Is abortion morally justified and if so until what time?

[EcK]

First off, this is not about the politics of abortion. I do not equate the law with ethics, so this is not about the left or right parties of any country.

As of now, my belief is that abortion of humans is morally justified until about 7 weeks. After this point, my understanding is that something recognisable as a human brain emerges in the fetus.
+ After this point, I believe that abortion of a human being would be immoral given that the same argument could be used to 'abort' mentally challenged people pre and post birth.

There are some exceptions to that abortion 'deadline':
+ in case it's a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the child to be / fetus I would prioritize the life of the mother after that 7 weeks mark and up to just before birth.
+ people with trisomy or other chromosomal issues could be categorized as non-human from some perspectives and warrant an extension of that abortion deadline up to the point where trisomy can be detected, at which point I would leave it up to the parents to decide. I'm not definite on this though and would rather promote early testing technology before the 7th week mark.

about the classic 'viability' argument
+ I don't find it convincing given that the same argument could be used to kill people on life support in hospitals even if they could eventually recover and get off life support

about the classic 'it's her body' argument
+ I don't find it convincing given the fetus has its own distinct genetic code. Many things are in our bodies but are not 'us' (food, bacteria etc.).
+ Furthermore if we accept the premise that the fetus is human (which is biologically correct) then giving the mother the right to dispose of the fetus as she wishes is in some ways akin to slavery (the ownership and disposal of another human being) and, if the right is exercised, to murder (the killing of another human being)

About the "the baby is not self-aware" argument
+ Easily falsifiable, the same argument could be used to kill people in their sleep or if they are in a coma. Both fetuses and sleeping people have the 'potential' to be self-aware. One after a few hours, the other after a few weeks or months. There is also research suggesting newborns (minutes after birth) show signs of self awareness.
+ if it's about 'degrees of self-awareness' then the same argument could be used to kill mentally challenged people.

About the "it's unable to support itself" (to survive outside of the womb) argument
+ the same argument could be used to kill people on welfare, sick people, the elderly.



Potential counter argument
+ if we accept the premise that the fetus is human, is it human from the point of inception? In which case is abortion at any time (even before 7 weeks) morally equivalent to slavery & murder or is there a meaningful differenciation to be made between a purely biological and a philosophical definition of what makes a being human that doesn't conflict with, at minimum, the above arguments.


What is your opinion and what is it based on?

 

[Jaguar]

Many women don't even know they are pregnant yet at 7 weeks.

 

[FemMecha]

Difficult topic that has to be continually revisited based on increased knowledge and science.

Starting with the obvious, I would say that birth control that prevents pregnancy or perhaps destroys an entity with a few cells would be morally neutral (not sure 'good' exactly applies, but perhaps in an applied manner it is 'good'), and killing a newborn baby is morally wrong. Everything that happens in-between is a gradation of varying degrees of right/wrong. Everything that happens in life, every choice we are forced into does not neatly fall into morally 'good' or 'bad'. Many things in life are about varying degrees of right and wrong. For some reason people resist this thinking probably because processing guilt is so difficult. We are all required to make choices that are morally shaded at times.

The main problem with the arguments for and against abortion is the constant need to force it into a morally binary framework, when the reality is about gradations.

 

[Maou]

I think its morally wrong to kill any life, but sometimes its a necessary evil. I don't get why people can't acknowledge it is bad, and still do it if they believe they must. It is pawning off responsibility for your actions. I am not against abortions, but I think the message of the sanctity of life is ESSENTIAL to prevent moral degradation.

 

[EcK]

Many women don't even know they are pregnant yet at 7 weeks.

I understand but there's birth control methods + missing your periods at week 4 is a big clue. Birth control is reliable at week 4-5 and the test only costs a few dollars. So I don't think there's a good excuse not to do it if one had unprotected sex and don't want a child.
Yes birth control can fail but the case where it does is often due to human error and noone can expect 'pregnancy risk free' sex as that's simply not realistic.

