think abortion can and should be legalized given that genuine unforeseen situations can crop up, and given that the life of an unwanted child generally translates into a worst than death situation; not all are as relatively lucky to end up with Madonna as mom.

Sensibly speaking, being rationally moral should take precedence over being emotionally moral for the overall betterment of humanity. I think it will prevail eventually.

[Laird]

I don't think killing folks is inherently wrong. Someone isn't doing me a great disservice by shooting me in the back of the head when I least expect it. That is, of course, assuming that being shot in the back of the head isn't overly painful.

You're focusing on pain and ignoring pleasure. A head-shot death deprives you of the continuation of your "natural" life, during which you might have experienced much joy and satisfaction, not to mention possibly contributing much that is of value to the rest of humanity. The prevailing attitude at this forum seems to be that there is no life after death and that you only get one life. If that's the case then that opportunity is precious and it is a serious disservice to deprive another person of the remainder of their (only) opportunity at life.

I'm not overly worried about being aborted, as I'm not stoned or religious enough to think I could be 'born again'.

Are you trying to argue "it can't happen to me anyway so I don't care"?

Another argument against homicide is the fact that people get mega sad when folks they love die.

That's not the argument that I make, although it has some value. My argument is that life - from whatever perspective you look at it, be it religious, philosophical or scientific - is extremely precious and should be nurtured rather than destroyed.

It seems to me that abortion is wrong, but not super uber incredibly wrong to the point where our moral compulsion to prevent it should take precedence over all other considerations.

Agreed, but those other considerations to me are limited to the possibility that the birth of the child will - in some serious, substantiated sense - endanger the life of the mother.

I walk into incredibly controversial territory here, but research has demonstrated that legalized abortion reduces violent crime.

Can you point to any of that research?

Add to that the fact that desperate ladies have been known to kill themselves with coat hangers (yes, I've totally given up on being light-hearted here), and that abortion can sometimes save the lives of some ladies,

Yes, this is a legitimate concern. I don't really have an answer except to say that education about options for adoption could be pursued. I know that this might seem weak, but to me destruction of a foetus is even weaker.

and even the fact that children born in unwanted pregnancies tend to have worse lives than others

Do you have research to back up that assertion?

That is, though, just this little birds opinion on the matter, and it all really comes down to the values of any given individual. If someone feels that murder is wrong on the face of it, then my perspective on this topic doesn't quite hold up.

Yeah, I'm one of those people.

whether its moral or not is a matter of point of view, and is dependent on the disposition of the viewer.

But to make laws for our societies we need to have generally-agreed-upon morals. So yes each person is going to have their own opinion, but as a community we need to decide too. I don't think that the case will ever be closed unless the Voice of God issues a declaration on abortion to all of the Earth or unless we all become perfect clones.

but then, where does life start??? Someone could say ejaculating my sperm on my socks is murder and it's killing a future human, is this plausible?

It's a little arbitrary, and opinions will vary, but to me it seems most sensible to say that life starts when sperm penetrates ovum. It's a tricky one because it's hard to argue that at that point there's any real consciousness present, but why take chances? It's as definite a point as any and if we don't take such a strict perspective then we have to make (educated) guesses about at exactly which point the foetus becomes conscious, with the possibility that we get it wrong.

Having said that, I'm somewhat open to the morning-after pill, although it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

this shouldn't even be a topic, it is too simple. If you behaved morally the abortion will be moral. And as for the people who rant on about saving every baby ( my god can they be any more blatant about their tiny I.Q.'s ) I would like to see them RAISING, FEEDING, LOVING and PROTECTING every baby they ever "save". Nah, idiocy or pure sadism, claiming every baby must be saved. Have some self-respect and end this topic here.

[Ryan Rudolph]

A fetus is barely conscious, its like killing an ant, who cares, why make a big deal, As humans, we have so much identification invested into our species, we think that we are special from birth, but we are irrational from birth...

