Forums → WEPR → Abortion
| 1508 | 314968 |
What my peers here think?
I would like to try and avoid a buch of rabid Catholics and Christians falling back only on the religious reasons and what have you. However, I do not see how that can be dodged.
My view? I'm for it. If a woman wants to get one, it is her choice. Some people seem to act like if one woman gets an abortion, it means that all the rest have to. If the child in question is not yours, butt out.
Also, on a lighter note, I say that abortions should be allowed when kids are up to 18 years old. That would solve a lot of headaches, eh?
- 1,508 Replies
I'm not going to give you "crap" for believing in something different, just don't force somebody to not make an abortion.
if so then still yes. as a christain (dont give me crap) i belive everything happens for a reason so yeah have the baby
This is fallacious on so many levels!
Wouldn't having an abortion be part of 'God's plan'? Why is it that if you stop someone from getting an abortion delivers the path of which was meant to follow?
And being a Christian has nothing to do with that! Basically, whatever you do wrong is of no value since its meant to happen...So you support murder as well.
Nor is there a script about that..
Wouldn't having an abortion be part of 'God's plan'?
no, having an abortion is murder, so your the one that supports murder.
i understand what you mean but sin is apart from god. although rape is wrong, it still happens sometimes, god does not have sin written into his plan. you can pick your path (free will) but that dosnt mean the wife should sin as well.
in the bible josephs brothers sold him into slavery (the sin) then he ended up being equell with the pharoh, and saved his brothers lives beacuse of the famine.
god takes bad things that people do and makes something good come out of it
I think zerato has the only consistent view of abortion that I've seen. Most people are uncomfortable saying that abortion in cases of sexual assault is wrong, but clearly if it's "murder" then it is wrong in any scenario. Abortion should be an all or nothing situation - it is either fine across the board (except, perhaps, past the second trimester) or it is wrong across the board. If we make exceptions for certain things, it seems like we're just acknowledging that abortion is not governed by morality.
The problem is that we have people who are for abortion, except as a means of birth control and we have those who are against it, except in cases of sexual assault or the mother dying. Clearly, however, it's either right or wrong and so having exceptions obviously denies the normativity of the issue and creates an inconsistent platform.
But are we in a place where we can take one extreme or the other? Or is it just the case that morality cannot solve the ethical concerns of abortion?
Or is it just the case that morality cannot solve the ethical concerns of abortion?
It took me a while to get where you're coming from, you Kantian trickster, you!
I was like "all or nothing situation? What the heck!?" Besides, as you know, whether something has emerged or not from the uterus flies in the face of the sliding scale of development as your admission:
Abortion should be an all or nothing situation - it is either fine across the board (except, perhaps, past the second trimester
implicitly acknowledges.
Besides, I was going to propose another schema that accounted for moral normative judgment: beheficience and minimsation of suffering. This way it would be compelling to terminate a pregnancy in case of medical emergency but otherwise unacceptable to terminate pregnancy after 24 weeks. In this way morality can suggest guidelines to address the ethical concerns of abortion. I never believed that morality would actually solve problems anyway.
I think... I Denmark they are about to make a change in law, making it possible to have an abortion at any time during pregnancy. It is up to the parents to choose.
This is to secure that a possibly handicapped child could be found (using tests avaible in the 18'th week) and - destroyed (I apologize for my word chosen), if the parents do not want it. Mainly bacause this can be done in contries with higher limits (say 24'th week).
As it is now, the limit is the 12th week.
What got me to that sort of all-or-nothing mentality was the comparison people keep making between abortion and murder. Now, anyone who understands these two terms also understands that abortion is not murder, but I would like to draw an analogy.
With murder, we classify it not on the outcome, but on intent and praise/blame. If there was not an intention to kill the person, then it's manslaughter. If there was an intention to kill the person, but we don't blame them for it then we call it justifiable homicide (like self-defense, for example). Only if there was intention to kill and we would not praise the act do we call it murder. But the outcome - death of an individual - is the same in each circumstance.