 

[EcK]

Difficult topic that has to be continually revisited based on increased knowledge and science.

Starting with the obvious, I would say that birth control that prevents pregnancy or perhaps destroys an entity with a few cells would be morally neutral (not sure 'good' exactly applies, but perhaps in an applied manner it is 'good'), and killing a newborn baby is morally wrong. Everything that happens in-between is a gradation of varying degrees of right/wrong. Everything that happens in life, every choice we are forced into does not neatly fall into morally 'good' or 'bad'. Many things in life are about varying degrees of right and wrong. For some reason people resist this thinking probably because processing guilt is so difficult. We are all required to make choices that are morally shaded at times.

The main problem with the arguments for and against abortion is the constant need to force it into a morally binary framework, when the reality is about gradations.

I agree that it's a matter of shades of grey and that new knowledge needs to update how we view it. I for example don't have any 'definite' rock solid opinions on how you can categorize something as a human life or not (so when human life begins).

From a practical standpoint I think that birth control should be the norm and abortion a rare exception. By making abortion harder (earlier deadline) you incentivize people to take their birth control more seriously, which would also help with STDs.
I also think that women need to at least have some time to make that choice (you can't expect them to abort the day they miss their period as there are period irregularities) but that this has to be weighted against the fact that with each passing day the fetus is more and more human and it becomes harder to justify aborting as it develops.

My solution to the uncertainties of such a matter (and it's moral importance) is
a) to err on the side of caution (hence the 7 weeks as soon as the brain starts looking like a brain).
b) And rather than try to define nebulous concepts that people might never agree on I prefer to focus on eliminating what seems morally incoherent (as with the examples I put in the OP).

 

[EcK]

I think its morally wrong to kill any life, but sometimes its a necessary evil. I don't get why people can't acknowledge it is bad, and still do it if they believe they must. It is pawning off responsibility for your actions. I am not against abortions, but I think the message of the sanctity of life is ESSENTIAL to prevent moral degradation.

I don't think it's morally wrong to kill any life. For example if someone attacks me I consider myself morally justify in killing them if necessary. I wouldn't LIKE doing it but I would consider it a moral act as the aggressor basically forfeited their right to life by ignoring mine.

 

[Jaguar]

I understand but there's birth control methods + missing your periods at week 4 is a big clue.

Women's cycles differ greatly when not on BC pills. Especially if she's a smoker. Missing a period at week 4 is not a 'big clue' a woman is pregnant. Hormonal instability? Sure. Hell, dating an asshole can elevate a woman's cortisol level (stress) to the point it disrupts her other hormonal patterns and causes a late onset or an entire skip of a period. The expectation that a woman would (or should) run out and test herself for a pregnancy simply because she didn't bleed exactly at week 4 concerns me.

 

[EcK]

Women's cycles differ greatly when not on BC pills. Especially if she's a smoker. Missing a period at week 4 is not a 'big clue' a woman is pregnant. Hormonal instability? Sure. Hell, dating an asshole can elevate a woman's cortisol level (stress) to the point it disrupts her other hormonal patterns and causes a late onset or an entire skip of a period. The expectation that a woman would (or should) run out and test herself for a pregnancy simply because she didn't bleed exactly at week 4 concerns me.

I've already addressed thi in the post you were answering. If you had unprotected sex and don't want a child you should get tested yes. It's completly reasonable to expect a woman to use protection if she doesn't want to get pregnant. Furthermore I've stated that 'pregnancy risk free' sex is an unreasonable expectation. There's also a chance of pregnancy even using protection (mostly when people do it wrong). Lastly the morality or not of something is not dependant on whether it's convenient.

I understand but there's birth control methods + missing your periods at week 4 is a big clue. Birth control is reliable at week 4-5 and the test only costs a few dollars. So I don't think there's a good excuse not to do it if one had unprotected sex and don't want a child.
Yes birth control can fail but the case where it does is often due to human error and noone can expect 'pregnancy risk free' sex as that's simply not realistic.

