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

[Bronzeage]

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.

This introduces abortion restrictions based upon the predicted misery of tens of thousands of bachelors. Somehow it seems strange to decline to restrict abortion on the sanctity of life, but then restricted it for the quality of life of men who may not be able to find sex partners.

 

[Bomb#20]

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"?

Neither. I wasn't attempting to make a point. I was attempting to find out if Tom would say yes or no to the question I asked him. Points come later. People aren't inconsistent in a vacuum; people are inconsistent because they're kidding themselves about their real reasons for their moral judgments. Exploring an inconsistency and watching how somebody attempts to reconcile his positions is a window onto his real reasons.

This isn't just about Tom. Lots of people share the view he expressed. Their stated reasons make very little sense; and as Judge Judy is fond of saying, if something doesn't make sense it isn't true. Finding out the true reason is important. How do you persuade somebody he's wrong if the argument you're refuting isn't what convinces him he's right?

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.

No, of course not -- that scenario was constructed to invoke the principle he advocated in the other thread. The general idea that a woman's reason for wanting to terminate is morally irrelevant is ridiculous on its face -- motives are the primary stomping ground of morality. Presenting a problem for that general idea doesn't call for anything so complex. Suppose a woman's reason to abort is because if she has a baby then her brother won't inherit so he won't murder their father for his money, and she hates the old man. That's morally irrelevant?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

This introduces abortion restrictions based upon the predicted misery of tens of thousands of bachelors. Somehow it seems strange to decline to restrict abortion on the sanctity of life, but then restricted it for the quality of life of men who may not be able to find sex partners.

I'm saying it would be reasonable to do so *IF* there is enough of an imbalance. I'm not saying we should do it now.

 

[The AntiChris]

Suppose a woman's reason to abort is because if she has a baby then her brother won't inherit so he won't murder their father for his money, and she hates the old man. That's morally irrelevant?

I'm not sure what you're implying here.

Are you suggesting that in such a case, moral pressure should be brought to bear on the woman not to abort and to have a child she doesn't want? I'd have thought the real moral problem here is the woman's vicious hatred of her father and her brother's murderous inclinations, neither of which would be addressed by persuading her not to abort.

 

[Bronzeage]

This introduces abortion restrictions based upon the predicted misery of tens of thousands of bachelors. Somehow it seems strange to decline to restrict abortion on the sanctity of life, but then restricted it for the quality of life of men who may not be able to find sex partners.

I'm saying it would be reasonable to do so *IF* there is enough of an imbalance. I'm not saying we should do it now.

"Reasonable" requires a reason. You just put the future contentment of men on the list of reasons to prohibit abortions.

 

[Unbeatable]

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.

This introduces abortion restrictions based upon the predicted misery of tens of thousands of bachelors.

What if the presence of tens of millions of bachelors has negative impacts upon people beyond the bachelors themselves? For example, perhaps it results in increased demand for human trafficking. I don't know if Loren Pechtel has considered that, but he does say "enough of an imbalance". Enough for what? If there's some tipping point, then presumably it isn't just the misery of the bachelors that is at stake here. I certainly wouldn't expect one of Loren's arguments to be based ultimately upon a concern for human suffering.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm saying it would be reasonable to do so *IF* there is enough of an imbalance. I'm not saying we should do it now.

"Reasonable" requires a reason. You just put the future contentment of men on the list of reasons to prohibit abortions.

A reason to prohibit sex-selection abortions, not all abortions.

Is it really that big a problem to have a child of the other gender?

Whereas the large numbers of men who can't find wives cause very real social problems.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

No, of course not -- that scenario was constructed to invoke the principle he advocated in the other thread. The general idea that a woman's reason for wanting to terminate is morally irrelevant is ridiculous on its face -- motives are the primary stomping ground of morality. Presenting a problem for that general idea doesn't call for anything so complex. Suppose a woman's reason to abort is because if she has a baby then her brother won't inherit so he won't murder their father for his money, and she hates the old man. That's morally irrelevant?

Ya, that's morally irrelevant. There's no victim and she's doing what she wants with her own body, so it doesn't matter from an ethical point of view. If she's aware that her brother is trying to murder their father and doesn't try to stop this, then that would be immoral but making a decision about her abortion decisions aren't relevant to that.

I don't know what you think my position here has to do with my position on that unrelated issue in the other thread, but say what you think the relationship is if you like, but I don't actually see them as being similar matters.

