Are there any ethical implications of aborting for any reason or via any method?

[doubtingt]

This question is directed at those who (like myself) are in full support of the mother's legal right to abort for any reason, at least until the third tri-mester.

That legal right is an entirely separate question from whether there are any ethical implications of such abortions, since what is unethical is often (if not usually) legal and what is illegal can be ethical.
That said, it appears that most pro-choicers treat legality and ethics of abortion as the same question and largely presume without much analysis that since is should be legal, it is not unethical.

But are there any motives or methods of abortions that cross an ethical line, even if for pragmatic reasons you don't want such considerations in any way limiting maternal power over the decision to abort?

We just had the thread about Down's kids, but what about aborting a fetus due to its sex or race? If the fetus is a non-person, can such acts still be racist or sexist? Obviously, they might reveal racist or sexist attitudes, but such attitudes are not needed to motivate such abortions. It could be a pragmatic choice that one just doesn't want to deal with the factors that for whatever reasons come with raising one gender over another or a mixed race child over one of your own race.
If the motivation is not connected to general positive or negative attitudes toward a gender or race, then is it sexist or racist or some other unethical act to abort based partly on sex or race?

Feel free to postulate other motives that you think raise ethical concerns. It seems to me that the arguments that some put forth in the Downs' syndrome thread that killing a fetus has no ethical considerations, means that no form of selective-abortion eugenics could be considered unethical either.

Then there is the question of methods. IF a fetus has no moral status as many pro-choicers assert, then it should not matter if you slowly abort the fetus via the most painful method imaginable. In contrast, if you find some methods unethical, then you are granting the fetus some level of moral status, so doesn't this make abortions for frivolous motives somewhat unethical?

I'm not trying to lay a trap here. I am exploring these ideas myself. I think there ought to be principled coherence in our ethical stances and I wonder whether most of us pro-choicers just blindly dismiss the question of ethics for abortion because we don't want more complex ethical concerns muddying the political stance of granting the mother full rights to decide.

 

[PyramidHead]

This question is directed at those who (like myself) are in full support of the mother's legal right to abort for any reason, at least until the third tri-mester.

That legal right is an entirely separate question from whether there are any ethical implications of such abortions, since what is unethical is often (if not usually) legal and what is illegal can be ethical.
That said, it appears that most pro-choicers treat legality and ethics of abortion as the same question and largely presume without much analysis that since is should be legal, it is not unethical.

But are there any motives or methods of abortions that cross an ethical line, even if for pragmatic reasons you don't want such considerations in any way limiting maternal power over the decision to abort?

We just had the thread about Down's kids, but what about aborting a fetus due to its sex or race? If the fetus is a non-person, can such acts still be racist or sexist? Obviously, they might reveal racist or sexist attitudes, but such attitudes are not needed to motivate such abortions. It could be a pragmatic choice that one just doesn't want to deal with the factors that for whatever reasons come with raising one gender over another or a mixed race child over one of your own race.
If the motivation is not connected to general positive or negative attitudes toward a gender or race, then is it sexist or racist or some other unethical act to abort based partly on sex or race?

Feel free to postulate other motives that you think raise ethical concerns. It seems to me that the arguments that some put forth in the Downs' syndrome thread that killing a fetus has no ethical considerations, means that no form of selective-abortion eugenics could be considered unethical either.

Abortions that don't cause any pain to the fetus can and should be done for whatever reason the woman wants.

Then there is the question of methods. IF a fetus has no moral status as many pro-choicers assert, then it should not matter if you slowly abort the fetus via the most painful method imaginable. In contrast, if you find some methods unethical, then you are granting the fetus some level of moral status, so doesn't this make abortions for frivolous motives somewhat unethical?

