Your opinion on abortion - Page 7

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

What are your views on abortion? Is it right or wrong? And in what circumstances should it be done? Does the mother have the right to make the decision herself, or should the father also have a say in it? Are there any alternatives to abortion that people should look into? And should religion become an issue when abortion is thought about? I know for sure that Christianity and Hinduism call abortion a sin (don't know about other religions), so what are your overall views on this?

Interesting topic.

Abortion is considered a sin in Islam in Christianity, im not too sure about the other religions though.

I think it depends on the mother herself, if a mother wants to get the abortion done than she should go ahead with it, without being forced to keep the child. A mother would  only want to abort a child if she is not ready to give her child the motherly love and is not committed to being a mother, therefore it would be better for her to abort the child than to unlove the child. That would be injustice to the child. However, if she is responsible enough to sleep with someone but not responsible enough to look after the baby then the she should plan ahead so such things could be avoided. Its a pain to everyone and kind of a disgrace to herself.

Personally i dont support abortion, but i am no-one to judge. Circumstances, is important factor to consider. 

Xoxo

Originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades

Thanks everyone for the long, well-thought out responses. I will definitely come back with my detailed reply as soonas I get time (probably by tomorrow).Before that, I would just like to ask one question to Sareena: Just out of curiousity, do you support abortionin an absoulutely normal circumstance, i.e. let's say there is no threat of the woman nor the child from anything? Would you think abortion ought to be justified whenever the mother feels the need to do it,because it is her choice?

I do support abortion under every circumstance, even if there is absolutely no rape, health risk or other excruciating circumstances. For one I do not think you can realistically enforce exceptions without creating many blurry gray lines, and completely prohibiting abortion would be unfair. Secondly, I think pro-life places to much emphasis on a life that is potential and dependent. In my opinion by default of abundance human life itself is not really as precious as we make it out to be, let alone a potential human. Cruel and cold as it may sound a fetus is at best a parasite. Finally pro-life bases itself excessively on moral judgment and ignores the feelings, emotions, and situations of real people who actually exist at this moment as contributing members of society. There is more to a personality than a decision to abort. People in the situation are in the best position to judge for themselves what is best for them, we can offer advice but we have no right to impose. Abortion may end up being the best or the worst decision of their lifetime but that choice is a cross they bear and its none of my business.

That being said I personally do not endorse abortion. Should any of my friends or family come into a situation where they consider abortion. I would be the one talking them out of it and encouraging them to keep the child. I will try long and hard at it. However, I will also stand by whatever decision they make - even if I have to take on a bunch of feminist crazies or book thumping crazies.

 

Oh, another questionabout Hinduism: Does the Hindus consider the holy texts (Veda,Bhagwat Gita, Mahabharat, etc) they follow as the literal words of the God, like the followers of Abrahamic religions consider their holy books as inspired by God? Or do they consider themas simply holy text, but not inspired or literal words of the God?Had this question for a while...so if anyone canclarify.😊

From my upbringing as a Hindu and theological study on my part. Unlike Abrahamic religions Hinduism is neither doctrinal or theistic. Religious texts are more of inspirations and guidelines rather than a rigid doctrine. A theist may view the stories as words and actions of God, while an atheist or agnostic may view them as symbolic representations.

Hindus will be highly theistic and doctrinal taking these texts doctrinally as a word of God. Or Hindus can be completely atheistic and not be concerned with the texts at all.

this makes an interesting read. It left me completely confused😆. I tried answering RTH ji's qns and was confused at so many qns i can't believe it !😆

http://www.efn.org/~bsharvy/abortion.html

The Morality of Abortion: A Critique
B. Sharvy | Other Topics

In this essay I will canvass the main arguments of the abortion debate, with the hope of sharpening that debate. The goal is to clarify ideas, rather than to defend a political position. Only the central ground of the debate is considered: the morality of "convenience" abortion stemming from consensual, adult sex. The conclusions this essay demands are: 1) the morality of abortion is a complex topic with reasonable arguments available to both sides; 2) greater respect than is typically found in public forums is due to both sides; 3) it is impossible to hold a standard pro-choice or pro-life position without contradicting some other widely held, intuitive belief. Those who enjoy intellectual challenges in life will find this last conclusion particularly exciting.

The abortion debate begins with the moral status of the fetus. If the fetus has no rights, then abortion is a non-issue--it is as easy to justify as an appendectomy. But, if the fetus has rights, then abortion doesn't solely concern the freedom of women, since personal freedom is constrained by the rights of others. The most prevalent argument that the fetus has a moral status disallowing abortion is:
A fetus is a member of the biological species homo sapiens (i.e., a human being).
To destroy a human being deliberately is unethical (it's murder).
Therefore, abortion is unethical (murder), since it constitutes the deliberate destruction of a human being.

However, there are some widely granted exceptions to the rule that to destroy a human being deliberately is unethical. (In this essay "human being" refers strictly to an animal of the species homo sapiens; it has no intrinsic sense of being a member of a society, or person with rights--using the term in those senses, in this particular discussion, tends to produce circular arguments.)