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

So, I damn better want to see all those anti-abortionists raising strangers' kids...PROPERLY...those people talk shit and then go home and throw off their slippers and only live for themselves. theory is one thing, physical reality is another. I suppose they have some very strange sort of idea that they are trying to be "heroes" by letting little kids grow up with hookers and orphanage workers for parents. disgusting.

[Imadrongo]

Better question...

Is murder wrong?

[ChochemV2]

Having a child and putting it up for adoption hardly solves the problem... Adoption centers all over the world are overloaded because there simply aren't enough parents to care for every child put up for adoption (or at least enough parents that any given agency feels are fit). Maybe we should also look at the moral implications of abandoning a child the second after it's born. Environment determines quite a bit about your mental makeup, adoption centers and multiple families "test driving" you is not good for any youth.

[Laird]

And as for the people who rant on about saving every baby

I suppose that you could say that it's about "saving babies" but to me it's more about taking responsibility. The option of contraception is available. If a person ignores that option and creates a life (or if contraception unexpectedly fails), then that person is responsible for nurturing the life until it's mature enough to fend for itself.

So, I damn better want to see all those anti-abortionists raising strangers' kids...PROPERLY...

I'm one of those "live for themselves" types. I'd rather "damn better" see people think before they act, and if they can't, won't or don't do that, then at least be gutsy enough to live with the consequences. To me, abortion is not living with the consequences, it's evading them.

Is murder wrong?

As I already argued in my first post, I believe that it is. Not unconditionally though - when it's the only means of self-defence against one's own death then it's tolerable, if not preferable.

its like killing an ant, who cares

I don't deliberately kill ants either, although no doubt I accidentally squash the odd ant when moving about the place. So I care.

Maybe we should also look at the moral implications of abandoning a child the second after it's born.

Fair enough, and I don't know much about how adoption and foster homes are currently functioning, but I do know that life is an experience, and it seems likely that death offers nothing. Isn't it preferable to be experiencing *something* in your childhood rather than nothing, so long as you're not being badly abused? There are many factors that determine whether a life is worth living other than parents, although I accept that good parents are a precious commodity. Why condemn a person to death just because that person might have flawed parents? (and I'll say again that I don't think that abuse should be tolerated either)

[ChochemV2]

Fair enough, and I don't know much about how adoption and foster homes are currently functioning, but I do know that life is an experience, and it seems likely that death offers nothing. Isn't it preferable to be experiencing *something* in your childhood rather than nothing, so long as you're not being badly abused? There are many factors that determine whether a life is worth living other than parents, although I accept that good parents are a precious commodity. Why condemn a person to death just because that person might have flawed parents? (and I'll say again that I don't think that abuse should be tolerated either)

What makes you think abortion means you are condemning a person to death? What is it that makes a whole person? Is it simply the potential for life? Is it the body itself? An individual/developed mind? How about individual genetic traits which would be represented by every sperm and every egg and each combination therein?

Basically what I'm saying is that by many different definitions we are condemning many millions, billions, or trillions of people, by various definitions, to death or un-birth every single day so what makes abortion such a special topic? Does the simple fact that genes have finally combined to make a fetus more of a person or is it simply that a fetus has nearly guaranteed potential to become a whole human if left to gestate?

Personally I have very little idea and would rather people took a little more care in their lives so this wasn't such an enormous problem, however, if push came to shove the only requirement I would set for "personhood" would be awareness. Seeing as a child may be aware far earlier than we once thought I would hope that no one I knew had an abortion after a month or two but I don't subscribe to any "Ultimate Morality" so I can't justify forcing my beliefs on other people.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Laird wrote:

I don't deliberately kill ants either, although no doubt I accidentally squash the odd ant when moving about the place. So I care.

So new agey… why do you care if you kill an ant? Do you really believe that an ant is conscious of its own suffering? It’s a genetically controlled organism without a complicated subjective center.

To me, abortion is not living with the consequences, it's evading them.

