Would you have an abortion? (1 Viewer)

[Captain pi]

i don't remember the exact 'cutoff' but i think it's through the first trimester (ie 12 weeks).…

If I remember correctly: in NSW, abortions are technically illegal (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): §§ 82, 83, 84); in practice, however, they are not enforced. The question of whether an abortion will be performed is at the discretion of the administering physician.

As to the question of abortion, I ask those opposed to abortion to answer me this: why is life (or human life) sacred? or: why should life (or human life) be protected?

To those who support abortion: why is the joy of sexual intercourse or the pleasure in having choice in one's actions superior to the potential happiness of a child?

Appendix​

It's also worth noting that many people have made assumptions about universal ethics. It is worth recalling the two divisions of ethics:

Consequentialism
Consequentialism is an ethical position that states that an action's ethical status (i.e. whether it is moral) is determined by the consequences (or expected consequences, or consideration of the probability of all consequences) of that action.
(Note: this is not a position wherein "You must suffer the consequences."; it is a position where, if an action produces an unfavourable result, it is considered unethical.)

Utilitarianism
A popular strand of consequentialism is utilitarianism. This position holds that an action is ethical if and only if it produces the maximum happiness for all. Of course, there are two difficulties with applying utilitarianism: the definitions of "happiness" and "for all". Especially relevant to this debate is the definition of "for all"—since inclusion or exclusion of the foetus would seriously sway the conclusion.

Deontological Ethics
Deontological systems of ethics are systems whereby the ethical status of an action is determined by its adherence to a set of rules (for a good example, the Ten Commandments). These rules can never be transgressed, even when the expected ethical payout is infinite; (this last clause is the distinguishing feature beween deontology and consequentialism).

The main problem with deontology is in the origin of that set of rules. It would be convenient if they came from some omniscient or omnisapient being; but this cannot always be guaranteed! Generally, deontological ethics have some consequentialism foundation; for instance, we may argue like this:

1. People who drive cars at 200 km/h in a school zone will probably cause the death of a child.
2. We must censure actions which cause children to be killed
3. Therefore, we must censure whomsoever drives at 200km/h in a school zone.

Notice that this syllogism is not entirely valid. The transitive "actions which cause children to be killed", which allows us to make a conclusion, was actually "[action] will probably cause the death of a child". This is a slight flaw in deontological ethics being consistent; (nevertheless, a consequentialist may support a deontological form of ethics (i.e. a legal system) to make ethical decisions more efficient).

I might post some consequentialist arguments and deontological syllogisms up later. It's still worth considering the above.

 

[withoutaface]

To the anti abortionists, let me summarise my argument. There are 3 possible stances:
1. You do not support the abortion of rape victims' babies, in which case you support forcing them to spend 9 months with that in their system as a constant reminder.
2. You support the abortion of rape victims' babies, and since killing a foetus is murder in your eyes, you therefore support murder of an innocent.
3. You accept that abortion is not murder, and hence have a morally tenable position by supporting it.

 

[YBK]

1. You do not support the abortion of rape victims' babies, in which case you support forcing them to spend 9 months with that in their system as a constant reminder.

That is my stance.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

That is my stance.

Are you religious by any chance?

 

[YBK]

Are you religious by any chance?

Yes, I'm catholic.

But my position on this topic is due to some research and my moral values.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes, I'm catholic.

But my position on this topic is due to some research and my moral values.

No your position is based on your religion, it's obvious... What sort of research have you done? I mean you say it is due to your moral values... for me when I looked into this, I was worried about pain... after doing some research, I came to the realisation that there is no pain, no self awareness - nothing.

I'm just wondering which criteria you are using to assess your research.

 

[Captain pi]

Yes, I'm catholic.

But my position on this topic is due to some research and my moral values.

What "values" are those? Are you a consequentialist?

 

[YBK]

No your position is based on your religion, it's obvious... What sort of research have you done? I mean you say it is due to your moral values... for me when I looked into this, I was worried about pain... after doing some research, I came to the realisation that there is no pain, no self awareness - nothing.

I'm just wondering which criteria you are using to assess your research.

It is not the pain that the baby feels. You could kill a man without causing any pain whatsoever, does that justify it? Also you have to realize that not all all abortions are done perfectly, it's not always painless.


I've already posted in an attempt to justify to you that the fetus is living earlier in this thread.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It is not the pain that the baby feels. You could kill a man without causing any pain whatsoever, does that justify it? Also you have to realize that not all all abortions are done perfectly, it's not always painless.

Oh I have no trouble really with killing something which has not even begun to be aware of its self or its surroundings... your situation is quite different.

I again still wonder which criteria you are using to assess your research, you say you have researched this issue extensively... what were your criterias? Were you looking to find out whether or not a foetus is a biological human, because it is your belief that all biological humans (same dna) should not be killed? If so, why was that your criteria?

 

[glycerine]

It is not the pain that the baby feels. You could kill a man without causing any pain whatsoever, does that justify it? Also you have to realize that not all all abortions are done perfectly, it's not always painless.


I've already posted in an attempt to justify to you that the fetus is living earlier in this thread.

1.) you will never be in the position of being raped and becoming pregnant as a result. yes you may understand the emotional position of a rape victim, that's not limited to one gender, but pregnancy as a result IS. how can you possibly put the wellbeing of an unborn child above that of an already living, breathing human being? if a rape victim chooses to carry the child to term more power to her, but anyone who judges a woman who chooses differently is, simply, a fucking gronk.

2.) ummm you obviously don't know much about abortions as they are performed within the bounds of the law in australia. you know why it's painless? BECAUSE LAWFUL ABORTION OCCURS BEFORE THE CHILD EVEN HAS A PAIN REFLEX! THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THE *ABILITY* TO FEEL PAIN! the exception to this is a) second and third trimester abortions which are only performed when the risk to the mother's health is exceptional (ie fatal or close to it) and b) illegal abortions performed by non-licensed practicioners. and i don't think anyone champions option b).

 

[anita_wax]

atm i have no interest for kids or having one, i find them a nuiscance and could not stand having one for myself.

 

[withoutaface]

That is my stance.

You do realise that forcing a woman to do such a thing would most likely destroy her life don't you?

 

[glycerine]

fuck justin i just sat here for like 5 minutes completely entranced by your icon :s

 

[glycerine]

http://www.womensservices.com/Information/tabid/61/Default.aspx

someone just posted this on my lj friends list, i thought it was a good, relevant read

 

[glycerine]

HAHAHAHAHA, it is rather hypnotic.
Such a slow, sensual thrusting motion.

stop it, you're turning me on.

 

[withoutaface]

He's mine! MINE I TELL YOU!

 

[*Minka*]

That is my stance.

Gender: Male.

Says it all. You are not ever going to get pregnant from rape.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Gender: Female

Says it all. You suck cock.

 

[Lundy]

Pfft. That icon is old. I'm sure someone else here has had it before. WAF sucks at life.

 

[aurelia jejune]

I do not know <I>what</i> everyone is talking about now, but yes, I would have an abortion if I was pregnant. It would be devastating for me, but I just can't imagine being able to do the best I can for my baby and myself at 16.