A popular justification for intentionally destroying a human being is self-defense, and the principle of self-defense is widey advanced on behalf of abortion. But it doesn't justify abortion. A claim of self-defense doesn't defend against a criminal charge when it comes from the party who brought about the conflict. For example, parents can't invoke self-defense and treat their (minor) children as trespassers, because parents bring it about that there are children needing shelter. Parents also bring about pregnancy, so self-defense can't justify ending pregnancy in ways that are normally criminal, such as killing a human being. An occasional rebuttal here is that parents aren't responsible for the pregnancy if they didn't intend it. But, responsibility for the consequences of one's actions isn't limited to intended consequences. Causing accidents and gambling are two examples of how we can be responsible for unintended consequences. Unintended, unwanted pregnancy due to consensual sex is merely a lost gamble (or maybe an accident, if the possibility of pregnancy was poorly understood). So in general, when liberties are in conflict the rights of the party that brought about the conflict--intentionally or not--give way. If it is granted that fetuses have the "basic human rights", then the rights of the mother must defer to those of the fetus, and the principle of self-defense doesn't justify abortion.

Murder is sometimes defended on utilitarian grounds; for example, in the case of war. To wage war is to bring about the death of innocents knowingly; such deaths are unavoidable as a practical matter. Nonetheless, many believe that war can be justified, if the good outweighs the evil. So perhaps abortion could be defended as a moral choice, even if it were murder, on the same grounds. This approach has a number of problems. It is difficult to see how utilitarian principles could justify a rights violation as serious as murder in order to avoid an outcome which is merely burdensome (childbearing) and which can be avoided with peaceful methods (refraining from intercourse). Most utilitarian defenses of abortion seem also to work as defenses of infanticide: both might reduce the number of unwanted children (and attendant social problems), and increase the freedom and autonomy of women (by reducing their obligations). A utilitarian approach requires that competing outcomes be valued (in order to compare them), and that valuing seems arbitrary when the competing outcomes are of different types. For example, in war, one might weigh the number of murders that will result if no war is waged against the number of murders that will result from waging war; the value assigned to murder isn't an issue in such a comparison as long as it is consistent. In the case of abortion, however, the possible outcomes are of different types, e.g., the increased freedom of women vs. death of human beings innocent of wrongdoing. The value of each outcome relative to the other is an extra issue that is subjective and complex (possibly involving many outside factors, such as the availability of adoption), and perhaps can only be settled by expedient means such as "majority rule." Finally, overriding individual rights on utilitarian grounds may not serve the pro-choice movement well, since the pro-choice movement is typically rights-based. For example, to make the utilitarian argument outlined above is to allow, in principle, the possibility that abortion may be coerced by the state, if it can be shown that the abortion benefits the society more than permitting the birth would. Regardless of whether such a thing could actually be shown, even to allow the principle--to legitimize an inquiry into whether such a thing can be shown--is inconsistent with a pro-choice position grounded in women's rights (which seems to be the mainstream pro-choice position). In summary, using utilitarianism to defend against the charge that abortion is murder is probably a mistake and certainly problematic. It seems to require that a life be valued less than personal convenience, or that abortion be no different morally from infanticide. It also seems to entail a complex and subjective weighting of outcomes. Utilitarianism itself is controversial and rejected by many (it has a "commie" flavor), although it seems necessary in some form to justify war (also pollution).

Implicit in the claim that it is unethical to kill a human being deliberately is the idea that we have rights because we are human beings. Therefore, the reasoning goes, a fetus has rights, since a fetus is a human being. This idea has been rejected by some philosophers (especially Michael Tooley, in Abortion and Infanticide). The alternative view is that membership in a biological species is not morally significant in itself; that is, if most human beings have rights, it isn't because they belong to a biological species that is innately morally privileged, but because of some other feature or features that human beings typically possess. Such features are usually held to be mental: self-awareness, self-determination, etc. Exactly which features, and to what degree, a being needs in order to have rights seems very complex, but it is reasonable to attach them to a capacity for self-determination, on the grounds that self-determination is the individual right from which others (such as the right not to be murdered) derive. Such features would be mental then, e.g., a capacity for acting by choice (as opposed to reflex), for sustained interests and thought, for having goals, and so on. In any case, the collective of mental capacities needed to endow a being with rights is typically called "personhood"; the position that mental capacities rather than biological specieshood determine an entity's rights is sometimes called the "personhood" argument. We are thought to have rights not because of our biological species, but because we are persons. The personhood argument has some results that are intuitively appealing to many:
It justifies letting a human being in a persistent vegetative state die, which is difficult when the relevant moral criteria derive from being a homo sapiens rather than being a person.
It would explain the feeling that an animal's moral status varies according to its typical ontological status: that it is more wrong to kill a dog for no reason than a fly, that whales and other primates (but not shrimps and ants) deserve humane treatment because they are "intelligent," and so on.
It would explain rights in a way that avoids "speciesism." It seems true intuitively that a non-human species that could talk, laugh, cry and aspire with us would have the same rights that we have--a result not produced by the theory that being a human is what causes these rights.
It explains why spontaneously aborted zygotes (usually never even detected) are not a great loss.

