ChatterBank4 mins ago
Abortion - Your view
39 Answers
Abortion is obviously a very emotive, sensitive and difficult subject. I want to hear peoples views on abortion, it can be from your religious point of view or just from your moral point of view. Is it ever morally right to terminate a pregnancy prior to childbirth and if so when and under what circumstances?
I used to take the view that abortion was always wrong. I felt that human life began once the woman's egg was fertilised by a male sperm. I'm not an expert on the subject but from the limited information I have read I believe that medical research proves that the fetus is a living organism from the moment of conception.
Recently a friend of mine has been dealing with a very difficult situation and contemplating abortion, and this has lead me to rethink my views. I'm also aware that the abortion issue is not black and white especially when you consider issues such as incest, rape or pregnancies which may out the Mother's health at risk.
Discuss
I used to take the view that abortion was always wrong. I felt that human life began once the woman's egg was fertilised by a male sperm. I'm not an expert on the subject but from the limited information I have read I believe that medical research proves that the fetus is a living organism from the moment of conception.
Recently a friend of mine has been dealing with a very difficult situation and contemplating abortion, and this has lead me to rethink my views. I'm also aware that the abortion issue is not black and white especially when you consider issues such as incest, rape or pregnancies which may out the Mother's health at risk.
Discuss
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Fingerprint. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
When it comes to abortion, euthanasia and similar matters I like to go back to basic principles. Why is it normally wrong for one human being to kill another? Why would it be wrong, for example, for me to kill Theland? I submit that there are three reasons:
1. I would be robbing him of the life that he cherishes.
2. I would be causing grief and sorrow to his loved ones.
3. I would be robbing the world of what he contributes to it.
So I see nothing wrong in helping a desperately ill man to die when he longs for death and his loved ones want see an end to his suffering. In a case like that it is just as cruel to deny him death as it would be to deny a healthy, happy man life.
So where does this get us in the case of abortion?
The foetus cannot cherish life since it has not yet experienced it. If the mother wants the abortion then no sorrow will be caused. And, of course, the foetus has not contributed anything to the world.
But strictly following that logic, abortion would be acceptable right up to the moment of birth, with the normal murder laws taking over from then on.
Instinctively I feel that that would not be right, but I cannot for the life me explain why. (And, please, no religious exhortations. I�m trying to be rational here.)
1. I would be robbing him of the life that he cherishes.
2. I would be causing grief and sorrow to his loved ones.
3. I would be robbing the world of what he contributes to it.
So I see nothing wrong in helping a desperately ill man to die when he longs for death and his loved ones want see an end to his suffering. In a case like that it is just as cruel to deny him death as it would be to deny a healthy, happy man life.
So where does this get us in the case of abortion?
The foetus cannot cherish life since it has not yet experienced it. If the mother wants the abortion then no sorrow will be caused. And, of course, the foetus has not contributed anything to the world.
But strictly following that logic, abortion would be acceptable right up to the moment of birth, with the normal murder laws taking over from then on.
Instinctively I feel that that would not be right, but I cannot for the life me explain why. (And, please, no religious exhortations. I�m trying to be rational here.)
Chakka - Working by the principles you have mentioned how do you know that the foetus does not have the potential to contribute something to the world? If the foetus of a rape victim is the next Shakespear or Einstein are you not robbing the world of this future contribution, the same way that you would be robbing us of Thelands future contributions.
Lonnie, you didn't offend me, but it is so easy for a man to pontificate on this subject, when in reality they have no idea what it's like to be pregnant or to have a baby in normal, happy circumstances, let alone in an unhappy situation. A woman trying to make this choice suffers enough without men telling her what she ought to do. Most women don't have to wait until babies are born to love them - they love them before they even know them, so it's the hardest decision in the world. Imagine a young girl, alone in the world, poor, pregnant, desperate and afraid. I don't think many men in that situation would go ahead with it. If the boot was on the other foot, men would think very differently. It's rarely easy for a woman to make a sad decision like this, and there's no doubt that her decision will be with her for the rest of her life, but sometimes circumstances dictate no other option, and the choice must be hers, and hers alone. She is the one who has to live with the consequences of her actions, whatever she decides to do, and a choice like this is one she can never forget.
Mani, full of compassion as usual I see - and as usual you're talking out of the back of your hat about something of which you know absolutely nothing.
Mani, full of compassion as usual I see - and as usual you're talking out of the back of your hat about something of which you know absolutely nothing.
I think you have to first ask yourself when is a baby "human".