I think one of the problems we have in talking about abortion is that there isn't this strict differentiation. Now, whether or not there should be is another question entirely, but I think those who are pro-life would want to support such a differentiation. We do assess intent, through terms like miscarriage versus abortion, but we do not assess the praise or blame that is called for in the situation. Perhaps if we developed another word for an abortion that we don't want to place blame on the mother, then it would create a more homogeneous concept of abortion that could be addressed directly.
If we make exceptions for certain things, it seems like we're just acknowledging that abortion is not governed by morality.
Id disagree.
Morality is bunch of universal laws (not natural laws of course).
But at some points more then one moral gets involved that contradicts with the others and we are to interpret whether a situation is right or wrong.
Such a thing applies to many situations including abortions.
It is wrong to murder, but its also wrong to force a women not to have one.
I can go as far as to say that we all have natural understands of morality. Meaning that the basic morals are coded in our brain. All morals we make up are deprived of these 'building blocks'. The differentiation of opinions on morals is explained in this theory since the assigning of morals to new situations is different among people, since we interpret things differently due to many simple factors.
If the moral is 'murder is wrong' and another is 'force is wrong', we would assign a situation witch has these two things as [i]bad .
Now the interpretation of it is confusing.
One asks, is abortion is really murder? One may say yes, another says no. Even so, if the moral of murder being wrong comes into contradiction with a fact such as "The man who was murdered killed the other guy's family last night" then certainly it is not wrong to kill the guy!
If you think otherwise, either a) one of us doesn't understand the situation correctly, or rather the same was or b) there is a 'mis' interpretation elsewhere that is relevant to the topic. If your a strong believer of killing is always wrong, there must be a reason for it.
Btw, our brains do not have to have a comepletly natural born moral codes. I find it perfectly logical to say that the moral blocks are that of given from society. The important thing is, that the "morality" exists in our heads. That is, everything is of subject to being right or wrong. This is a factor in which the brain recognizes in the steps of interpreting a situation.
Dam my bad explaining skills. Well I hope you can give me some credit, I just thought all that out as I went along, lol.
lots of long posts and adhd don't mix well so I will just say that I am pro choice.
Eh. So Drace, it would all lead back to which personal moral law you value more than the other? (when it comes to having similar aspects of right and wrong)
this is my opnion i think its wrong its basically like murder and whats weird to me is if the baby survives the abortion its against the law to speed up the killing because then it would be murder....lol wait isnt that what they just did kinda stupid but ok and if the mother gets to live a good life why cant the kid? i mean dont kill it if you dont want it put it up for adoption seriosly... this is my opnion!
So, let me get this straight.
You want me to believe that something that is human the second it leaves a woman's body isn't human while it's inside? Like it undergoes this magical transformation, huh?
Right, makes perfect sense. Go ahead and kill it, it's not murder. Not at all. [/sarcasm]
Eh. So Drace, it would all lead back to which personal moral law you value more than the other? (when it comes to having similar aspects of right and wrong)
No. Im just saying that all morals are interpreted out of basic morals.
If you value "Killing is wrong", then you will interpret a murder as wrong. Now if the guy you killed, killed your family earlier, and you also believe that thats wrong, you might interpret that situation as right.
As Moe said, morality is suppose to apply at all situations the same way. I'm trying to explain it in a term of contradictions.
I only think women should be allowed if the baby was going to endanger the mothers life or if it was from rape or abuse...
Otherwise I just hate abortion..It is stopping something from becoming a baby..
And I hate the 'Oh it's not even human yet/It's the woman's choice'
First of all it turns into a baby very quickly with arms and legs..So it would have to be caught very early for it to be fully foetus
Second of all the Girl has a choice its her body...Is just completely wrong, just because its smaller and cant talk is why a woman should be able to kill it..Its like a man saying to a woman...'If you can't talk or show proper signs of pain..Then I can kill you because i'm stronger than you..
Oh and if you get pregnant and you have exams..Well then..Dont go around having sex...Smart...-.-
You must be logged in to post a reply!