So according to the personhood view, the morality of abortion depends on the mental capacities of the fetus. In normal human beings, none of the mental capacities generally referred to as "higher" capacities, e.g., thought, are detectable until after birth. So it is unlikely that a fetus or a neonate is a person, even granting considerable uncertainty over which capacities, exactly, personhood requires. Pro-life advocates make the point that brain activity occurs in fetuses, but their point has problems. The conventional pro-life view needs to account for the zygote, not the fetus, and there is no brain activity in zygotes; in fact, there is no brain in zygotes. So the conventional pro-life view can't incorporate personhood criteria at all. More importantly, brain activity is not in itself relevant. Brain activity--EEGs, REM, reflexive functioning, etc.--occurs in many animals that aren't persons. The "higher" capacities in humans have been located in the upper layers of the cerebral cortex, which is physically incapable of significant functioning until after birth. So, it appears that fetuses are not persons, and if the personhood view is correct, that they have no rights and that abortion is moral in any term. However, if the personhood view is correct, neonates have the same moral status as fetuses, and infanticide is equally moral, since the event of birth doesn't correspond to the event of attaining personhood (significant psychological plateaus seem to occur at two to three months and one year). Birth determines where the human is, not what he or she is. In summary, the personhood view has much intuitive support, and results in a justification of abortion, but by the same token it justifies infanticide of neonates. Yet infanticide is a practice which most people are intuitively and emotionally unwilling to accept.

Conclusion: it is not easy for most people to reject the standard pro-life argument without rejecting other beliefs they have, such as the belief that infanticide is wrong, or murder isn't justified to serve society. Most people cannot disprove the pro-life position without also disproving some other strongly held belief.

The same problem exists in the pro-life camp. More than half of conceptions are naturally aborted within a month. If the loss of zygote life is equivalent to the loss of a person's life, then the spontaneous abortion of zygotes is an enormous natural disaster, the numbers dwarfing death from any other natural cause. Yet the activism on behalf of medical research to reduce such abortions is nil, and dead zygotes (when noticed) conventionally don't receive standard ceremony. In their practices, people don't seem to care about zygotes as they do people. Additionally, according to the pro-life argument presented, which I think is the most representative, a woman who has an abortion is a murderer. Criminal treatment is therefore required, in the harshest acceptable form, since abortion is premeditated and predicated on a philosophy denying the rights of a group of people: it fits the definition of hate-crime. Yet most pro-lifers are intuitively and emotionally unwilling to endorse treatment of such women as murderers in our justice system. The pro-life movement largely distances itself from "extremists" who resort to violence to stop abortion, and yet such violent methods are justified in order to prevent bona fide murder (not to mention genocide). Pro-lifers sometimes explain the forgiveness of women who have abortions by depicting them as hapless victims, brainwashed by profiteering doctors--a sweeping theory for which there seems to be zero research. Nor is the theory consistent even if true: We do not usually excuse hate-crimes because the perpetrator was swayed by the prejudice of others (unless the perpetrator is a child or insane, which presumably does not describe the average woman).

Pro-life sometimes counters the personhood argument by arguing that having the potential for personhood endows the fetus with the same rights as having personhood. The argument doesn't work. The general situation is that there are some properties a thing may have that make it unethical to destroy that thing--that give it "human" rights." Such properties could be personhood, or membership in homo sapiens--it doesn't matter. The proposal, then, is that the potential to possess such a property is, in itself, such a property. But that proposal leads to infinite regress, since it implies that the potential for the potential to possess a certain property endows one with rights as well, and so on. It only takes a few iterations of that principle to get the result that amino acids have rights. To say that the potential for X is an example of actual X renders the distinction between potential and actual meaningless. (Potential differs from capacity: a person in deep sleep has a capacity for thought and other mental feats definitive of personhood, even though those feats are not being performed; a fetus lacks those capacities, although it has the potential for them.)

In any case, the upshot is that the morality of abortion is not a simple topic. It is less simple than many people with opinions on it will acknowledge, not only in public, but, it seems, to themselves. One of the most exciting features of this topic, intellectually, is that it has something to violate the intuitions of everyone. Neither pro-life nor pro-choice can generate a logically consistent position on abortion without abandoning other beliefs which are strongly and widely held. Perhaps less self-righteousness from both sides is in order, then.

Originally posted by: clodpolish

this makes an interesting read. It left me completely confused😆. I tried answering RTH ji's qns and was confused at so many qns i can't believe it !😆

http://www.efn.org/~bsharvy/abortion.html

The Morality of Abortion: A Critique
B. Sharvy | Other Topics


Conclusion: it is not easy for most people to reject the standard pro-life argument without rejecting other beliefs they have, such as the belief that infanticide is wrong, or murder isn't justified to serve society. Most people cannot disprove the pro-life position without also disproving some other strongly held belief.

Thanks for sharing the article. It really illustrates the complex questions that abortion arguments raise ad the difficulty in answering them. Any stance is socially or morally contradictory or flawed.

Although the above conclusion does not work for me. I'm a Spartan.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Thanks for sharing the article. It really illustrates the complex questions that abortion arguments raise ad the difficulty in answering them. Any stance is socially or morally contradictory or flawed.

Although the above conclusion does not work for me. I'm a Spartan.

aap to kisi aur hi mitti ke bane ho😆

You should think about us commoners too who are a load on this earth😆

That was a loooooong read cloddy !  I still think let the mother decide ! Forcing her wud serve no purpose

Originally posted by: Rage-Of-Angels

Interesting topic.

Abortion is considered a sin in Islam in Christianity, im not too sure about the other religions though.