If the abortion causes fetal pain, that pain should be weighed against the interests of the person(s) who decided to abort. I would argue that a fetus, along with any being generally, only has moral status inasmuch as it can have satisfied or frustrated preferences--these need not be conscious preferences, and can be intrinsic. Before a certain developmental point, the fetus does not qualify as a morally relevant being by this measure. In your example, if we accept that it is possible for the procedure to cause pain to the fetus, then by definition the fetus is at least capable of experiencing pain. It would be better to abort before then, but not necessarily wrong to abort afterward. If the person who wishes to abort has a strongly held preference to do so, even if it is for a frivolous reason, then it may be the case that her interests take precedence over the fetus' single preference not to be in pain, provided the pain is brief (and anesthesia is available anyway). I'm having a harder time coming up with a case where causing drawn-out, excruciating pain would be justified to satisfy the interests of the mother. Obviously, the magnitude and duration of preference-frustration (in this case, that of the fetus who, all things being equal, would rather not be in agonizing pain) is so high that only a dire need on the mother's part and no availability of alternate methods would suffice to permit an abortion like that.

I'm not trying to lay a trap here. I am exploring these ideas myself. I think there ought to be principled coherence in our ethical stances and I wonder whether most of us pro-choicers just blindly dismiss the question of ethics for abortion because we don't want more complex ethical concerns muddying the political stance of granting the mother full rights to decide.

I don't take any of the legal implications of abortion into account for my view on it, personally. Morally, anti-frustrationism (or Peter Singer's version, negative preference utilitarianism) is the system that explains my intuitions best, and I think it's coherent as well as consistent.

 

[doubtingt]

Abortions that don't cause any pain to the fetus can and should be done for whatever reason the woman wants.

So to clarify, there is no form of abortion-based eugenics that you find at all ethically questionable, so long as it is prior to the fetus feeling pain and each mother gets to decide whether to abort?
Also, a mother that intentionally gets pregnant just because she enjoys killing fetuses would not raise any ethical concerns?

Then there is the question of methods. IF a fetus has no moral status as many pro-choicers assert, then it should not matter if you slowly abort the fetus via the most painful method imaginable. In contrast, if you find some methods unethical, then you are granting the fetus some level of moral status, so doesn't this make abortions for frivolous motives somewhat unethical?

If the abortion causes fetal pain, that pain should be weighed against the interests of the person(s) who decided to abort. I would argue that a fetus, along with any being generally, only has moral status inasmuch as it can have satisfied or frustrated preferences--these need not be conscious preferences, and can be intrinsic.
Before a certain developmental point, the fetus does not qualify as a morally relevant being by this measure.

Agreed, but they do qualify by this measure at some point within the womb and being on either side of the birth canal has little to no relevance to whether they qualify by this measure.

In your example, if we accept that it is possible for the procedure to cause pain to the fetus, then by definition the fetus is at least capable of experiencing pain. It would be better to abort before then, but not necessarily wrong to abort afterward. If the person who wishes to abort has a strongly held preference to do so, even if it is for a frivolous reason, then it may be the case that her interests take precedence over the fetus' single preference not to be in pain, provided the pain is brief (and anesthesia is available anyway).

Why would the strength of the mother's preference matter but the frivolousness of the mother's reasons not matter? We never apply that approach to any other ethical issue. If I strongly want your wallet just because I enjoy seeing you suffer without money, that is unethical no matter how strong my preference is. In contrast, if I kind of want your wallet because I want to live and am dying of hunger, then most people would say that is less unethical. IOW, the reason why you do to harm to others generally matter much more for ethics than how strongly you prefer to engage in the act that harms them.

I'm having a harder time coming up with a case where causing drawn-out, excruciating pain would be justified to satisfy the interests of the mother.

Above, you implied that the nature of the mother's motivations do not matter for ethics, only how strongly she prefers to engage in the act. IF she has a strong preference to use a painful method (no matter how frivolous her reason for this preference), then shouldn't the strength of that preference (and not its nature or reasons) outweigh the pain the fetus experiences? This would apply even if her frivolous reason was a desire to cause as much pain as possible to the fetus.

 

[PyramidHead]

So to clarify, there is no form of abortion-based eugenics that you find at all ethically questionable, so long as it is prior to the fetus feeling pain and each mother gets to decide whether to abort?
Also, a mother that intentionally gets pregnant just because she enjoys killing fetuses would not raise any ethical concerns?