 

[Jaguar]

I've already addressed thi in the post you were answering. If you had unprotected sex and don't want a child you should get tested yes. It's completly reasonable to expect a woman to use protection if she doesn't want to get pregnant. Furthermore I've stated that 'pregnancy risk free' sex is an unreasonable expectation. There's also a chance of pregnancy even using protection (mostly when people do it wrong). Lastly the morality or not of something is not dependant on whether it's convenient.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect any woman to screw up her endocrine system and by extension her entire body by taking birth control pills. But that's me. Can't you wear a frigging condom?

 

[EcK]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect any woman to screw up her endocrine system and by extension her entire body by taking birth control pills. But that's me.

Ok. So she can either abstain from sex, or use other protections (condoms) or use implants etc. etc. There's many alternatives.

None of what you stated are counter arguments as to whether it's moral or not and in which conditions. You've merely stated that in some rare cases there might be late pregnancy detection due to late periods and that it might be inconvenient to spend a few dollars a month getting tested if one wants to be sloppy with protection or not use them at all. Yes. so what? I've never heard of the argument that men shouldn't be responsible for pregnancies or pay child support because condoms would cost them a few bucks and it's just not fair to expect them to be responsible.

 

[anticlimatic]

38 Years Later, DNA Leads to Mother Who Abandoned Her Baby in a Ditch - The Atlantic

The woman probably didn't have abortion access. Should she really be charged with murder?

 

[EcK]

38 Years Later, DNA Leads to Mother Who Abandoned Her Baby in a Ditch - The Atlantic

The woman probably didn't have abortion access. Should she really be charged with murder?

Yes. It is murder. Unless you think the newborn was holding her at gunpoint?

Neither you nor [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] have provided any counter argument.
Just pleas for sympathy stating that the woman's convenience outweights her responsibility. I don't think it does.

As stated in the OP this is about the morality of abortion and its limits if any. It might be convenient for a psychopath to rob you and kill you rather than work to buy shit - who cares? The question is whether it's ethical. I've given specific arguments and I've yet to hear any attempt and at an argument appart from [MENTION=14857]Ravenetta[/MENTION] [MENTION=37565]Exolvuntur[/MENTION] 's posts.

If what you said was an moral argument it is stating that convenience outweights the value of human life. Is that the argument you are making? if so justify it.

 

[EcK]

I think its morally wrong to kill any life, but sometimes its a necessary evil. I don't get why people can't acknowledge it is bad, and still do it if they believe they must. It is pawning off responsibility for your actions. I am not against abortions, but I think the message of the sanctity of life is ESSENTIAL to prevent moral degradation.

thanks for your thoughts.
Under what conditions do you think it's a necessary evil?

I agree that lots of abortion, probably a very vast majority is due to pawning off responsibility for one's actions. (unprotected sex or sex at all without expecting any positive negative consequence - i say negative assuming that they see it as such if they decide to abort).

I am not against abortions
I don't get why people can't acknowledge it is bad, and still do it if they believe they must.

if you think it's immoral why do you think that they still should be able to and why are you not against abortion (not a leading question, just wondering what your position is)

 

[badatlife]

Hmm, I've talked to a few people who think like this and just ended up getting into heated arguments. We always end up arguing over whether or not it's murder, blah blah blah. In the end the bottom line is that I just don't care. I have my own life and things to worry about and I apply my morals to my life only. I'm not about to police the rest of the world. Allowing abortion isn't sending life into chaos, banning it would leave a lot more unwanted and unloved children and people on welfare. There's no logical argument

As for the timeline, err probably before it starts to look like a baby for sympathy's sake. 2nd trimester

 

[Maou]

thanks for your thoughts.
Under what conditions do you think it's a necessary evil?

