Is abortion morally wrong? If so, why? Can it be justified in certain circumstances? Until what point in pregnancy should abortion be allowed? What defines life? Does the soul exist, and if so, when does it develop?
I used to think I believed abortion was right and justifiable. Now I only think itis if there is some medical problem or condition that would make life intolerable for baby and parents. Adoption is the OPtion that exists for all the others.
Definitely in cases of rape!! !It's hardly the babies fault its mother was raped, the mother must give it up for adoption if she can't cope with it... there are millions of would be parents going through heartache every day, trying to conceive, who would treasure the baby and love it! My view is that a foetus represents a life, and that snuffing that life out can never be right in any way, shape or form. Who knows what that baby might have grown up to contribute to the world? It's not our right to deprive it of life.
Or what that baby may have done to harm the world. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, and I'm not condoning abortion in such cases as such - but consider the concept of an evil gene. If it is a scientifically valid concept, and this is debateable, it is possible that the rapist might have been is possession of said 'evil gene' and the baby may inherit it. I don't particularly believe that this evil gene exists, but if you're arguing in the case of what ifs, you must also consider not just what the baby could contribute to the world, but the harm it could bring. Since neither is knowable, I don't think it's necessarily helpful to think in such terms....
The only argument against seems to based on the value of soul, which is a non proveable item. I find no rationale for god so none for soul either, though I do like to play with the concepts. I don't think abortion is healthy for the psyche but may be less harmful than an unwanted child. For a healthy society we need to cherish our offspring they in their turn can then cherish others. Procreation for the sake of it used to be what we were for, now we are worth a little more.
Well, even people that don't believe in the existence of God or the soul don't believe in murder. If you go by the rationale that the existence of the soul is the only thing that would not justify abortion, why not kill adults, too, while you're at it? Why stop with unborn babies? (Don't get me wrong-I do believe in the existence of the soul-I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here). You're right-abortion isn't healthy for the psyche-or for anything else, for that matter. And, I'm not sure that we ever engaged in procreation just for it's own sake. Procreation is a means to an end-the continuation of the human race and individual families. It's as necessary (and natural) as breathing. To go against the need or impulse to procreate is actually to go against nature.
Murder is an overly emotive term to use here, I think, and a factually incorrect one that cannot serve any purpose to this debate. Murder is a legal concept that does not apply to foetuses....
It only can't apply to fetuses if you don't believe that they're human. That is actually the whole meat of the matter, whether they are human or not. If you skirt around that, you're actually skirting around the issue altogether. And this is really why we're having this debate in the first place-because Western societies, legally, used to give fetuses the same protection as anyone else, and to legally consider them human, and now they don't, for the most part. That's exactly why we're having debates like this to begin with. That's the original question, really. Should Western society do this or not? It may not be exactly the way you orignally asked the question, but ultimately that's what it comes down to.
True, but legally speaking, it cannot be termed murder and I think to do so over simplifies the debate somewhat. Interesting that you mention the word 'meat'. I have similar objections to the 'meat is murder' slogan....
I think the whole 'murder' issue makes the abortion debate unnecessarily emotional. I am against it only because I do believe in the essential good of people (That answers your evil gene question PP?) and we never know what kind of contribution that baby would or could have made to society if allowed to be born.
Haha-well, I'm a vegetarian, but I don't go so far as to lambast people with the 'meat is murder' thing. I'm not trying to engage in name calling, I'm attempting to be as philosophical as is necessary to answer the original question. Which was.....'can abortion be justified under certain circumstaces?'...Well, in the US (I imagine it's the same in the UK), under present law (it wasn't always that way) it is justified under ANY circumstances. The woman or the doctor that is performing the abortion doesn't need to justify the action in any way-hence the term 'abortion on demand'. So really, the original question comes down to, should it be this way (abortion justifiable under any circumstance) or not? I say no.
Abortion is only available here up until the (I think) 24th week of pregnancy - the stage at which a baby could conceivably survive outside the mother's womb and can be viewed as a potential human life. After the 24th week, abortion is only available if there would be harm to the mother or the baby as a result of childbirth....
Yea, see, that's the difference between the UK and US. In the US, abortion is alllowed throughout all nine months of pregnancy, period. There's no limit as to when abortions aren't permitted any more. Not only that, but it is considered an absolute right for a minor female (under 18) to be able to obtain an abortion. For any other medical proceure (except for life-threatening emergencies) a person under 18 has to have parental approval for them to receive medical care-EXCEPT in the case of a minor female obtaining obtaining an abortion, as if obtaining an abortion is some sort of absolute right that transcends all others. Some states have recently enacted parental notification laws, that require the minor girl's parents to be notified before she has the abortion, but the parents don't have the right to stop her from having an abortion. The man who conceived the child, a.k.a. the father, has absolutely no say in the matter at all.
Sounds like the US needs a little bit of common sense applied to some of it's law making then, but apart from those distractions I think the Uk law of 24 weeks sounds fair and reasonable. You have the right to exist if you can. You can take the view that all life is precious and I do myself to some extent, but why should it be the overiding factor, the welfare of people who are living should have more significance than what the if's and maybe's of some underdeveloped cells.
I've always thought that this whole business of trying to classify fetuses as being 'viable', and to justify abortion before that time, as a little laughable. When you're talking about a fetus being 'viable' outside the womb, you're really talking about a fetus being able to 'survive' outside the womb-i.e, breathe, which is all they're able to do for a couple of years outside the womb without 24-hour a day care from adults. If a 'viable' fetus is born, it is completely dependent on others for every need for the first year or two of his/her existence, almost as much so as when it was in the womb. I really don't consider the whole 'viabilty' thing as much of an argument at all.
Agreed Charise. I think this 'viable' business is nothing more than an attempt by the yay-sayers, to mollify their own consciences. We humans are very good at using ords to cover up evil deeds....