Correct on all points.

If the abortion causes fetal pain, that pain should be weighed against the interests of the person(s) who decided to abort. I would argue that a fetus, along with any being generally, only has moral status inasmuch as it can have satisfied or frustrated preferences--these need not be conscious preferences, and can be intrinsic.
Before a certain developmental point, the fetus does not qualify as a morally relevant being by this measure.

Agreed, but they do qualify by this measure at some point within the womb and being on either side of the birth canal has little to no relevance to whether they qualify by this measure.

True, which is why my argument extends to newborns.

Why would the strength of the mother's preference matter but the frivolousness of the mother's reasons not matter? We never apply that approach to any other ethical issue. If I strongly want your wallet just because I enjoy seeing you suffer without money, that is unethical no matter how strong my preference is. In contrast, if I kind of want your wallet because I want to live and am dying of hunger, then most people would say that is less unethical. IOW, the reason why you do to harm to others generally matter much more for ethics than how strongly you prefer to engage in the act that harms them.

I should have clarified, I'm not weighing preferences solely by how deeply a person consciously desires something; need comes into play, which takes into account other people's preferences as well. In your case, I would say that the person who needs the wallet to live has a stronger preference than the person who wants to see people suffer. Admittedly, preference strength is still a philosophically murky issue to define, but it is somewhere in the ballpark of 'to each according to need', less so 'to each according to want'

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Gender-selective abortions could be a social issue. *IF* there is an appreciable imbalance it's reasonable for the state to restrict them. (There are legitimate genetic reasons for gender-selective abortion so they shouldn't be banned outright.)

 

[Unbeatable]

This question is directed at those who (like myself) are in full support of the mother's legal right to abort for any reason, at least until the third tri-mester.

That legal right is an entirely separate question from whether there are any ethical implications of such abortions, since what is unethical is often (if not usually) legal and what is illegal can be ethical.
That said, it appears that most pro-choicers treat legality and ethics of abortion as the same question and largely presume without much analysis that since is should be legal, it is not unethical.

That's politics for you. What's the point of ethical arguments, if not to con lawmakers into forcing people to behave a certain way? That question is only half rhetorical.

We just had the thread about Down's kids, but what about aborting a fetus due to its sex or race?

Race isn't really as hard to predict prior to conception as sex, AFAIK. Which makes aborting due to race seem silly, but not unethical.

If the fetus is a non-person, can such acts still be racist or sexist?

Sure. Victimless acts can be racist or sexist. I'm not really in the "fetus is definitely a non-person" camp, though.

Obviously, they might reveal racist or sexist attitudes, but such attitudes are not needed to motivate such abortions. It could be a pragmatic choice that one just doesn't want to deal with the factors that for whatever reasons come with raising one gender over another or a mixed race child over one of your own race.

Certainly a sympathetic motivation. A nonexistent child is better than an unwanted child. I would hope that prospective parents consider all the factors that come with raising children. Just because a child is the "right" sex and race doesn't mean its creation will be without complications.

If the motivation is not connected to general positive or negative attitudes toward a gender or race, then is it sexist or racist or some other unethical act to abort based partly on sex or race?

Not as far as I can tell.

Feel free to postulate other motives that you think raise ethical concerns. It seems to me that the arguments that some put forth in the Downs' syndrome thread that killing a fetus has no ethical considerations, means that no form of selective-abortion eugenics could be considered unethical either.

I like the "abortion" part of selective-abortion eugenics. A child not being born is always a good outcome in my book. The particular traits being selected against only affect the particular degree of goodness. Likewise, the particular traits being selected for in those children who aren't aborted affects the degree of my disapproval towards a particular birth, but to some extent I disapprove of all births. There are in theory potential modifications to the human genome which would allow me to regard a given birth as a good thing, but selective-abortion eugenics is in inadequate method for making those modifications.

When the subject of eugenics comes up, the main objection I'd have is with the prospect of governmentally-enforced eugenics policies (as part of my overall concern about authoritarianism and caution about social engineering schemes), and even then, there are some governmentally-enforced eugenics policies I could conceivably approve of (mainly those regarding disabilities).