I think it depends on the mother herself, if a mother wants to get the abortion done than she should go ahead with it, without being forced to keep the child. A mother would  only want to abort a child if she is not ready to give her child the motherly love and is not committed to being a mother, therefore it would be better for her to abort the child than to unlove the child. That would be injustice to the child. However, if she is responsible enough to sleep with someone but not responsible enough to look after the baby then the she should plan ahead so such things could be avoided. Its a pain to everyone and kind of a disgrace to herself.

Personally i dont support abortion, but i am no-one to judge. Circumstances, is important factor to consider. 

Xoxo

hey your argument is so true. even though a person may not support abortion and considered abortion to be a sin and immoral, each person who got pregnant and do not want to keep the baby should be given the freedom to choose whether they want to terminate the pregnancy or not.

*Had to write down the replies in a hurry, so they may seem to be half-explained and clumsy. Please ask me [eevryone] if you do not understand a specific point.*

 

see first of all idont believe in following each and everything written in the scriptures and all. if a thing is acceptable to me i will follw it. like abortion and were not there in that time i guess, so any thing written at that time i totally irrelavant.

 

Once again, you have got me completely wrong. I was talking of morality and ethical issues, not religious matters [sin]. Read my previous post, I clearly asked you whether you consider abortion to be morally correct or not, not whether you consider it a sin.

Whatever, your reply to Rogna had clarified the point that I asked, so you do not need to answer that again; I've got your POV.

 

there is nothing immoral in abortion or so no matter what the circumstances are bcoz as i said i dont think any one would go for it under normal circumstances. there has to be a reason for it. so its a personal issue.

 

I would assume you haven't heard of financially successful happily married couples who decide to abort their baby, just because they are not prepared to take the responsibility of it yet, and oh, the last time they forgot to take their protections while making love.

Would you call this to be an 'abnormal' circumstance where aborting the child is a necessity? I can understand people who abort their child as a last resort (i.e. mother's life is threatened, the child is suffering from any genetic dysfunction or any other illness, or even when the woman gets pregnant before marriage, and the guy is no longer there to take the responsibility), but what about these circumstances, where the couple is not threatened from anything (physical, emotional or psychological) but just refuses to take the responsibility of a child just because they are not unto it? Just because they want to live their life to the fullest, and of course because they do not want their precious figures to get obese?

 

but you know many people who abort their child feel guilty afterwards of few years after they had the abortion, they will think why did i do what i did. even people who gave up their child for adoption instead of terminating the pregnancy will also regret it in the future. and when they 'realized' their so-called mistake and want to make up to it and want the child back or at least allowed some connection and relationship with the child, then it will be troublesome to the adoptive parents and the biological parents. first they don't want the child but after their so called regrets they want the child back. if the child was still young enough and does not understand anything and if the biological parents won the claim of custody on the child, then the adoptive parents will be disadvantaged and hurt because the child that they have considered as their own child are taken away from them.

 

You'll have to look for the 'greater good' here. Agreed that adoption (not specifically in this case) causes psychological and emotional problem for both the sides, but still adoption has its white sides, too. I would choose adoption over murder any day.

 

Btw, (not related to the topic, but can't help from responding) if a child had been adopted, and the adoptive parents love him and the child love them back, then I don't think the biological parents ought to have any right of taking him back from the person who grew their child.

 

If a human being is killed by another human being, people call it immoral and they are punished, but doesn't the same apply for abortion.

 

Yaar forget punishments and atonements ... abortion is now being publicly advertised through out the world, being punished is something far, far away.

If Trojan failed, try Spartan. Thank God! I'm a heathen.

 

I am not getting it that why are people constantly bringing up religious matters to justify their position or attack the opposition's. No where did the topic starter asked for an explanation regarding abortion being religiously corrects or not; she asked whether it is morally correct or not (coming to the morality issue a bit later). 'Sides, you do not need to follow a religious law in order to stop yourself from doing any morally repugnant act. As far as I am concerned with, atheists don't walk around murdering innocent beings just because they do not believe in a God. Taking current statistics and data, the number of criminals is far greater in the people who believe in a God than the atheists (in fact many even commits crime in the name of their Lord). Don't want to get into that discussion here as well (well, we are already having one topic for that) so will try to keep this short: Just because one calls God by a different name doesn't mean his values and morals ought to be any different from the person who calls God by another totally different name. One's morality and ethical values has to come from the person's own conscience; religion cannot drive you into make any fruitful decision (or lack thereof) unless you can justify it yourself.

 

P.S. Sareena, this comment wasn't only targeted at you; it was aimed at everyone who are using religion and religious matters to defend themselves or do the opposite.

 

Good question! ......well this applies to any other country as well (if you are referring to India only), then I guess the married couples will have to learn to assume their responsibilities through first hand experience....not much of a choice but they will ultimately learn the basic skills of parenthood naturally as all parents do.....and as for being financially able, it will all depend on other factors such as the couples's sense of wisdom and the foresight to think ahead in the future....afterall money alone can't be the decisive or important factor......you may not possess it now but you may have acquired that in the later stage of life....or as a responsible parent, it's your duty to see that you provide the basic needs for your child and family....that's my POV!

 

Well said *claps*. Beside, I believe the government ought to educate the whole nation (not limiting to India) about the usage of condoms and other means of protections so that the poverty-stricken people wouldn't be giving birth to too many on the first place. Also, I have seen far more abortions going on into families who are financially successful than the poor ones. Just shows up that money alone cannot be the deciding factor while doing something as serious as abortion.