Come on, you don’t actually believe this do you? Abortion is making the best out of a horrible situation, especially if the people involved are genetically inferior, parentally challenged, living in poverty, or too masculine to make the sacrifice to rise kids, and so on.

The freedom for people to choose abortions or other forms of contraception is a medical miracle as far as I’m concerned.

[Sapius]

CP: Do you really believe that an ant is conscious of its own suffering? It’s a genetically controlled organism without a complicated subjective center.

Ryan, you don’t really believe that, do you? I once tried fingering an ant; it turned around and tried to sting me. I think it was trying to protect its subjective ass in my opinion :D

However, I have had crispy fried ants in LA :)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Laird wrote:

I don't deliberately kill ants either, although no doubt I accidentally squash the odd ant when moving about the place. So I care.

So new agey… why do you care if you kill an ant? Do you really believe that an ant is conscious of its own suffering? It’s a genetically controlled organism without a complicated subjective center.

Perhaps, or perhaps not (Sapius, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm giving the nod of possibility to those who may say that ant was just acting on reflexes, not conscious understanding of life and death). One thing that is sure though is that we should be conscious that killing is killing, even if it is an ant, or bacteria, or viruses - even vegetarians kill plants to eat. In fact, at least when eating meat, one kills the food before eating it - whereas when eating a raw apple or a leaf of lettuce, it is still alive when you put it in your mouth, and you are killing it in your mouth and stomach.

When I was a little kid, I would refrain from killing ants on Sundays (I was raised in a Christian environment, but I reasoned by myself that "thou shalt not kill" extended to all life, including bugs. Not killing anything any day seemed extreme to me though - even as a small child - but somehow not even killing ants on Sundays seemed like a good compromise).

I do think that it was a good exercise in consciousness. I am still aware of what I am doing even when I swat a mosquito, but I would kill a mosquito biting me any day of the week now.

About abortions... When I was in high school, a teacher assigned us to do a research paper on something that we did not have an opinion about, and form an opinion. I chose abortion, and had to have a long discussion with her when I turned in my topic because she did not believe (at first) that anyone could not have an opinion on that. I went into the research with an open mind, and after reading the consequences that occurred when abortion was illegal (females would do it anyway, even if they had to take a coat hanger and take care of it themselves - then go to the hospital after the complications of a "home job" abortion set in). I understood about the life-long consequences of rape, the potential that abusive parents could kill their pregnant daughter - especially if it was the father who impregnated the daughter (mothers have frequently been known to blame the daughter for molestation, and view the daughter as someone who had an affair with the husband rather than view her as a molested child). Sometimes an abortion can make an already horrible situation survivable.

I also understood first-hand how horrible it can be to be brought up by someone who didn't want the child. I would have rather been aborted than to have to have lived through my childhood, and my mother was not mature enough to give me up for adoption because my grandmothers wanted her to keep me. For me, life is not worth the price I had to pay. So many people claim to be the voice of the "unwanted" fetus, fighting for their life. I was that unwanted fetus, and my own voice says it would have been okay to let me die. I know that not all unwanted fetuses grow up with that opinion of their lives, especially the ones that get adopted, but mine is not an isolated opinion either.

When I found out that it was unlikely that I could ever have a child, for only one moment I suddenly changed my opinion, and felt it was wrong to put to death all those potential babies that people other than the birth family would love - then I realized that my opinion was changing for a totally selfish and emotional "reason" - and true reasoning had nothing to do with it. I'm glad I had that moment to understand the opinion of the right-to-life side, and even revisiting this issue now I can see other viable alternatives to abortion for the unplanned mother, but all of that would only work in a society that was wiser than the one that would create these horrid conditions of unwanted pregnancy anyway.

