Abortion

[steve_bank]

A real and substantive current moral issue.

1. The RCC has always been against birth control even condoms. Birth control is morally equivalent to actual abortion. Is birth control immoral?
2. One line of demarcation is presence of a fetal heartbeat. Is it immoral to abort a fetus after a fetal heartbeat is heard but not before?
3. Another line is fetal viability. Is it moral to abort before viability outside the womb but not after?
4. Is it moral to abort a fetus a few days before normal delivery but immoral to kill the baby after delivery and the cord is cut?
5. Is abortion synonymous with killing?

For the above medical issues are not considered and the abortion is a matter of convenience.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are only two elements which I think dictate whether someone aborts, and for the sake of this I will consider the fetus a fully capable, conscious, caring adult with an "normally*" developed sense of morality and ethics:

1. Whether the person who is providing them life support wishes to continue doing so.

2. Whether ceasing life support alone kills the hosted "person".

It is, as far as I have understood, wrong to kill something which you can offer upon "a consenting mercy", except to use it's flesh in some way, or when necessary to protect your freedom from unilateral imposition.

So, if you can birth it and hand it off right now, killing it is not your right.

Otherwise, cutting off dependent life support, as an individual, is your right as a human being.

That's all the consideration that is necessary.

If I have the right to deny "people, actualized adult ethical agents" life support of my flesh, I have the right to deny it to "an innocent little baby", too.

I am personally under no obligation to mercy.

Being "good" just is not something you can reasonably expect people to do. The most you can expect them to do is not be evil.

It is not evil to walk away from donating some part of your biological "life" to someone else.

Denying others the right to offer mercy is on a case by case basis: not every mercy is reasonable nor wanted. But that's a matter for public policy.


*As opposed to "fully".

 

[Jarhyn]

I do, for the sake of such argument, see the person as owned by themselves. They are not the property of the parents, and any hopes they may have for this person are not their right to see to fruition.

The only person who owns this person is, in the end, themselves.

The hopes and dreams of the parents are inconsequential to the rights of the person giving them life support.

Those hopes and dreams are only fulfilled by the mercy of the person themselves, it is theirs to offer or deny as they wish.

Thus the sperm donor gets no say.

The only person who gets a say in whether the person gets to keep using the uterus is the person who owns the uterus.

They have no obligation to the hopes and dreams of any other party, and while they may offer this mercy of the use of their uterus to the other parent, so the person using the uterus may one day give them greater mercy of offering legacy, the owner of the uterus still has no obligation to bestow mercy of their flesh.

 

[steve_bank]

The OP is about the specifics of actually terminating human life at stages of fetal development. Not about rationalizng or justifying.

Abortion is euphemism for killing. Late term abortion involves killing the fetus in the womb and then taking it out. Anybody comfortable with that?

 

[Jarhyn]

The OP is about the specifics of actually terminating human life at stages of fetal development. Not about rationalizng or justifying.

Abortion is euphemism for killing. Late term abortion involves killing the fetus in the womb and then taking it out. Anybody comfortable with that?

I am not comfortable with your attempting to leverage "killing" beyond "ceasing to offer life support". Your attempts to shove words with moral charge into the discussion is noted, and rejected. I also reject your attempt to frame a post about "abortion" in "morals and principles" as "not about the morality of doing it".

If you want another thread that excluded certain things of it, start one with an exclusion in the title.

 

[Rhea]

Abortion is euphemism for killing.

No.
Abortion is a synonym to “stopping” and “desisting” and “interrupting.”

When a rocket launch is “aborted” there was not a rocket killing.
And when a woman has a spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage) there has been no killing.
When a fighter pilot hears “abort!” from the flight deck, they are not being told to kill someone.


You made up a definition to create emotion around your preferred framing.
But you are wrong.

 

[Rhea]

A real and substantive current moral issue.

1. The RCC has always been against birth control even condoms. Birth control is morally equivalent to actual abortion.

This shows how wacky and insane they are.

Is birth control immoral?

Absolutely not.

2. One line of demarcation is presence of a fetal heartbeat.

And it is a dumb demarcation. We as a society are complety fine with harvesting organs from a being that still has a hearbeat. Because it does not define personhood.

Okay, it’s not a “dumb” demarcation. It’s an authoritarian mysogynistic evil one.

Is it immoral to abort a fetus after a fetal heartbeat is heard but not before?

It is not immoral in either case because a heartbeat does not constitute personhood.

3. Another line is fetal viability. Is it moral to abort before viability outside the womb but not after?

Another false line created to control women as vessels.
Nope, nope all the nope. A person does not lose their rights to another person who wants part of their body. It is immoral to force her to donate organs.