I understand those who say it is at the moment of conception because it's one of the very few points at which you can draw easily draw a line.
However if you take that view you *must* take a total view against abortion unless the mother will die - no "rape exception" no "severe abnormality exception".
If you accept that abortion is permisible in cases of rape or incest but not for other reasons I think you're on shaky ground. You have obviously accepted that the baby is not yet human enough to be protected and are therefore excercising some sort of moral distinction on how the mother became pregnant - I think that is not what we should be doing.
If it's OK for a baby to be aborted because of rape or incest it should be OK for other reasons.
Now there is the term question, There is no limit where the child would be gravely permanently disabled or where the mother's life is endangered - I think this is probably right but we should tighten up the definitions of gravely permanently disabled.
The 24 weeks limit is tough because children are born before this now, my own nephews were born only just after this and survived.
I think we should relax the rather silly and abused "mental health qualification" and at the same time reduce the time period to say 20 weeks.
The point being to reduce the number of late terminations
I understand those who say it is at the moment of conception because it's one of the very few points at which you can draw easily draw a line.
However if you take that view you *must* take a total view against abortion unless the mother will die - no "rape exception" no "severe abnormality exception".
If you accept that abortion is permisible in cases of rape or incest but not for other reasons I think you're on shaky ground. You have obviously accepted that the baby is not yet human enough to be protected and are therefore excercising some sort of moral distinction on how the mother became pregnant - I think that is not what we should be doing.
If it's OK for a baby to be aborted because of rape or incest it should be OK for other reasons.
Now there is the term question, There is no limit where the child would be gravely permanently disabled or where the mother's life is endangered - I think this is probably right but we should tighten up the definitions of gravely permanently disabled.
The 24 weeks limit is tough because children are born before this now, my own nephews were born only just after this and survived.
I think we should relax the rather silly and abused "mental health qualification" and at the same time reduce the time period to say 20 weeks.
The point being to reduce the number of late terminations
"Working by the principles you have mentioned how do you know that the foetus does not have the potential to contribute something to the world? If the foetus of a rape victim is the next Shakespear or Einstein are you not robbing the world of this future contribution, the same way that you would be robbing us of Thelands future contributions."
a) Perhaps you are saving the world from a future Fred West or Hitler?
b) Everytime you fail to attempt to impregnate your wife when she ovulates you are equally denying the world of an individual's contributions.
Clearly when put like that, the argument is fatuous.
It's the same argument you made.
a) Perhaps you are saving the world from a future Fred West or Hitler?
b) Everytime you fail to attempt to impregnate your wife when she ovulates you are equally denying the world of an individual's contributions.
Clearly when put like that, the argument is fatuous.
It's the same argument you made.
Waldo - I don't necessarilly hold the view that abortion is wrong, in this case I was just playing devils advocate and questioning the conclusion that came from the principles.
I agree with you we don't know if the unborn child will make a positive or a negative contribution to the world but that does not change the principle that we would be robbing the world of the unborn childs contribtuion whatever it may be and why assume the worst.
I agree with you we don't know if the unborn child will make a positive or a negative contribution to the world but that does not change the principle that we would be robbing the world of the unborn childs contribtuion whatever it may be and why assume the worst.
Fingerprint, I was/am playing devil's advocate back!
Why assume the best? Either approach is flawed!
The truth is that any individual born on this planet is likely to be entirely unremarkable *in the grand scheme of things* (emphasis for the hard of thinking, not you). Why do we seek to imply that every child that is aborted is likely to be the next Beethoven? Statistically, it's not likely to be true.
Why assume the best? Either approach is flawed!
The truth is that any individual born on this planet is likely to be entirely unremarkable *in the grand scheme of things* (emphasis for the hard of thinking, not you). Why do we seek to imply that every child that is aborted is likely to be the next Beethoven? Statistically, it's not likely to be true.
Mani, in his infinite wisdom,says that the government should ban "this shocking practice" without realising what the outcome would be if they did.There would be 1000's of back street abortianists plyng their trade to the desperate and vunrable.Then it would not only be foetus' that were affected but women left scarred and possibly dead.
But given Mani's view of women that really wouldnt matter to much to him I dont suppose.
If you are going to make a statment like Mani's then at least back it up with a bit of thought first instead of merely preaching.
But given Mani's view of women that really wouldnt matter to much to him I dont suppose.