Then there is the question of methods. IF a fetus has no moral status as many pro-choicers assert, then it should not matter if you slowly abort the fetus via the most painful method imaginable.

I'm not really on board with the "no moral status" idea. Abortion, to me, is partially euthanasia, and I'd prefer to minimize pain in euthanasia.

I think there ought to be principled coherence in our ethical stances

I don't see what makes you think this is desirable, or even possible.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A woman's freedom to choose means that she has freedom to choose. It doesn't mean that she has freedom to choose as long as she has good reasons for her choice. If she thinks that men are superior and prefers a son, she can abort a female fetus without any issue. If she got drunk and unintentionally had sex with a black man and got knocked up, she can abort on the justification that she thinks there are already too many niggers in the world. If she's a serial killer who thinks that life begins at conception, she can constantly get pregnant solely to experience the psychotic thrill of murdering a baby.

There's nothing unethical about any of that. She's doing what she wants with her own body and there's no victim.

 

[arkirk]

A woman's freedom to choose means that she has freedom to choose. It doesn't mean that she has freedom to choose as long as she has good reasons for her choice. If she thinks that men are superior and prefers a son, she can abort a female fetus without any issue. If she got drunk and unintentionally had sex with a black man and got knocked up, she can abort on the justification that she thinks there are already too many niggers in the world. If she's a serial killer who thinks that life begins at conception, she can constantly get pregnant solely to experience the psychotic thrill of murdering a baby.

There's nothing unethical about any of that. She's doing what she wants with her own body and there's no victim.

Really? I think therapeutic abortion engages the assistance of others in "doing what she wants with her own body" and so she is not solely concerned with just herself. Does she have the right to engage in unsafe sex with numerous others? I think an abortion provider would feel his/her service was being disrespected if they could be ordered to perform abortions for a serial baby killer mother just for kicks. For such people, I feel sterilization may be in order. For those who say we must demand life for every fetus, what kind of future would a child have with a mother like the one Tom Sawyer described above. It would be hard to deny her an abortion for that reason, but it should be conditioned in some way as to end the practice.

Abortion is NOT a lightweight issue. Abortion providers get murdered and persecuted in parts of this country. They are not placing their lives on the line for mindless pursuits. Abortion is a life changing choice for a woman and not a free for all for people with perverse desires. I have known a number of people involved in abortion clinic work. Most of them feel their work has a moral component and WHAT THEY DO IS MORAL.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Really? I think therapeutic abortion engages the assistance of others in "doing what she wants with her own body" and so she is not solely concerned with just herself.

As long as she's not raping men to get pregnant, or making a pro-life doctor perform the abortion at gunpoint, how do her motives affect other people?

Does she have the right to engage in unsafe sex with numerous others?

That was kinda the whole point of the sexual revolution, so, yes.

I think an abortion provider would feel his/her service was being disrespected if they could be ordered to perform abortions for a serial baby killer mother just for kicks.

A disrespected abortionist? That's an interesting concept.
But what legal decision of her right to access abortions discusses her motives?
What part of any AMA code of conduct directs the provider to ascertain the motives of the patient? If she has a legal right to pancakes at IHOP, we don't task the waitress to see if she's healthy enough to eat them, or if she's a diabetic with a death wish.

For such people, I feel sterilization may be in order.

Well, that's interesting. The whole right to abortion is based on the state not owning her womb, but you'd legislate the state to have an interest in her ovaries?
Based on what?

It would be hard to deny her an abortion for that reason, but it should be conditioned in some way as to end the practice.

How? Based on what sort of legal precedent?

Abortion providers get murdered and persecuted in parts of this country. They are not placing their lives on the line for mindless pursuits.

No, they're risking their lives for a general legal right given to all women.
Wouldn't your approach to picking and choosing who gets that right be disrespecting the sacrifices of abortionists who have served the cause?

Abortion is a life changing choice for a woman and not a free for all for people with perverse desires.