4. Is it moral to abort a fetus a few days before normal delivery but immoral to kill the baby after delivery and the cord is cut?

Yes. Because before the delivery, it relies on the organs of another person, who is not ever required to donate.

Sice it turns out that this practcally never happens, and when it does it is almost always a tragic decisionmade about a very much wanted pregnancy, it turns out to be another one of those evil intended emotional red herrings.

Wmen do not carry to term and then decide to abort on a whim. So trying to use their real tragedies as a way of denying rights to other women is despicable.

5. Is abortion synonymous with killing?

Nope. Only to the people wj want to use emotional lies to control the sexuality of women.

For the above medical issues are not considered and the abortion is a matter of convenience.

Tell you what - we can talk about this AFTER we have completely available and accessible long acting reversible birth control free to the user for the asking, and AFTER we have federally funded research into LARCs for males, and AFTER we have free prenatal care and free post-partum care for the women who ddo not want to abort and free food, shelter and healthcare for the babies.

Once we have removed the unintended pregnancies, and removed the danger and fear of carryying through with an unplanned pregnancy,

THEN we can have an armchair discussion of the morality of forcing humans to donate organs against their will.

 

[steve_bank]

I have not heard of forced organ donation. That would certainly go to the Supreme Court.

Rhea, it is not an armchair debate. Is there a difference between abortion a few days before normal delivery and killing the baby right after delivery? That too is an arbitrary demarcation. I see no moral difference. Late term abortion IMO is killing.

Invoking organ harvesting is a diversion form the issue.

The question is simply this, is there a point from conception to just before delivery where abortion amounts to killing?

Obviously birth control is too restrictive. I oppose late term abortion, it does not sit right with me. The new state laws set an impoosible lower bound of pregnancy detection.

The thread is about the morality of abortion.

If a late term fully formed fetus is a disposable commodity then that defines our culture.

 

[steve_bank]

The OP is about the specifics of actually terminating human life at stages of fetal development. Not about rationalizng or justifying.

Abortion is euphemism for killing. Late term abortion involves killing the fetus in the womb and then taking it out. Anybody comfortable with that?

I am not comfortable with your attempting to leverage "killing" beyond "ceasing to offer life support". Your attempts to shove words with moral charge into the discussion is noted, and rejected. I also reject your attempt to frame a post about "abortion" in "morals and principles" as "not about the morality of doing it".

If you want another thread that excluded certain things of it, start one with an exclusion in the title.

The debate on abortion if you have a moral sense and empathy shud be uncomfortab;e.

Why does the word kiling make you uncomfortable?

Euphemisms serve to make uncomfortable thoughts comfortable. Abortion is a euphemism.

It is not about video games or speculating on the unverse being a simulation. It is a hard issue, which is why it evokes strong public responses. You have to question your own morality.

Is there a moral difference between aborting a healthy fully formed fetus a few days before delivery and killing the delivered baby right after delivery?

Consider the question a transition from video games where nothing is real to hard reality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A real and substantive current moral issue.

1. The RCC has always been against birth control even condoms. Birth control is morally equivalent to actual abortion. Is birth control immoral?
2. One line of demarcation is presence of a fetal heartbeat. Is it immoral to abort a fetus after a fetal heartbeat is heard but not before?
3. Another line is fetal viability. Is it moral to abort before viability outside the womb but not after?
4. Is it moral to abort a fetus a few days before normal delivery but immoral to kill the baby after delivery and the cord is cut?
5. Is abortion synonymous with killing?

For the above medical issues are not considered and the abortion is a matter of convenience.

There is the other consideration, the fact a human woman is involved. I'm uncertain why the human woman is always missing from these lines of demarcation. The first question to ask is at what point in time do we tell a woman she has no choice.

Is there a moral difference between aborting a healthy fully formed fetus a few days before delivery and killing the delivered baby right after delivery?

Yes, there is a moral difference. And still, neither are healthy fully formed fetuses a few days from birth getting aborted or people killing babies after delivery without repercussions.

 

[Jarhyn]

The OP is about the specifics of actually terminating human life at stages of fetal development. Not about rationalizng or justifying.

Abortion is euphemism for killing. Late term abortion involves killing the fetus in the womb and then taking it out. Anybody comfortable with that?

I am not comfortable with your attempting to leverage "killing" beyond "ceasing to offer life support". Your attempts to shove words with moral charge into the discussion is noted, and rejected. I also reject your attempt to frame a post about "abortion" in "morals and principles" as "not about the morality of doing it".

If you want another thread that excluded certain things of it, start one with an exclusion in the title.