 

[Bronzeage]

"Reasonable" requires a reason. You just put the future contentment of men on the list of reasons to prohibit abortions.

A reason to prohibit sex-selection abortions, not all abortions.

Is it really that big a problem to have a child of the other gender?

Whereas the large numbers of men who can't find wives cause very real social problems.

Social engineering by controlling who can have an abortion and who can't, is generally called eugenics. The idea of eugenics has fallen out of favor because the science upon which it was based was largely discredited. Basing a new eugenics on social science doesn't seem to be any better founded.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A reason to prohibit sex-selection abortions, not all abortions.

Is it really that big a problem to have a child of the other gender?

Whereas the large numbers of men who can't find wives cause very real social problems.

Social engineering by controlling who can have an abortion and who can't, is generally called eugenics. The idea of eugenics has fallen out of favor because the science upon which it was based was largely discredited. Basing a new eugenics on social science doesn't seem to be any better founded.

How is this eugenics? If anything it's preventing eugenics!

 

[Bomb#20]

This introduces abortion restrictions based upon the predicted misery of tens of thousands of bachelors. Somehow it seems strange to decline to restrict abortion on the sanctity of life, but then restricted it for the quality of life of men who may not be able to find sex partners.

Huh? What's strange about that? "Sanctity of life" is a make-believe reason; it's superstition. An embryo isn't a person. Quality of life of people in the future is a real reason; it's utilitarianism.

"Reasonable" requires a reason. You just put the future contentment of men on the list of reasons to prohibit abortions.

He really didn't. You can't suppress sex-selection abortions by prohibiting them -- people who want one will just lie about their reasons. What you can do to suppress sex-selection abortions is prohibit medical clinics from telling parents whether they're going to have boys or girls. So actually he put the future contentment of men on the list of reasons to restrict information flow.

 

[Bomb#20]

Suppose a woman's reason to abort is because if she has a baby then her brother won't inherit so he won't murder their father for his money, and she hates the old man. That's morally irrelevant?

I'm not sure what you're implying here.

Are you suggesting that in such a case, moral pressure should be brought to bear on the woman not to abort and to have a child she doesn't want? I'd have thought the real moral problem here is the woman's vicious hatred of her father and her brother's murderous inclinations, neither of which would be addressed by persuading her not to abort.

No, what I'm implying is that morally the doctor has every right "to impose his own moral choices on the patient and limit care" because he does not agree to participate in the woman's attempt to bring about her father's murder.

 

[Bomb#20]

Suppose a woman's reason to abort is because if she has a baby then her brother won't inherit so he won't murder their father for his money, and she hates the old man. That's morally irrelevant?

Ya, that's morally irrelevant. There's no victim and she's doing what she wants with her own body, so it doesn't matter from an ethical point of view. If she's aware that her brother is trying to murder their father and doesn't try to stop this, then that would be immoral but making a decision about her abortion decisions aren't relevant to that.

That was a question for AntiChris; I take it you don't intend to answer the question I asked you. Such is life. There's no victim? There are two victims, obviously. "Doesn't try to stop this", you call it?!? We're not talking about a sin of omission here. If she does nothing then her brother won't carry out his nefarious plan; she's actively choosing to get an impediment out of his way in order to tip the balance in his calculations and incline him to go through with it. So of course the father is a victim. The other victim is the doctor, whom you propose to put in the position of having to knowingly help cause a murder to take place.

I don't know what you think my position here has to do with my position on that unrelated issue in the other thread, but say what you think the relationship is if you like, but I don't actually see them as being similar matters.

Of course you don't. That's what comes of western culture having transplanted itself into the la-la land where walking away from somebody is considered "imposing" on him and the right to pull your nose out of the way ends at the reach of somebody else's fist.

"A woman's freedom to choose means that she has freedom to choose.", you say. So her freedom matters to you? "She's doing what she wants with her own body", you say. What, you think a woman owns her body? "The entire point is that it doesn't matter what the rationale behind her choice is.", you say. Are you suggesting, in all seriousness, that her uterus is not just another resource for the state to deploy in whatever manner it sees fit? And right after all that, you say "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." So the doctor's freedom evidently doesn't matter to you. You don't treat him as owning his body. Apparently it's up to you (presumably along with the rest of the voters) to determine what his hands will be used for.