 

i understand that in your previous posts you have said that the case of rape is justified however you said in your second latest post "how is aborting a baby not immoral? it is taking the life of another individual, which no one a right to do. if a human being is killed by another human being, people call it immoral and they are punished, but doesn't apply for abortion. someone is still taking the life of another individual." then you are creating a double standard because even though the child of the rape case is also another individual, another life and also an innocent soul.

 

Ever heard of a term called 'intention'?

A single act can have diverse effects, but it solely through the intention of the actor we learn whether that specific act or the actor can be considered as morally acceptable or repugnant. Yes, both the case of aborting the child is a form of murder, but just as murder is a controversial move itself, so is abortion.

 

Tell me what would you say of the following cases...

 

A heinous guy murders his wife to get all her property under his name: is he morally acceptable or isn't he? He is.

 

Now a police catches the guy and immediately (after his crime had been proved in the court) hangs him (sort of murder?hang on, it actually is murder!) for his deed: now is he [the police] morally acceptable or repugnant (for murdering the murderer)? He is not.

 

You see, polices needs to hang (rephrasing it, murder) numerous murderers or other sort of nasty criminals regularly; that doesn't make them wrong. Same goes with killing for self defense or killing for greater good. Same concept should be followed here. Just as a police is justified in murdering a nasty criminal so that the society can be benefited and saved from him [the criminal], Lalitha justified abortion only when it can benefit and saves the mother (and the child, too) from farther harm. Hence there's no double standard made when she said that abortion ought to be justified in case of rape just as there's no double standard when we give all the legal rights to the polices in murdering a violent criminal.

 

I can offer you tons of other examples, if you want, to show that the same act can be classified under different sects just depending on the intention of the actor.

 

and immorality and morality depend on each individual. what is good for you might not be good for other and what is good for others might not be good for you. what is not good for you might be good for others and what is not good for others might be good for you.

 

Well said *claps*. That's why there's something called country law or religious law that is meant to be followed by everyone alike regardless what they feel like about it. Not that I support each and everything the country/religious law states (in fact most countries have now legalized abortion, which, I do not, by any means adhere to), but still I feel a universal rule has to be there to control everyone around.

 

Terrorists also considers their act of shedding innocent blood, in the name of their cause, as something 'moral' and in fact as something really sacred and holy, but I do not think that necessarily makes their deed become so. But of course, that depends from person to person. If the terrorists were to become the majority, and us the minority, then we would have been called the 'immoral' one and them the 'moral' one. *shrugs*. This whole world is so, so ambiguous and paradoxical that it is almost impossible to say what's correct and what's wrong.

 

What about kids with genetic disorder ! Can aborting them B justified ?

 

A highly controversial and debatable point, I must say. Thank you for bringing it up; gives me something to think about. Hmm, will certainly have to think about it before reaching a conclusion.

 

What about aborting for medical reasons too ? Is it not a case of choosing ones own life over another ? So is that moral or immoral.

 

Explained and responded above.

 

What about contraceptive failure ? The couple intended to prevent pregnancy but due to C F , baby is conceived though the parents never intended the conception. So abortion justified or not ?

 

Nope, reason being there's always a chance of getting pregnant no matter you have used contraceptives or not, because protections or contraceptives are never ever cent percent dependable. The couple should take the risk of getting pregnant while making love, no matter whether they have used contraceptives. I understand the woman never meant to get pregnant, (I really do) but once she is, for whatever reason, she has a life within herself and as a human being, and of course as a mother she ought to feel morally repugnant to take the life of her own offspring.

Btw, don't mix it up with the rape case scenario. Reason being, even though, in both the cases, the woman was made pregnant without her own will, the raped woman and her child would suffer way more than the woman who got pregnant accidentally due to contraceptive failure. The woman who got pregnant through contraceptive failure is going to suffer only the consequences of the action, nothing more than it. The woman who was raped would suffer more than the physical and emotional torture of giving birth to a raped child; she would suffer the humiliation of the society. Neither she nor her child could ever face the world with happiness. I understand that the same case could be brought forward for the woman who got pregnant through contraceptive failure, but I believe that, that woman is way more to blame for her fate (reason being, as I have said earlier, contraceptives are never cent percent dependable) than the woman who was raped (surely she had not the simplest amount of fault) and her suffering is also gonna be less than the others.

 

they should either keep the child or give it up for adoption.

 

Is giving up your child for adoption just because you never wanted him to come in the world a 'moral' thing to do? I can understand about the unmarried couples, but what about the married ones who are just giving up their child for adoption simply because they never meant to conceive, and it was an accident that the contraceptives hadn't worked? Another thing to consider. Hmm? *shrugs*

 

@lalitha janaki. you said that some people consider that murder are not immoral. can you give example of sane people who consider murder that are not immoral and not the murderer themselves. and

The terrorists. Who justifies their action by stating that they are doing these in order to achieve their goal, for a cause they passionately believe in. Oh, you may find them insane, but trust me, they are more than sane than you [or me] can ever imagine. They have parents, spouses, kids, families and they also love and live for them.