I agree that lots of abortion, probably a very vast majority is due to pawning off responsibility for one's actions. (unprotected sex or sex at all without expecting any positive negative consequence - i say negative assuming that they see it as such if they decide to abort).


if you think it's immoral why do you think that they still should be able to and why are you not against abortion (not a leading question, just wondering what your position is)

Evil in this context while subjective, is setting aside morality to accomplish a greater good. Sometimes, one must kill one to save many. In the case of abortion, it might be mercy (deformed, brain dead etc). Or if the mother is incapable of rearing or raising a child. While it is sometimes required, NOT ONCE should it be celebrated. Life is life, and while it is survival of the fittest. What separates humans from the animals is our endless compassion and empathy for life that extends beyond our species. If one is reckless, and refuses to own up to their mistakes (and people need to quit fucking making excuses like people are too dumb at certain ages). They should learn the weight of responsibility of taking a life. An unborn life didn't choose to be conceived just to be killed because it is unwanted. Our society has become one of selfish indulgence, and pawning off responsibility for every mistake on others and the government to fix. When they themselves are to blame. It is a tragedy to me. ...but I recognize not everyone agrees with my opinion. In fact I think most people do not understand the sanctity of life anymore. I can respect disagreement. If the middle ground is allowing for some abortions with re-enforcement of not doing it to begin with. I will allow it.

(Also not talking about criminal cases if pregnancy from rape etc Only pregancies done by consentual sex)

 

[Jaguar]

Ok. So she can either abstain from sex, or use other protections (condoms) or use implants etc. etc. There's many alternatives.

None of what you stated are counter arguments as to whether it's moral or not and in which conditions. You've merely stated that in some rare cases there might be late pregnancy detection due to late periods and that it might be inconvenient to spend a few dollars a month getting tested if one wants to be sloppy with protection or not use them at all. Yes. so what? I've never heard of the argument that men shouldn't be responsible for pregnancies or pay child support because condoms would cost them a few bucks and it's just not fair to expect them to be responsible.

Are you really asking me if I think driving the speed limit is immoral? For crying out loud. Abortion is legal. But by all means, fuck up a woman's body with BC pills and don't tell her the long-term consequences. That's definitely "moral."

 

[anticlimatic]

Yes. It is murder. Unless you think the newborn was holding her at gunpoint?

Neither you nor [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] have provided any counter argument.
Just pleas for sympathy stating that the woman's convenience outweights her responsibility. I don't think it does.

As stated in the OP this is about the morality of abortion and its limits if any. It might be convenient for a psychopath to rob you and kill you rather than work to buy shit - who cares? The question is whether it's ethical. I've given specific arguments and I've yet to hear any attempt and at an argument appart from [MENTION=14857]Ravenetta[/MENTION] [MENTION=37565]Exolvuntur[/MENTION] 's posts.

If what you said was an moral argument it is stating that convenience outweights the value of human life. Is that the argument you are making? if so justify it.

I just wanted to add a little current event as a piece of exposition on the topic. She didn't specifically murder it, she just abandoned it alive somewhere. Since roe v wade was ethically and legally based on older no trespassing laws, I feel like it should be able to be used to get this woman off the hook- which essentially binds abortion and infanticide to the same ethical level. It's easy to bind infanticide to any other form of murder, and further in the reverse direction all the way to conception- so the only logical form of ethical abortion is no abortion at all.

The only thing I disagree with you on is the idea that the only important part of a person is their brain.

 

[Jaguar]

The drumbeating that never ends:

https://www.typologycentral.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5661&pp=

Add this thread.

 

[EcK]

Are you really asking me if I think driving the speed limit is immoral? For crying out loud. Abortion is legal. But by all means, fuck up a woman's body with BC pills and don't tell her the long-term consequences. That's definitely "moral."

you're not making any sense and getting overly emotional. I don't think you're actually having a converstion with me but rather with yourself as you're literally raising points I never made or so widly misrepresented you might as well be talking to yourself. This is pointless.