Originally posted by return_to_hades
The points here have made me curious....hopefully someone provide me answers. Aah, Sarina, long time no see. Tell me, why is it that we always end up on the opposite sides of the spectrum?
The general consensus seems that abortion is permissible in cases of rape, genetic disorder, risk to mother but not permissible in cases of unwanted pregnancy through consensual sex based on the premise that murder is immoral and wrong. I'm a little iffy on the premises regarding genetic disorder and rape. In cases of genetic disorder, if we start picking and choosing individuals, I feel the implementation of a "brave new world" is on the way. And that makes me afraid. First lets just delve into morality and abortion in general -
What is morality? I feel dictionary.com will do a better job then I will.
/m?'rl?ti, m?-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA –noun, plural -ties for 4–6.
|1. ||conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. |
|2. ||moral quality or character. |
|3. ||virtue in sexual matters; chastity. |
|4. ||a doctrine or system of morals. |
|5. ||moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.|
What makes something immoral? That is a relative question, what may be immoral to you may not be immoral to me, and vice versa. And one's judgment of morality is based on one's beliefs and perceptions that are influenced by society, religion, and nurture in general.
Why is abortion immoral? IMO, because it takes away a life.
Is there a moral standard the entire world can follow? No, there isn't. And that is why I ask the world to live and let me live. If we start defining a general set of regulations regarding morality, we will have murderers coming and giving explanations as to how and when murder can be moral (not to hint at any subtle remarks regarding abortion here).
What is the definition of murder? To take away a life, to end it at your own will.
Why is murder immoral? Because you are taking away something that is not your's to take.
What makes a person human, and what constitutes life? What makes a person human? Birth, the concept of coming into the world. Living constitutes life, it may not be a good life, but a life nonetheless
Is there justifiable taking of life? Absolutely not.
Can one support the death sentence and still be pro life? Aaah, I don't know if one can. But one does. I am a supporter of the death penalty and still very much pro life.
Does life begin at conception? Does a fetus really fulfill the logical test for "human life"? Is an acorn an oak tree? Upon conception can one guarantee that without abortion the fetus will carry full term and be born and survive to be a human? Without that guarantee is a fetus a real human or a potential human? Should masturbation be illegal because each precious sperm could potentially become life? Should women get pregnant and not waste what could potentially be life every month?Now we are diverging into gray areas .... when does life begin is what you are trying to get at here, I believe. My theory is that whether life begins at birth or at conception, a fetus has the potential to come to life, and hence taking that right away from it is immoral (whatever that may mean). Tell me this - even if a fetus is not a human, is it still reasonable, moral, and justified for one to kill that fetus? Although the fetus is not living, is it not the case that it is still very much alive?
If you went on a trip to the Amazon and despite protective gear a small leech is now on your leg. You did not want the leech, but it happened. It's just one leech. It will suck your blood, but it will not be fatal. Most likely it will fall of in a few weeks if not days. Obviously its on you because you were careless, you took the risk. Are you obligated to care for that leech till it dies or detaches naturally? [Ooh I can sense the icy glares for that comparison]Aah, your analogy makes me cringe. The icy glares is right. However, your analogy is flawed, because a leech is not something you created, it is not something that you gave life to, and the place to grow. And if that is the case, then you are very much obligated to care for that "leech".
A hypothetical case
Suppose the pregnant mother is a crack addict, alcoholic and a single mom. She has no steady job or income or family. However, she feels that she can take care of the baby and will go through with the birth and look after the child. You know the baby will be neglected and abused. Why the mother may even drug the child to keep it from crying. It will take months before welfare system acts and takes custody of a child. By then the child will already be scarred. It will add to the count of another child in the welfare system, unwanted and unloved because people want healthy children, not malnourished crack babies. Would the doctor have been morally wrong to perform an uninformed abortion to 'protect' the baby. Yes, because just like you don't know whether the fetus will survive if abortion is prevented, and just like you don't know whether the child will be able to grow and prosper in society, you do not know that the child will be neglected, abused, scarred, or be on the welfare system. A doctor is protecting the child by taking his life? Aaah, do I sense a discussion on euthanasia coming along next?
Now for the rape exception -
If you feel abortion is impermissible even in case of rape, how do you justify that one human should bear the burden for another humans indiscretion?
If you feel abortion is permissible in case of rape, does the same rule apply for statutory rape? If a fourteen year old girl willingly and consensually had sex with someone over eighteen and is pregnant, can she get abortion under rape exception? Can the legal system devalue statutory rape? Wont that not cause legitimate concerns of people predating on teenagers who are naive and impressionable?
How will we prevent people from calling consensual sex as rape? By law a person under influence of alcohol or drugs is not deemed capable of giving consent? What if people start claiming, I was drunk and he took advantage? Could it not ruin lives of guys who honestly thought they were having consensual sex?Consensual sex is a very different and controversial topic. I personally believe that it is not the same as rape, consent is consent. I honestly feel that many guys suffer through the legal system because teenage girls and teenage girls' parents have found a way to protect their little girls and to be able to perform these abortions as justifiable.
Genetic Disorders exception -
What makes a genetic disorder appropriate for abortion - fatality, painful or difficult life?
Some people find mild disabilities as life ruining, while others endure worse with a smile. How will we determine what exactly will cause a miserable and painful life?
Would we allow a teenager, a grown person choose euthanasia if they contracted a fatal disorder later in their life?That is exactly it, we do not determine that. Nature does. Most severe disorders abort the child through natural abortion. Otherwise, if the child is born with defects, it is still able to survive and live. Who says that we must all be blonde haired and blue eyed? Diversity is the key, and with diversity you get the good and the bad. Eliminating the bad makes the good meaningless as well. Not to say that defects only exist in nature to define beauty. But it is late and I'm sure my ideas are not making sense here. Health risk to mother exception -
What constitutes health risk, fatal risk or any health condition?
Reproductive damage, cosmetic damage, handicap?
Do we have a guarantee that the damage will take place? The birth could turn out to be fine?No we do not have a guarantee on that. But if there is a risk, then proper action should be taken. You cannot always have things as black and white, sometimes shades of gray are needed to define the black and the white.
Aaah, I should've waited until tomorrow to reply here when I was more sane, my thoughts are all jumbled together, do make sense of it if you can.