But since you wanted an example of 'sane' people, excluding the murders themselves, I would try to relate it with the people we see around us and whom we consider as sane (debatable, though: from where do we know that the person whom we think is sane is actually the sane one here, and not the person whom we think as crazies?). I will go with my previous examples of polices, whom we have given every right to murder criminals (after they have been proven guilty in the court). What about the people who needs to kill for self defense; do we consider them [those people]as immoral just because they were forced by destiny to murder?

also not the killing in case of war.

Killing in the war is almost synonymous with permitting abortion in the case of rape or life threatening situations. Just like you have to kill (in a war ground) in order to defend yourself, you might need to abort the child in order to defend yourself or your position [in case of rape only; not when couples get pregnant by having consentual sex, and then aborts their child when they get to know that she had gotten pregnant].

i do believe that the murderer are not normal or sane

Does the term murderer only follow with respect to the human race, and not any other living beings that exists? Why, don't we all murder innocent lives to feed our selves, to feed our hungry belly: are we all abnormal or insane? Yeah may be, we are. The world God created is far too complicated for us human beings to understand. We can only assume, speculate and then reach conclusion based on the past observations and results. But never can we come to the actual truth.

What is morality?

The branch of study that deals with moral values. Now, what's morals? Truth derived from our own conscience regarding what's right and what's wrong, what's true and what's false, what's good and what's bad, rather than the socially followed rules and regulations.

What makes something immoral?

In short, something that goes against our sense of morality becomes immoral [since morality is solely based on our own conscience]. Sorry, can't come up with anything better for now.

Why is abortion immoral?

Why is murder immoral? Why is rape immoral? Why is pedophilia immoral? Why is pre-marital sex immoral?

IMO anything that harms or takes the life of an individual is going against my sense of morality, this becoming immoral.

Is there a moral standard the entire world can follow?

Nope ? if there were, it wouldn't be called 'morality' on the first place, would it? Morality, by definition is the truth derived from our own conscience, solely and solely from our own selves, not from anyone else or what the rest of the world says. Since each person is unique and distinctive, each one has his own definitions of morality, and his own sense of it.

"One man's terrorist is one man's freedom fighter".

What is the definition of murder?

Taking/ending the biological life of an individual, who would have otherwise lived.

Why is murder immoral?

Asking 'why is something immoral' is senseless, because, I repeat, the answer will remain the same: simply because the particular act went against the norm of my own morality. If saving the life of a human being from death is against my conscience, then that particular act of saving a life is becoming immoral.

What makes a person human, and what constitutes life?

Spirituality will talk about soul, conscience, etc, but let's not delve into those matters as the thread had already turned into anything but complicated. Let's just say that (excluding the spiritual world) the moment a guys' seed (semen) had touched a girl's egg, it [the union of the semen and the egg] had formed a life.

Is there justifiable taking of life?

Yes. Read my previous replies about polices who have been given the right [by us] to 'take the life' of other individuals [criminals]. What about killing in self defense, that's justifiable, too, is that not?

Can one support the death sentence and still be pro life?

Aargh, why did you have to ask that?! I don't know in which side I am [regarding capital punishment]. On one hand every individual should be given an opportunity for redemption. 'Sides, if any labeled criminal can be found out to be innocent, then he can easily be sent out of the jail. However, you cannot reverse death. But then again, there are some extremely hideous criminals who deserve death. So? hmmm?.

Does life begin at conception?

I believe our soul to be the actual essence of the mystery behind 'life'?our physical bodies being nothing but simply some physical entities that is bound to get expired after a particular time. Our souls were created long before we were conceived inside our mother's belly. So, per my belief, no, life doesn't begin at conception, life exists since eternity, and would continue to exist till eternity [eternity=infinity in the sense of time; something we humans cannot grasp).

Does a fetus really fulfill the logical test for "human life"?

Whether the fetus can be considered as a life or not (scientifically speaking) is a rather difficult question to answer [as science hadn't answered whether the fetus can feel the way we grown-ups can, or at least I am not aware of], despite the fact that the fetus has the full capacity of growing into a complete human beings (scientifically speaking) or letting a soul use it as a mean of experiencing the physical world(spiritually speaking), therefore killing the fetus is equivalent to killing a grown up human beings.

Is an acorn an oak tree?

Eh? Didn't get you....clarify please.

Upon conception can one guarantee that without abortion the fetus will carry full term and be born and survive to be a human?

Nope ....and without actually knowing that (since there's a probability that it might have developed into a completely normal, healthy human being) we cannot destroy it. It's like killing a small baby saying that "oh, he might have died by an alien attack after X days".

Without that guarantee is a fetus a real human or a potential human?

Don't know, can't say. Except this that it has the full capability of growing into a complete 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?

Neither the sperm nor the egg has a life of its own. A fetus can grow into a child, given proper care and time. An individual sperm or egg cannot. Flawed comparison, dude.

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?

I'm not quiet getting what you are trying to say here?are you comparing abortion with animal killing? I do not think that's a proper way of comparing them, reason being, I guess most of us here are meat eaters (i.e. killing animals or letting someone else do the work for us) or at least vegetarians (plant killers) but I seriously doubt that anyone here is real life murderer. I know and understand that a leech has its life too, and when killed it feels pain and sufferings as well, but to keep us human beings safe or alive, sometimes it is necessary to kill them. Any act is measured in terms of the effect or impact it produces, not the action itself, or that's what I feel. If killing a leech can save the life of a thousand human beings, then let it be. Same concept goes for abortion. If killing the fetus can save the life of the mother, then so be it. I do not mind.