Why not?
I mean, how do you distinguish between those who have the right and make the right choices, and those who shouldn't have the right because they'll make the wrong choices?

Would you deny the vote to anyone who votes based on gender? My cousin votes a straight-woman ticket. She'd vote for Palin just because she's an obsessive feminist. her husband votes for the man in any contest, if possible, just because he thinks he's supposed to counter his wife's lunacy.
Would you take their freedom to vote away because they're not using it right?

Or if they vote a straight white ticket?
Or if they flip a coin?

I have known a number of people involved in abortion clinic work. Most of them feel their work has a moral component and WHAT THEY DO IS MORAL.

GOOD For them. Seriously. But how does judging who gets the right become a moral decision?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A woman's freedom to choose means that she has freedom to choose. It doesn't mean that she has freedom to choose as long as she has good reasons for her choice. If she thinks that men are superior and prefers a son, she can abort a female fetus without any issue. If she got drunk and unintentionally had sex with a black man and got knocked up, she can abort on the justification that she thinks there are already too many niggers in the world. If she's a serial killer who thinks that life begins at conception, she can constantly get pregnant solely to experience the psychotic thrill of murdering a baby.

There's nothing unethical about any of that. She's doing what she wants with her own body and there's no victim.

Really? I think therapeutic abortion engages the assistance of others in "doing what she wants with her own body" and so she is not solely concerned with just herself. Does she have the right to engage in unsafe sex with numerous others? I think an abortion provider would feel his/her service was being disrespected if they could be ordered to perform abortions for a serial baby killer mother just for kicks. For such people, I feel sterilization may be in order. For those who say we must demand life for every fetus, what kind of future would a child have with a mother like the one Tom Sawyer described above. It would be hard to deny her an abortion for that reason, but it should be conditioned in some way as to end the practice.

Abortion is NOT a lightweight issue. Abortion providers get murdered and persecuted in parts of this country. They are not placing their lives on the line for mindless pursuits. Abortion is a life changing choice for a woman and not a free for all for people with perverse desires. I have known a number of people involved in abortion clinic work. Most of them feel their work has a moral component and WHAT THEY DO IS MORAL.

So, if another doctor has a job fixing broken arms, how many times do you feel that a person should be able to break his arm before it counts as disrespecting the doctor and the patient shouldn't be treated anymore?

The entire point is that it doesn't matter what the rationale behind her choice is. She does have the right to engage in unsafe sex with numerous others and then remove whatever diseases or parasites result as often as required. The doctor does not have the right to impose his own moral choices on the patient and limit care because he does not agree with the rationale behind her choice.

 

[fromderinside]

Really? I think therapeutic abortion engages the assistance of others in "doing what she wants with her own body" and so she is not solely concerned with just herself. Does she have the right to engage in unsafe sex with numerous others? I think an abortion provider would feel his/her service was being disrespected if they could be ordered to perform abortions for a serial baby killer mother just for kicks. For such people, I feel sterilization may be in order. For those who say we must demand life for every fetus, what kind of future would a child have with a mother like the one Tom Sawyer described above. It would be hard to deny her an abortion for that reason, but it should be conditioned in some way as to end the practice.

Abortion is NOT a lightweight issue. Abortion providers get murdered and persecuted in parts of this country. They are not placing their lives on the line for mindless pursuits. Abortion is a life changing choice for a woman and not a free for all for people with perverse desires. I have known a number of people involved in abortion clinic work. Most of them feel their work has a moral component and WHAT THEY DO IS MORAL.

So, if another doctor has a job fixing broken arms, how many times do you feel that a person should be able to break his arm before it counts as disrespecting the doctor and the patient shouldn't be treated anymore?

The entire point is that it doesn't matter what the rationale behind her choice is. She does have the right to engage in unsafe sex with numerous others and then remove whatever diseases or parasites result as often as required. The doctor does not have the right to impose his own moral choices on the patient and limit care because he does not agree with the rationale behind her choice.

Oh hell. Just implant her with a day after drip. Problem solved.