So why the difference? What makes a pregnant woman a first-class citizen with real rights, and a doctor a second-class citizen put here as a living tool to serve the choices of the first-class? It appears for all the world that the reason you discriminate against the doctor is your three little words, "has a job", as though to take a job is to surrender to the collective your ownership of your body. You are making it look like in your head, "freedom to choose" means freedom to choose whether or not one has good reasons and the entire point is that it doesn't matter what the rationale behind the choice is, provided one isn't selling anything. But the moment one is selling something, one's freedom vanishes in a puff of hippy disdain for the bourgeoisie, or aristocratic contempt for tradesmen, or hunter-gatherer hostility to farmers, or whatever else it is that makes so many people think the freedom to trade with other consenting adults doesn't count as a real freedom.

In the other thread you were very explicit that your entire point was that it absolutely does matter what the rationale behind the choice is, if she's a prostitute. Then she can do anything she bloody well pleases with her own vagina provided her rationale for her choices isn't on society's list of unacceptable rationales.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.
...
A reason to prohibit sex-selection abortions, not all abortions.

Is it really that big a problem to have a child of the other gender?

Whereas the large numbers of men who can't find wives cause very real social problems.

In India, yes, it really is that big a problem to have a child of the other gender. The reason there are so many sex-selection abortions is because having girls causes a very real social problem. For a lot of families living on the margin of poverty, having a son means getting social security and having a daughter is an economic catastrophe. Not only do you not get a son who'll consider it his duty to take care of you in your old age, you're expected to somehow save enough for a socially acceptable dowry and then give it away to the family your daughter will be taking care of in their old age. Suppressing sex-selection abortion solves the imbalance problem at the cost of leaving a lot more families destitute. What India needs to do to solve the imbalance problem is abolish dowries, enact real social security, and stop thinking of a wife as the property of her husband's parents.

 

[The AntiChris]

I'm not sure what you're implying here.

Are you suggesting that in such a case, moral pressure should be brought to bear on the woman not to abort and to have a child she doesn't want? I'd have thought the real moral problem here is the woman's vicious hatred of her father and her brother's murderous inclinations, neither of which would be addressed by persuading her not to abort.

No,

You say "No", but...

what I'm implying is that morally the doctor has every right "to impose his own moral choices on the patient and limit care" because he does not agree to participate in the woman's attempt to bring about her father's murder.

The upshot is exactly the same - a woman would be denied an abortion and effectively forced to have a child she doesn't want.

It seems to me that if the doctor genuinely believed that there was a strong possibility that the abortion would result in the brother murdering his father (the mind boggles!) the doctor's duty is to go to the police with his suspicions and not to deny the woman a termination.

 

[doubtingt]

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.

"It doesn't matter", in terms of what? One can feel that it doesn't matter in terms of the mother always having the ultimate choice legally, and yet feel it does matter morally and that it is other people's business (and maybe even moral duty) to influence the mothers choice by the same forms of informal social pressure we use to shape ethics in general. In addition, it is perfectly reasonable to vary how one feels about the morals or ethics of abortions depending upon the reasons for the action.

It is highly similar to how parents choose to raise their kids. There are countless things that parents could tell to or expose their kids to that reasonable people would find unethical to a degree that it would impact what they say and how they interact with those parents, and yet they wouldn't want it to be a crime for parents to do these things. And the reasons for parents doing these things matters. Is it unethical or should it be illegal for a parent to scream at their child, grab their arm, and push them to the ground? Depends entirely upon the reasons for doing so. If its to stop them from getting hit by a bus or to prevent them from causing harm to another child, then its fine, but its done because the parent doesn't like the inconvenience of the kid asking for ice cream, then it isn't fine, its unethical. If they do it only once in a lapse of composure, then maybe it shouldn't be a crime, but if they do it constantly, then it is.

The difference between a 3 year old and a fetus is the degree of moral status granted to it as a living thing worthy of respect and protection from needless abuse.
Granting a fetus any degree of moral status, means that some abortion acts would be unethical (even is still legal), and possibly that some could even be illegal as well.
Granting a fetus some degree of moral status as a living thing seems a more reasonable and internally coherent position, than granting it zero status (the same as a rock and lower than most people give a squirrel), while also granting a 1 second old baby the highest possible moral status.

Thus, it seems perfectly if not the most reasonable position to favor legal choice, perhaps in all possible cases, and yet finding some acts of abortion unethical similar to killing a litter of puppies because you can't be bothered to find homes for them.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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?