But this will have to be balanced. You can only commit a crime as long as it is for the greater good. You cannot go around murdering innocent leech who hasn't harmed you, or who would never harm you back. You cannot go around murdering innocent fetus who hasn't harmed you, or who isn't going to harm you. However, if the leech is fatal to your health, to your life, then feel free to murder it. If the fetus is fatal to your life, then feel free to murder it.

Murdering a life is morally wrong; be it a fetus, a real life human being, an ant, a leech, a chicken or a plant. However, the concept of 'greater good' applies. If murdering an animal makes us human beings alive (by feeding on its remains) then let it be [we humans are greater than animals]. If murdering a fetus helps the mother stay alive or anything of that sort, then let it be [the mother's life is greater than the unborn baby]. If killing a leech helps you remain safe, then let it be [your life is worth more than the leech].

In short: if you can result into a 'greater good' by committing a relatively 'smaller crime', then there's no problem. However, make sure that the 'smaller crime' results into greater good; if it doesn't, then your action would become immoral. You cannot torture animals just because you are a sadist and love doing that; torturing an innocent animal isn't resulting into anything greater hence it's immoral (however murdering an animal for the sake of filling our belly is moral, as the 'greater good' of feeding ourselves and the rest of the human race over-weights the 'smaller crime' of murdering the innocent animal. Same concept should be applied for the leech, and for abortion.

*confused*

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.

Argh, another controversial point, what should I say for this one?!

As much as I would hate seeing the baby is being born into a loveless world and into a family cracked mom (who would torture him inhumanely), I believe every single soul in the world deserves the chance to see the world, to experience it. How can the doctor know that the child would never get a happy life? How can he make predictions like that? Who knows maybe some sort of miracles might have happened, that would have changed the child's entire life?

A question to you: Let's say a child had already been born into a family that consists of only a cracked single mom who is using inhumane treatments to the child (using drugs to keep him still), and let's say it is not possible to let someone adopt the children due to circumstances. Would you be willing to murder the child, then, cold-bloodedly to 'protect' the child from further harm?

Minor note: Not that I personally would love to see a child being born into a family of a cracked single mom who would use stuffs like drug to keep him calm, but I still believe we cannot determine the future and take such a serious action. We ought to give a chance to see what happens.

Hardships and struggles are bound to come in life. Seriously what's a life if you do not have to struggle? Just as committing suicide is no way of ending all your problems, aborting the life isn't the way either.

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?

First of all, the concept of statutory rape does not go with me. Rape, by definition, means to forcibly have sex with someone without his/her consent. How can, then, a consensual and willful sex be known as [statutory] rape?! It's self contradictory; like asking what is the length of the fourth side of the triangle, or how does the color blue smell like. Just like color isn't an odor, and a triangle hasn't got a 'fourth' side so to speak, a consensual sex can never be termed as statutory rape, simply because the word 'consensual' does not go with the word 'rape'.

If a girl had sex with a guy consensually then she had sex with him, and that is it. She wasn't raped. Her age doesn't matter. Her consent does. If she had given her consent then that can never be termed as a 'rape' simply because the term 'consent' goes against the term 'rape'. I can understand it for some extremely small child who can be convinced into having sex without even knowing what the thing is, but a fourteen years old girl is matured enough to know what can be the consequences of her action. If a girl as big as fourteen years old doesn't have any idea of what 'sex' is, and what it may cause, then that's a different story.

Minor note: If she gets pregnant, then it will be fault of both of them, not just the girl.

Can the legal system devalue statutory rape? Wont that not cause legitimate concerns of people predating on teenagers who are naive and impressionable?

Seducing is a different (and unfortunately, another, controversial) concept. Seducing is almost equivalent to rape just the difference being that the seducer cannot be termed as faulty or guilty as the rapist, owing to the fact that he/she had not totally done his/her work without the victim's consent. If he/she had done it without the victim's consent, then it would become rape, not seducing. However, if anything happens to the victim, then the seducer is more to be blamed than the victim (kindly note: different from the complete consensual sex, where both the persons are equally to be blamed for their actions). Therefore if anyone [adult] is predating on the youth population to seduce them, then both the parties will be blamed (the seducer and also the seduced one, reason being, no matter what, you have given him your consent to let him have sex with you), but mind it though, the seducer is more to be blamed, in fact way, way more to be blamed, because he is the one who tried to make the first move, and had bring such a devastating consequence.

What should the legal system do: Well, that's again a controversial point. I guess first it will have to be determined whether the girl really was seduced, raped, or had consensual sex. After determining these, they will have to make their decision.

How will we prevent people from calling consensual sex as rape?

By determining whether the person is matured enough to understand the definition, nature and consequences of sex. However, it is debatable, though. How about a guy who wanted to gift his girlfriend the present of the first sex? Maybe the guy wasn't actually thinking of taking any advantage of the girl, but per society's law, the guy will be deemed of having raped the girl as the girl was, firstly underage, and secondly, she had not the simplest idea about sex before [considering this was her first time she had heard of the term called 'sex'], even though that's not what they guy ever meant of doing or being called. What then?