The debate on abortion if you have a moral sense and empathy shud be uncomfortab;e.

Why does the word kiling make you uncomfortable?

Euphemisms serve to make uncomfortable thoughts comfortable. Abortion is a euphemism.

It is not about video games or speculating on the unverse being a simulation. It is a hard issue, which is why it evokes strong public responses. You have to question your own morality.

Is there a moral difference between aborting a healthy fully formed fetus a few days before delivery and killing the delivered baby right after delivery?

Consider the question a transition from video games where nothing is real to hard reality.

No, it shouldn't necessarily be uncomfortable.

The word "killing" is, like it or not, culturally, and morally charged.

It is not a "killing" letting something die. It is not a "killing" hurrying on something that is inevitably and immediately going to die.

One is just "letting something die" and the other is euthanasia.

You are already dragging your subjective morality into this, and as I have pointed out, my entire ethical structure and philosophy is built on careful investigation and doubt.

That you bring in unrelated topics to this means you are grasping for straws.

It does not matter how I feel about what mercies others bestow. It is my responsibility merely to "get over it", as is it anyone's whose wish would be to bestow mercy in stead of someone else.

It is not their obligation to bestow mercy, especially of their own flesh, nor is it a right to use someone else's flesh to do so against their consent.

It does not matter that it is gross, or that something died, or that someone let it. It was their choice, and ethically they deserve to be the ones to have the right to make it.

It is only ever the choice of the person giving mercy on whether to offer it, and if someone would compel some other human to mercy outside of the set of situations I described as an acceptable compulsion to mercy, then they can pound sand or suck a chest wound for all I care, but either they walk away, or only one of us walks away from the result.

 

[Elixir]

I “killed” a wart on my finger. Living, human cells. No regrets, even though they could possibly have been cultivated into a new human clone of myself.
The methods were cruel and inhumane as well. First, many cells were frozen with liquid nitrogen. Then for months they were repeatedly immersed in a weak chlorine solution for an hour or so at a time. All dead and gone now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Euphemisms serve to make uncomfortable thoughts comfortable. Abortion is a euphemism.

No, it is not an euphemism, it's the proper term. It's acquired a connotation the word did not originally have.

 

[southernhybrid]

Why is late term abortion being repeatedly mentioned? I've never heard of a medical provider who would perform a late term abortion unless it was either to save the life of the mother, or to remove a nonviable fetus. The only other possibility would be if the fetus is known to have a horrible disorder that would only allow it to live for a very short time, while suffering terribly. If you feel the need to use the term killing in the last case, it would be a mercy killing.

The vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. Most that are done during the second trimester are done for specific reasons. When I worked in a maternity clinic in the early 80s, any woman who was 35 or older was offered a test to see if her fetus had Down's syndrome. If it was positive, she was offered the option of an abortion. Some people are willing to give birth and to raise a child with Down's. But, I wouldn't judge those who opt for abortion. I've had quite a few patients with Downs. Some are fairly happy and they can have decent lives, especially if they. had parents who were willing to make sacrifices for them, and who were well educated in how to raise a person with Down's. Some are almost vegetative, requiring total care, hand feeding, wearing diapers their entire lives etc. And a very small percentage have normal IQs and can live normal lives. I never met one like that, but a physician who specialized in genetics told me that sometimes is the case. But, shouldn't a woman be permitted to make the decision whether or not to give birth to such a child? Raising a child who has Down's is quite a task. I worked with a very nice nurse who chose to give birth to a Down's child. She was anti abortion, but she didn't judge those who disagreed with her. She did an outstanding job of raising her daughter, but not everyone is up to the job of raising a child with both severe cognitive and physical problems Such decisions are difficult and heartbreaking.

I've never known a woman who had an abortion for convenience. That's a very ignorant view. Although my sister never talks about it anymore, I think she told me she had an abortion when she was young and had been raped. I've never had one, but I was elated when I was pregnant in 1970, when NJ had just made abortion legal. It made me happy to know that I had a choice. I chose not to have an abortion. Still, you can't even imagine what this means to most women. Pregnancy is very risky, both physically and emotionally. Women should have choice. Roe V Wade just made abortion safe and legal. Good birth control makes it rare.

Ending Roe v Wade will not stop abortions. Margaret Sanger was an activist who helped inspire the development of OCPs. She talked about women standing in long lines, while waiting for 50 cent abortions, when she was a child during the early 20th Century. During those times, women often had large numbers of children, due to the lack of birth control along with no option for safe, legal abortions. Sanger's own mother died while she was in labor with her 8th child. I'm sorry. It's necessary that a democratic country has safe, legal options for women who choose to have an abortion.