Nature spontaneously aborts fetuses that are too malformed to survive, but medical science now intervenes and saves these fetuses. It is not wrong to intervene in the other direction and abort that which nature would abort later anyway in order to maximize health of the fetus carrier. As for any other reason for abortion, the immorality happened with the conditions for that pregnancy. After the pregnancy occurs, there is no right answer. It's like falling out of an airplane without a parachute and debating what position to land from - the outcome is not going to be ideal no matter what, and there are too many uncontrollable conditions to attribute an okay outcome to anything other than luck.

[Matt Gregory]

I think abortions are necessary for a sane society because nature has given us a powerful sex drive without any natural way to prevent pregnancy. Mistakes are going to happen in a situation like that and it's dumb not to fix them.

I think abortion is a question of using our intelligence vs. letting nature take its naturally insane course and torturing and destroying us. I personally think our highest priority should be to preserve the longevity of the human race as a whole rather than saving single individuals, and to that end we should focus on quality of life over quantity.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I think abortions are necessary for a sane society because nature has given us a powerful sex drive without any natural way to prevent pregnancy.

You think that giving in to a sex drive against one's better judgment is sane? We do have the option of using birth control, and under most circumstances sane sex between people who do not want children would include birth control. I agree that mistakes could happen (my mother had been told she underwent menopause 7 years before I was born, and even while she was pregnant the doctor insisted that I was just gas because it was "impossible" for my mother to be pregnant - so it wasn't her fault that I was born), but if society were sane, non-medically necessary abortion would not happen. Non-medically necessary abortion is only necessary under certain circumstances because society is insane.

[Matt Gregory]

Well it's sane for the government to take into account the insanity of the people is all I'm saying. I mean, good luck getting everyone in the world to use condoms and avoid unwanted pregnancies.

[Sapius]

Elizabeth;

Sapius, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm giving the nod of possibility to those who may say that ant was just acting on reflexes, not conscious understanding of life and death.

Well, what has even the reflex actions of a new born human baby really got to do with its not conscious understanding of life and death? Conscious understanding of life and death is not required for something to react in self-protection, but it has to necessarily be aware of a self as an individual thing against all that it is not to begin with, for any kind of action/reaction to occur. We call that ‘subjectivity’ (selfness so to speak) when conscious understanding comes into play, that’s all.

The Ant may not have a complicated subjective center as Ryan suggests, but it does not need one as complicated as ours to coherently operate and handle its environment as an Ant, aware of what it is, and what all it is not. A=A is not only the foundation of consciousness, but Ant-awareness too, (in fact it is one of the main foundation of duality itself), only that we are able to consciously understand what already is, and express it so.

[Imadrongo]

We are all going to die. None of us "deserve" or have "a right" to live. I don't see anything wrong ultimately with abortion or murder. If you want to commit murder of course the government will come after you, so it probably wouldn't by a smart thing to do. I'd put abortion down to the level of a practicality too.

I personally think our highest priority should be to preserve the longevity of the human race as a whole rather than saving single individuals, and to that end we should focus on quality of life over quantity.

Why?

[average]

We are all going to die. None of us "deserve" or have "a right" to live.

suicide is your only option then. If you're going to talk the talk, then you have to walk the walk...

If you don't see anything wrong with murder than you haven't thought enough about the subject and its consequences.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sapius wrote:

Ryan, you don’t really believe that, do you? I once tried fingering an ant; it turned around and tried to sting me. I think it was trying to protect its subjective ass in my opinion :D

It’s a basic self-protective response though, it responds to stimuli with a rudimentary flight/fight response. It has no subjectivity as far as I’m concerned.

It is like claiming that plants are subjectively aware because they grow towards the sun, its absurd!

Murder is okay under many circumstances. For instance: Abortion and assisted suicide are okay.

And when groups of Christians get together into large cults and commit suicide thinking the end times are here, well that’s okay in my mind too. I love to see large numbers of stupid individuals die on mass, it makes me feel all warm and tingly inside…

I’d like to see more of that actually. I think one of the QRS should pose as ‘Jesus returned’, (Quinn could memorize all the Jesus lingo, buy a cheap guru robe, and convince all the Christians that the end times is near, and he could lead millions of practicing Christians into Babylon (now Baghdad, Iraq) And Solway could pose as Mohammed, and convince all the fanatical crazy Muslims to meet the Christians in Baghdad, and they could have a huge ‘End Times’ Shin Dig, Yehaw!