If the guy doesn't abandon the girl, I believe the guy shouldn't be called as a statutory rapist by the society; however, if the guy does abandon her, then he ought to be blamed more than the girl (note the difference between normal sex, where the both the persons were sought to be equally guilty for their actions). 

By law a person under influence of alcohol or drugs is not deemed capable of giving consent?

Oh, my Lord, from where do you come up with these complicated issues? You are seriously making my head hurt! *giggles* Anyway, let's try to make up an answer for this one also, like I did previously?

If a woman was under the influence of alcohol or drugs (not talking about guys being under the same influence, cause that is gonna make the matter, if possible, even more complicated) without her knowing it, then the guy might be considered as a rapist, owing to the fact that he had made love to someone without that person's will or consent. However, if a woman was under the influence of alcohol [or drugs], but was capable of making rational decisions as wanting the guy to make love with her, then I do not think it will be fair to deem the guy as a 'rapist', reason being, even though the woman was not in her right mind, or half-unconscious, the guy is not committing any act that goes against the woman's consent. Let's say the woman verbally commands the guy into making love to her (though not in the right mind), and then becomes half-conscious, then it is natural for the guy (who, let's say, was the woman's boyfriend) to believe that the woman really wanted him to make love to her. How is he to understand that the woman was not, in reality, wanting that? After all, he isn't any form of mind-reader.

But this is debatable (as if the other things in this topic aren't!) too: How about if the guy had willingly made the woman drunk in order to take advantage of her?

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?

It is already happening. That too in a great deal. Take a look around yourself.

What makes a genetic disorder appropriate for abortion - fatality, painful or difficult life?

I'm still on the fence regarding supporting abortion for genetic disorder or dysfunction, so can't give you any definitive answer. Hmm, will have to read others responses and featured articles regarding this matter first.

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?

When I stated genetic disorder, I meant really serious genetic disorders, or dysfunctions, that are known as a disease in medical terms, not something as being a black, a blonde, or blue-eyed. If people were to abort their children just because they were not how exactly the parents planned him to be, then the world would end in chaos. People, who want to take only a single child in their entire life, are most likely to go for a guy; so if they get pregnant with a girl, they are most likely to get aborted. There can be an excess of shortage of female population from the world, then. You see, diversity is needed for the world to run, for the world to go on, to move on.

Would we allow a teenager, a grown person choose euthanasia if they contracted a fatal disorder later in their life?

Grrrr?.... So now shall we start another discussion on euthanasia, too? As it is, my head is most likely to burst open by now. *laughs*

I only support euthanasia when the other alternative for the patient is death, but in an even more painful way, and keeping the patient alive for some more time could mean a loss of country and private resources. Otherwise euthanasia is, by no means, justified. For instance injecting drugs that would kill the patient immediately is not what I'd like to support. However, 'letting a patient die' by just taking off or removing the life supporting materials/devices and medicines is a different concepts. On that way, you aren't killing a patient, you are letting him die naturally, which he would have definitely been if he were to born a century previously when such enhanced life-supporting devices and medicines weren't there. Use the same concept for the question you've asked.

There's a difference between 'killing' and 'letting die naturally'.

Not going into any more depth [for now] as it has already gotten this much complicated.

P.S. Sareena, have read your article 'bout euthanasia on your webpage. That's where I got my information from.

What constitutes health risk, fatal risk or any health condition?

There are supposed to be health problems while giving birth to a child, therefore health problems cannot taken into account for having an abortion. A woman should know it from the beginning that she has to go through several health problems and risks before taking the decision of getting pregnant.

Fatal risk is the only time when I have not the simplest amount of hesitation to accept abortion.

Reproductive damage, cosmetic damage, handicap?

What do you mean by reproductive and cosmetic damage? Btw, have never heard of mother getting handicapped for giving birth to a child. Care to clarify?

Do we have a guarantee that the damage will take place? The birth could turn out to be fine?

Most of the time yes, we have. However even if we do not, we oughtn't to take risk. [To me] the mother's life is worth more than the child's one, so if there is any fatal risk, then all arrangements for aborting the child should be made.

Do Aah, Sarina, long time no see. Tell me, why is it that we always end up on the opposite sides of the spectrum?

 

Umm...I do not think Sarina (oh, is that the correct spelling?!) is pro-abortion (not at least in normal cases), otherwise she wouldn't be asking the questions. Besides, there was one article about abortion written by Sarina, reading which didn't seem that she is for it.

 

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".

 

Do we have the right to kill the lives of the human beings we didn't give life to?

 

Aaah, do I sense a discussion on euthanasia coming along next?

 

Oh my my... please no, God forbids! My fingers are already aching!

 

 

So I answered upto what I could. Will come back soon when I get time, that is!😃

Edited by PhoeniXof_Hades - 15 years ago

Originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades

Is giving up your child for adoption just because you never wanted him to come in the world a 'moral' thing to do? I can understand about the unmarried couples, but what about the married ones who are just giving up their child for adoption simply because they never meant to conceive, and it was an accident that the contraceptives hadn't worked? Another thing to consider. Hmm? *shrugs*

Edited by _LalithaJanaki_ - 15 years ago

@PhoeniXof_Hades......WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PHEEEEEEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...I'm sure your fingers must be all crooked by now from ALL these typings!...LOL!😆   A standing ovation for you man!!!!👏