If you are going to make a statment like Mani's then at least back it up with a bit of thought first instead of merely preaching.
just to clarify a little..in an *ideal* world there would be no abortions but it is not an ideal world. Incest, rape, and abuse goes on and contraception is not 100% effective.
And if abortion is so wrong in God's eyes then why does he cause so much heartache by allowing nature to abort babies through misscarages to people that really want them?
And if abortion is so wrong in God's eyes then why does he cause so much heartache by allowing nature to abort babies through misscarages to people that really want them?
I believe that abortion is really not a religious issue - it is a moral issue. I feel that from time of conception it is a living being. If you leave it alone, it will grow into a person. There are some circumstances when abortion is necessary.
I don't approve of abortion, however I do not judge a person if they feel that they want one. It is not my place to judge. However, if I had to make a decision to abort I would have to think about it long and hard.
I don't approve of abortion, however I do not judge a person if they feel that they want one. It is not my place to judge. However, if I had to make a decision to abort I would have to think about it long and hard.
I do not approve of abortion because I believe from the time of conception it is a living being. If you leave the fetus alone it grows into a baby. Abortion is not a religious issue - it is a moral issue. No one can legislate morality. Of course there are some cases where abortion is warranted. Even then for me it would be a difficult decision.
Even though I don't approve of abortion, I would never judge anyone. But, for me I would have to think long and hard. And, what ever happened to birth control? Not only would it prevent conception, but it would also prevent social diseases too.
Even though I don't approve of abortion, I would never judge anyone. But, for me I would have to think long and hard. And, what ever happened to birth control? Not only would it prevent conception, but it would also prevent social diseases too.
Of course it is worth pointing out that every day thousands of fertilised embryo's are lost because they fail to implant, or are absorbed by the mothers body.
This is a stunning thought if you believe that a human is a human from the moment of conception.
I also do hope that nobody who believes that would condone the use of the coil or other IUDs
just a thought
This is a stunning thought if you believe that a human is a human from the moment of conception.
I also do hope that nobody who believes that would condone the use of the coil or other IUDs
just a thought
I take it that everyone who opposes abortion on the basis that from the time of conception a fetus is a living being is a vegetarian?
Don't forget the bible sanctions selling your daughter's into slavery, putting people to death who work on the Sabbath and forbids planting two crops side by side in the same field and eating shellfish.
It's my body, I'll choose whether or not to have a baby. And no, I have never relied on abortion as a method of contraception (in fact have never had an abortion).
Don't forget the bible sanctions selling your daughter's into slavery, putting people to death who work on the Sabbath and forbids planting two crops side by side in the same field and eating shellfish.
It's my body, I'll choose whether or not to have a baby. And no, I have never relied on abortion as a method of contraception (in fact have never had an abortion).
I guess I wasn't talking so much about limits - I think there's a good case for reducing the limit as far as possible as I do feel 24 weeks is too late. But as mentioned earlier, some people will choose to have abortions based on the ill health of the child and this can't always be determined until 20 weeks. Advances in technology will mean this time will be reduced and I think that the abortion limit should be reduced in line with that as far as possible. But if I found out I was a couple of months pregnant, I certainly don't think anyone has a right to tell me that I must have the baby and give it up for adoption.
I've got to pick you up on that!
Advances in technology will not necessarily mean the time to detect conditions can continually be reduced - it's often not to do with our ability to detect whether a condition exists but the fact that a condition does not occur until particular stages of fetal development.
Obviously any and all advances that help bring down the age at which these things can be detected are good, but the issue can never get pas fetal development rate itself.
Advances in technology will not necessarily mean the time to detect conditions can continually be reduced - it's often not to do with our ability to detect whether a condition exists but the fact that a condition does not occur until particular stages of fetal development.
Obviously any and all advances that help bring down the age at which these things can be detected are good, but the issue can never get pas fetal development rate itself.
Fair enough Waldo - but they may, in some cases, find different ways of detecting abnomalities. Bad analogy but the only way women used to know they were pregnant was the fact that they missed their periods. Now we have pregnancy tests that detect increased levels of a hormone and are accurate from the first day of a missed period. Is it unreasonable to suggest that in the future there will be ways of detecting whether a fetus will develop abnormalities, not whether they have developed them? (Opens a whole new ethical can of worms I know, but still)
Hello, obviously it is a very difficult subject to discuss. I am a religious person, but for me, every woman has to have a legal right to decide the issue of motherhood without the help of others.
Also, I have found a resource, where you can find different points of view on this topic
https:/
Also, I have found a resource, where you can find different points of view on this topic
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.