It always bothers me when people, especially men, condemn women who choose abortions. There are far more spontaneous abortions, aka as miscarriages by the lay community, compared to the number of abortions that women choose to have. Why is it okay for nature or god if one is a believer, to abort so many fetuses, but it's wrong for the woman, who is carrying that fetus, to decide to abort for her own personal reasons?

I remember a coworker who chose to abort. She had 3 or 4 children and was married to an abusive alcoholic, who she wanted to divorce. She wasn't mentally or financially able to give birth to another child, so she had a very early first trimester abortion. I was the only one she told because some of the other women we worked with were hateful and judgmental. An embryo is tiny without any resemblance to a live infant during the first trimester. I'll say it again, about 90% of abortions are done during the first trimester.

Late term abortions aren't done due to choice. They are done if the fetus is nonviable, or to save the life of the mother. No provider is going to do a late term abortion without a valid reason. It's just a ploy used by the religious right to try and make it sound as if thousands of women are waiting until the last moment, then rushing off to a clinic to have a doctor to kill a baby. That's propaganda, not reality.

 

[steve_bank]

I'll restate the OP.

Is there any difference between aborting a fetus just before normal birth(late term abortion) and terminating a baby after delivery and the cord is cut?

It is a yes no question. It is not about the majority of abortions or anything else. It is not about the legality of abortion. It is not about the social value of abortion.

It is about what you personally think is right or wrong.

 

[Elixir]

Yes.

 

[bilby]

Is there any difference between aborting a fetus just before normal birth(late term abortion) and terminating a baby after delivery and the cord is cut?

Yes. In the latter case, it's called 'infant mortality', not 'abortion'.

In both cases, such deaths occur only where severe medical complications exist, or when there are insufficient facilities to give the necessary care to sustain life.

Both are tragic but unavoidable events; Nobody is going around killing newborn babies, or late term fetuses, on a whim.

And none of it tells us anything whatsoever about the morality of the vast majority of abortions, which occur far earlier in pregnancy.

This entire question is a massive red herring, that has exactly zero relevance to any real world situation - the anti-abortion lobby would like us to imagine that aborting a four-cell fertilised ovum is indistinguishable from killing a six week old baby, which is obviously nonsense. But they can "prove" that nonsense to be true by salami tactics. A is a long way from Z; But A and B are pretty much the same place, and B and C are pretty much the same place, C and D... Y and Z. Therefore A and Z are (magically) the same.

Rounding a very small difference down to zero is not legitimate when you then multiply by a large number of instances. Nearly the same isn't "the same".

0.0001 is, to any reasonable approximation, 0. Therefore 0.0001 x 100,000 is, to any reasonable approximation, 0 x 100,000, which is also 0.

A newborn baby is, to any reasonable approximation, the same as a fetus the day before it is born. Therefore a fertilised ovum is also, to any reasonable approximation, the same as a newborn baby.

If you understand why the first argument is wrong, then you should also understand that the second is wrong.

 

[Hermit]

Is there any difference between aborting a fetus just before normal birth(late term abortion) and terminating a baby after delivery and the cord is cut?

A real and substantive current moral issue.

No, it is not. As Bilby notes,

This entire question is a massive red herring

QFT

 

[Rhea]

I have not heard of forced organ donation.

Every woman who is forced to give birth agains her will is being forced to donate her uterus, her blood, her immune system and more to the fetus.

You have never heard of a woman being denied an abortion against her will?

That would certainly go to the Supreme Court.

It did, it has. Roe v Wade decided she should not be forced to donate her organs against her will to a fetus.

 

[Rhea]

.
You have been answered clearly many times.

I'll restate the OP.

Is there any difference between aborting a fetus just before normal birth(late term abortion) and terminating a baby after delivery and the cord is cut?

Yes.

It is a yes no question.

Yes

It is not about the majority of abortions or anything else. It is not about the legality of abortion. It is not about the social value of abortion.

It is about what you personally think is right or wrong.

No, it is about whether there is an objective difference.
The answer is YES.
In one case there are the rights of two people involved and they may be in conflict.
In the other case there is only one person involved and there is no conflict.


The RED HERRING is you trying to construct a question where you feel morally permitted to ignore the human rights of a live adult human, and ask for a yes-or-no so that you can avoid admitting that you don’t want to talk about the rights of the live and adult human. Because you somehow feel empowered to deny her rights and that is so trivial to you that you’d like to just hand-wave it away.


YES there is a moral difference between a situation where two humans have conflicting rights and a situation with only one human.

That you choose to pretend that is not the conversation says a lot about how you view women.