Certainly there are. Bomb#20 already provided one scenario in which motives cross an ethical line: aborting a fetus in order to get one's father murdered just because one hates him is immoral.

 

[doubtingt]

Ya, that's morally irrelevant. There's no victim and she's doing what she wants with her own body, so it doesn't matter from an ethical point of view. If she's aware that her brother is trying to murder their father and doesn't try to stop this, then that would be immoral but making a decision about her abortion decisions aren't relevant to that.

That was a question for AntiChris; I take it you don't intend to answer the question I asked you. Such is life. There's no victim? There are two victims, obviously. "Doesn't try to stop this", you call it?!? We're not talking about a sin of omission here. If she does nothing then her brother won't carry out his nefarious plan; she's actively choosing to get an impediment out of his way in order to tip the balance in his calculations and incline him to go through with it. So of course the father is a victim. The other victim is the doctor, whom you propose to put in the position of having to knowingly help cause a murder to take place.

I don't know what you think my position here has to do with my position on that unrelated issue in the other thread, but say what you think the relationship is if you like, but I don't actually see them as being similar matters.

Of course you don't. That's what comes of western culture having transplanted itself into the la-la land where walking away from somebody is considered "imposing" on him and the right to pull your nose out of the way ends at the reach of somebody else's fist.

"A woman's freedom to choose means that she has freedom to choose.", you say. So her freedom matters to you? "She's doing what she wants with her own body", you say. What, you think a woman owns her body? "The entire point is that it doesn't matter what the rationale behind her choice is.", you say. Are you suggesting, in all seriousness, that her uterus is not just another resource for the state to deploy in whatever manner it sees fit? And right after all that, you say "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." So the doctor's freedom evidently doesn't matter to you. You don't treat him as owning his body. Apparently it's up to you (presumably along with the rest of the voters) to determine what his hands will be used for.

So why the difference? What makes a pregnant woman a first-class citizen with real rights, and a doctor a second-class citizen put here as a living tool to serve the choices of the first-class? It appears for all the world that the reason you discriminate against the doctor is your three little words, "has a job", as though to take a job is to surrender to the collective your ownership of your body. You are making it look like in your head, "freedom to choose" means freedom to choose whether or not one has good reasons and the entire point is that it doesn't matter what the rationale behind the choice is, provided one isn't selling anything. But the moment one is selling something, one's freedom vanishes in a puff of hippy disdain for the bourgeoisie, or aristocratic contempt for tradesmen, or hunter-gatherer hostility to farmers, or whatever else it is that makes so many people think the freedom to trade with other consenting adults doesn't count as a real freedom.

In the other thread you were very explicit that your entire point was that it absolutely does matter what the rationale behind the choice is, if she's a prostitute. Then she can do anything she bloody well pleases with her own vagina provided her rationale for her choices isn't on society's list of unacceptable rationales.

I think Tom is operating under the idea that health care is a basic resource that all should have access to. If a person chooses a profession in supplying such a basic resource, then they forfeit certain rights in deciding how they perform that task, other than the right to stop serving that role entirely. It is like the utility companies. Should the CEO of a utility company be able to say that they will not send electricity to the homes of people they find morally objectionable? What if he decides to cut off the electricity for homes that use it to watch legal porn? The same goes for cops, and firemen, etc..
Basically, some service sectors are treated as providing things to people to which they have a basic and equal right, and the employee has the right not to do that as their job, but if they agree to do it, then they forfeit the right to personally decide for whom and under what conditions they do it.

 

[doubtingt]

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, then you feel the same way about someone killing puppies or chimps for the simple thrill of it?

If not, then you must recognize that "a victim" doesn't require legal personhood. Puppies, chimps, and fetuses are all living things, but chimps and puppies are no more (in fact, much less) closer to having legal personhood than a fetus. So, it is irrational an inconsistent to consider it unethical to kill chimps but not a fetus for the mere thrill of it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

In the other thread you were very explicit that your entire point was that it absolutely does matter what the rationale behind the choice is, if she's a prostitute. Then she can do anything she bloody well pleases with her own vagina provided her rationale for her choices isn't on society's list of unacceptable rationales.

That's because there is somebody who is not her that is affected by her decision. In the case of an abortion, there's not. Your example is akin to having a situation where some guy will kill his father if his sister gets a mole removed and thinking that this example is somehow related to the moral question of whether or not one should remove moles.

There's really not a relation between the stances in the two threads.