Forums → WEPR → Justify Abortion

@Yogurt_Thrower

I really like your point here, but I'm wondering if you and Fish are talking past one another. Your argument reminds me of something I saw on my Facebook wall, of all places. The idea there was that, once abortion was constitutionally protected (in the US), it became the most attractive option for everyone around the woman. I bring this up because it speaks really well to the points you're engaging with. The problems that we could fix as a society are also those things that just seem easier. I could see someone's workplace benefiting from an employee terminating a pregnancy. Friends and relative also wouldn't have to worry about babysitting duties and childcare concerns in general wouldn't be an issue.

The post I saw closed by noting how close friends might assure the woman that they'll support her and be there for her during the process of abortion; but that this assurance often isn't offered if she wants to have the baby.

But Fish's point, as he so eloquently put it, is "So what?"

Feeding off of this, here's my question:

Suppose we successfully eliminate the social stigmas attached to adoption and solve the problems with carrying a fetus to term. Would it, at that point, be morally wrong (or, at least, inappropriate/indecent) to have an abortion anyway?

I guess what I'm asking here is what we should conclude from all this. Is it that abortion is only something that's tolerated but that isn't, strictly speaking, morally permissible? I'm just having trouble seeing where this line of argumentation is headed.

Probably another symptom of the problems around why abortions occur to begin with. By correcting for the root cause of such social ailments you would remove, in large I believe, stigma such as this.

@Hahiha

Hence why the debate on the principle of abortion itself IS important.

It is important in the same way murder is important. Is it permissible to tolerate murder on the grounds that "it is shunned by the more morally inclined?" No. Laws preventing murder have to be in place, just as laws preventing abortion (murder) have to be in place.

That was the opinion you already expressed in your opening post. There's been several pages of debate over it since. Do you have anything new to add?

Laws preventing murder have to be in place, just as laws preventing abortion [which I insist on conflating with murder, despite having the obvious distinction explained to me multiple times] have to be in place.

@FishPreferred

(with minor correction)
Laws need to be in place to prevent unsafe abortions and the conditions that lead to them (specifically anti-abortionist misinformation campaigns and nonsensical regulations used to shut down abortion clinics).

I am argueing that the fetus is a human, thus, abortion is murder. Thus, your distinction between the two make no sense, for both result in the death of a human.

I am argueing that the fetus is a human, thus, abortion is murder.

The implication here would be that killing a human is murder. But this just isn't what murder is. We're talking about ethics (rather that the law), so we're talking about immoral or wrongful killing. Killing in self-defense and killing in war are not examples of murder, yet they are cases of killing humans.

Calling abortion murder begs the question. It already assumes that abortion is immoral--which is the conclusion you want to draw. The distinction between murder and abortion is an important one. Fish is expressing his frustration because this has been explained to you in a number of different ways by a number of different people.

I am argueing that the fetus is a human, thus, abortion is murder. Thus, your distinction between the two make no sense, for both result in the death of a human.

Why is it important that everybody follows your ideas (people that think abortion is wrong). I believe it would be better if everyone is given every option to choose from. Limiting someone's choices just lead to controlling every decisions outcome.

An example of this would be religious beliefs where a god says 'you have free will, but if you don't do everything I say to will live eternally in pain and suffering'. It's not really a choice. Similarly, if you make abortion illegal you are just taking another choice away from someone else that does not affect you.

If you were pregnant, then sure keep the baby, but if someone else doesn't what right to you have to tell them that they cannot choose for themselves? If you like freedom and choice then you won't prevent others from choosing things that you disagree with. You would be forcing them to conform to your beliefs, and i'm sure you wouldn't want to be forced to give up your beliefs.

(This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just the general reading in this article)

In case you didn't understand my main point: Choice is important, and we shouldn't be forcing our beliefs on others. Just manage yourself.

@FireDragonWarrior2

Choice is important, and we shouldn't be forcing our beliefs on others. Just manage yourself.

I like the general thought here. If you're against abortions, then don't get one; there's no need to make other people conform to your beliefs.

But here's something to consider:

If abortion is wrong, it is a serious moral wrong. Like, a devastatingly awful practice that would be comparable to genocide (in terms of heinousness--not action). So, those who are against abortion hold this view that what's going on is such an awful moral wrong that they have an obligation to stop this practice. Your line of thought, while prima facie reasonable, doesn't address this reality (for pro-lifers). It would be like saying, "Hey, if you disapprove of slavery, then don't buy a slave." Like, no. The whole institution is morally atrocious and needs to be stopped until these people are treated like people.

@Moegreche

It would be like saying, "Hey, if you disapprove of slavery, then don't buy a slave."

I do like that argument. It is logically sound and I have yet to counter it.

However, if someone is morally against something it does not mean they can or should be able to force someone into anything. Slavery is forcing someone to do something. Forcing a pregnant mother (however many months) to give birth, which could be dangerous for her health, or the baby's health, she may not have wanted the child and the child may have been conceived through rape or some weird artificial insemination thing (basically any way she did not agree with) and now she is force to go through with this and support a child. She could give the child up for adoption, but that will just be just as bad. The kid is not wanted either way and he/she either never will ever know or cared, or is placed into an orphanage to be tortured by the fact that their mother didn't want them.

I am trying to say that there are lots of different reasons for not wanting to give birth. I know people disagree with it and it is a morally complicated question, but there are too many layers to the question for it to be a clear yes or no. That is why abortion should be legal. If it cannot be clearly opposed (just saying 'all life is important isn't an answer) then it comes down to choice again. No one is forcing you to abort a child, but no one is forcing you not to. It is morally decided by the individual at the time.

@Moegreche

I like the general thought here. If you're against abortions, then don't get one; there's no need to make other people conform to your beliefs.

The whole institution is morally atrocious and needs to be stopped until these people are treated like people.

Exactly. Pro-lifers view the fetus as an individual human person, the killing of whom to be murder.

@FireDragonWarrior2

Choice is important, and we shouldn't be forcing our beliefs on others. Just manage yourself.

Tell me that this isn't a person.

No one is forcing you to abort a child, but no one is forcing you not to. It is morally decided by the individual at the time.

It's not a person. It's just a collection of cells that are growing. Like bacteria.

Exactly. Pro-lifers view the fetus as an individual human person, the killing of whom to be murder.

Could the same be said of murder?

What if the murderer says "I don't consider those whom I murder to be people. Killing them is my right, keep your beliefs to yourself?"

Tell me that this isn't a person.

@FireDragonWarrior2

It's not a person. It's just a collection of cells that are growing.

I feel that it is opportune to mention the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger.

We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population...

the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics. Birth control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the eugenic educator.

Of course, they may have not taught you that when you were in school.

@FishPreferred

"Pro-lifers" are therefore entirely wrong, as we discussed.

but that would be a ridiculous thing to say,

only a simpleton would confuse laws with beliefs.