 

[Bomb#20]

A woman's freedom to choose means that she has freedom to choose. It doesn't mean that she has freedom to choose as long as she has good reasons for her choice. If she thinks that men are superior and prefers a son, she can abort a female fetus without any issue. If she got drunk and unintentionally had sex with a black man and got knocked up, she can abort on the justification that she thinks there are already too many niggers in the world. If she's a serial killer who thinks that life begins at conception, she can constantly get pregnant solely to experience the psychotic thrill of murdering a baby.

There's nothing unethical about any of that. She's doing what she wants with her own body and there's no victim.

...

So, if another doctor has a job fixing broken arms, how many times do you feel that a person should be able to break his arm before it counts as disrespecting the doctor and the patient shouldn't be treated anymore?

The entire point is that it doesn't matter what the rationale behind her choice is. She does have the right to engage in unsafe sex with numerous others and then remove whatever diseases or parasites result as often as required. The doctor does not have the right to impose his own moral choices on the patient and limit care because he does not agree with the rationale behind her choice.

A woman's freedom to choose means that she has freedom to choose. The entire point is that it doesn't matter what the rationale behind her choice is. Therefore, if the reason she keeps going back for abortion after abortion is that she soberly and intentionally has sex with black men in order to get knocked up so that the racist but squeamish white serial killers who think that life begins at conception whom she sells the use of her womb to can experience the psychotic thrill of paying a hitwoman to murder a black baby for them, even though she also is squeamish, and never ever sells her services to racist black serial killers who want to hire her to get knocked up by a white man so they can experience the psychotic thrill of paying a hitwoman to murder a white baby for them, that's her right and the doctor doesn't have the right to impose his own moral choices on her and limit care in order to not be a party to her practice. Is that what you're arguing?

 

[credoconsolans]

The woman's rationale doesn't matter. She has the right for an abortion, period.

You start wanting to know someone's rationale, that just leads down the slippery slope to judging people on their actions and then possibly wanting to restrict rights based on someone else's idea of what is right and wrong.

 

[The AntiChris]

A woman's freedom to choose means that she has freedom to choose. It doesn't mean that she has freedom to choose as long as she has good reasons for her choice. If she thinks that men are superior and prefers a son, she can abort a female fetus without any issue. If she got drunk and unintentionally had sex with a black man and got knocked up, she can abort on the justification that she thinks there are already too many niggers in the world. If she's a serial killer who thinks that life begins at conception, she can constantly get pregnant solely to experience the psychotic thrill of murdering a baby.

There's nothing unethical about any of that. She's doing what she wants with her own body and there's no victim.

...

So, if another doctor has a job fixing broken arms, how many times do you feel that a person should be able to break his arm before it counts as disrespecting the doctor and the patient shouldn't be treated anymore?

The entire point is that it doesn't matter what the rationale behind her choice is. She does have the right to engage in unsafe sex with numerous others and then remove whatever diseases or parasites result as often as required. The doctor does not have the right to impose his own moral choices on the patient and limit care because he does not agree with the rationale behind her choice.

A woman's freedom to choose means that she has freedom to choose. The entire point is that it doesn't matter what the rationale behind her choice is. Therefore, if the reason she keeps going back for abortion after abortion is that she soberly and intentionally has sex with black men in order to get knocked up so that the racist but squeamish white serial killers who think that life begins at conception whom she sells the use of her womb to can experience the psychotic thrill of paying a hitwoman to murder a black baby for them, even though she also is squeamish, and never ever sells her services to racist black serial killers who want to hire her to get knocked up by a white man so they can experience the psychotic thrill of paying a hitwoman to murder a white baby for them, that's her right and the doctor doesn't have the right to impose his own moral choices on her and limit care in order to not be a party to her practice. Is that what you're arguing?

Seems exactly that to me.

You appear to be agreeing with the woman's clients' view that terminating a pregnancy is a type of "murder". If, on the other hand, you don't accept that terminating a pregnancy is necessarily "murder", then it would follow that the woman's entrepreneurial tendencies are simply fulfilling the mistaken desires of "white serial killers".