There’s an effective way of increasing the chancing of wisdom surviving…

And in the meantime, some of the more masculine women on here could have some babies with some of the more masculine men. A little Eugenics before its time, So for all you intellectual women out there in genius land, the offer is on the table – to make a difference, simply come to Nova Scotia, and for a limited time only, get pumped full of genius sperm, then pump out a few babies to save the world.

However, if the baby is a female, it would probably need to be aborted, I don’t know if the sex can be determined that early though. I’m not sure if the technology is there yet. It could pose a few problems. Now that I think about it, Quinn and Sue were quite lucky to get a boy.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Laird,

You're focusing on pain and ignoring pleasure. A head-shot death deprives you of the continuation of your "natural" life, during which you might have experienced much joy and satisfaction, not to mention possibly contributing much that is of value to the rest of humanity.

I have trouble accepting such an intangible effect. Given that I'm not exactly certain what death entails, I don't know that I'm comfortable saying it's better than or worse than any given life. If death simply is the end of consciousness, then we can view it as somewhat neutral insofar as it concerns things like pleasure/pain, happiness/sorrow, etc; and without knowing details about any given individual, I don't know that I can make a judgment call on whether or not the potential joy an individual may experience or bring to others would tip the scales in life's favor.

The prevailing attitude at this forum seems to be that there is no life after death and that you only get one life. If that's the case then that opportunity is precious and it is a serious disservice to deprive another person of the remainder of their (only) opportunity at life.

The dead aren't going to regret getting deprived of life in such a case. To me, it seems that something is only wrong if it harms someone, and I don't see how an individual can be harmed when they can't feel anything.

Are you trying to argue "it can't happen to me anyway so I don't care"?

No. I'd like to think I'm not that much of a dick. What I'm saying is that we harm people if we cause them fear, and whereas murdering people can cause fear, abortion really doesn't so much.

Can you point to any of that research?

Yep. Slate article on it. I've found the actual paper online before, but I'm too lazy at the moment to hunt for it.

Do you have research to back up that assertion?

There's a lot of research on that topic you can Google up. I found this after a quick search. Maybe not the best source, but it does point to some other studies and whatnot.

But to make laws for our societies we need to have generally-agreed-upon morals. So yes each person is going to have their own opinion, but as a community we need to decide too.

I don't think you need everyone's views to conform to do that. The 'public reason' would seemingly only be harmed if everyone thought the same, given that to be able to make any decent decisions you need to look at matters from multiple points of view.

[Matt Gregory]

I personally think our highest priority should be to preserve the longevity of the human race as a whole rather than saving single individuals, and to that end we should focus on quality of life over quantity.

Why?

Because an organism with a high quality of life has a better chance of survival than one with a low quality of life because it has more opportunity to think and improve things for itself.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Elizabeth;

Sapius, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm giving the nod of possibility to those who may say that ant was just acting on reflexes, not conscious understanding of life and death.

Well, what has even the reflex actions of a new born human baby really got to do with its not conscious understanding of life and death? Conscious understanding of life and death is not required for something to react in self-protection, but it has to necessarily be aware of a self as an individual thing against all that it is not to begin with, for any kind of action/reaction to occur. We call that ‘subjectivity’ (selfness so to speak) when conscious understanding comes into play, that’s all.

Indeed. With that nod comes deeper (although superficially more ridiculous) questions about whether or not it would be moral to kill humans at any stage of development if they lack sufficient consciousness, and by what exact level of consciousness is considered above "just reflexes" enough to be considered enough consciousness that it is no longer okay to kill them like ants... and that's even glossing over whether consciousness really exists, and if it does, what makes that more worthy of life (or not)... and what morality really is, anyway.