 

[Bronzeage]

There are really only two defensible positions on this is issue.

1. Abortion is wrong and should not be allowed for any reason.

2. It doesn't matter if abortion is wrong or right and the reason does not matter either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are really only two defensible positions on this is issue.

1. Abortion is wrong and should not be allowed for any reason.

2. It doesn't matter if abortion is wrong or right and the reason does not matter either.

1) Self defense is still a valid reason even if it's a person.

1.5) There can be a point during the pregnancy it changes from #2 to #1.


3) *IF* there are too many gender-selective abortions it would be a problem. *IF* the imbalance is too great I wouldn't have an objection to a law against gender-selective abortions for non-medical reasons.

 

[Bronzeage]

There are really only two defensible positions on this is issue.

1. Abortion is wrong and should not be allowed for any reason.

2. It doesn't matter if abortion is wrong or right and the reason does not matter either.

1) Self defense is still a valid reason even if it's a person.

1.5) There can be a point during the pregnancy it changes from #2 to #1.


3) *IF* there are too many gender-selective abortions it would be a problem. *IF* the imbalance is too great I wouldn't have an objection to a law against gender-selective abortions for non-medical reasons.

Still just moral gymnastics. Suppose a mother is suicidal because she is pregnant. Would she be allowed a defensive abortion?

How many is too many? What is on the other side of the balance? Do we have a quota of gender selection abortions? One can't really create a moral principle base on what one would do, *IF*. Why would gender selection abortions be any different from an abortion desired because a pregnancy would interrupt a college graduation or a possible career advancement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Self defense is still a valid reason even if it's a person.

1.5) There can be a point during the pregnancy it changes from #2 to #1.


3) *IF* there are too many gender-selective abortions it would be a problem. *IF* the imbalance is too great I wouldn't have an objection to a law against gender-selective abortions for non-medical reasons.

Still just moral gymnastics. Suppose a mother is suicidal because she is pregnant. Would she be allowed a defensive abortion?

How many is too many? What is on the other side of the balance? Do we have a quota of gender selection abortions? One can't really create a moral principle base on what one would do, *IF*. Why would gender selection abortions be any different from an abortion desired because a pregnancy would interrupt a college graduation or a possible career advancement.

For evidence of a problem with gender-selective abortion look at China and India. Both are cultures that place a strong emphasis on sons, the result has been enough gender selection that tens of millions of men will never find wives. That's what I'm saying the state should prevent. So long as the number of gender selective abortions remains low this isn't an issue and no action should be taken.

 

[Bomb#20]

Is that what you're arguing?

Seems exactly that to me.

Yes, it does seem that's exactly what he's arguing. I asked because on its face, this appears inconsistent with principles he advocated in an earlier thread.

You appear to be agreeing with the woman's clients' view that terminating a pregnancy is a type of "murder".

I do? Not sure how you're getting that. Just because I and presumably the woman disagree with their view that it's a type of murder doesn't mean they fail to experience the psychotic thrill of paying for a murder. For them to get that thrill it's only necessary that they believe it's murder.

 

[The AntiChris]

Seems exactly that to me.

Yes, it does seem that's exactly what he's arguing. I asked because on its face, this appears inconsistent with principles he advocated in an earlier thread.

You appear to be agreeing with the woman's clients' view that terminating a pregnancy is a type of "murder".

I do? Not sure how you're getting that. Just because I and presumably the woman disagree with their view that it's a type of murder doesn't mean they fail to experience the psychotic thrill of paying for a murder. For them to get that thrill it's only necessary that they believe it's murder.

It's not clear to me what point you're attempting to make here.

Are you simply pointing out, what you perceive to be, an apparent inconsistency in Tom Sawyer's moral principles, or, are you are you presenting a hypothetical scenario which you believe challenges Tom Sawyer's claim that "it doesn't matter what the rationale behind her choice is"?

I'd assumed you were doing the latter and so I was attempting to show that your scenario doesn't present a problem for the general idea that a woman's reason for wanting to terminate is morally irrelevant.