Discussion Why is abortion moral?

[Syniq]

In order to give it up for adoption you'd have to have it first. Birth can be a traumatic and expensive experience especially in the US, not all mothers have the money to pay those fees. They're sometimes up to over 15k. Thats crazy shit.

A natural consequence, something that could have been avoided.

 

[limo8]

What? Sorry, for my misunderstanding. What does "logic good bad god"

The belief in them is subjective; however, the ideas within themselves maybe objective.

objective = subjective

 

[Syniq]

objective = subjective

Type shit

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

So it's moral because they aren't able to have consciousness yet? Imagine a baby is born, and it doesn't yet have a conscious. Would it be moral to kill it?

Someone being indifferent to it's life, does not inquire you can do what you please with it.

Well first of all, once a baby is born it typically does have some kind of conscience so that's different, and second of all nbd is doing that. Abortions are done in early pregnancy.

 

[Br4va]

I get what youre saying, but shit happens. Condoms break, birth control cycles go off, and then youre left pregnant. Doesn't even mean the woman is a whore. Could with be her first and only boyfriend.

Sex shouldn’t be entertainment. At least not to the level where you are doing it with new people every day / week

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

Sex shouldn’t be entertainment. At least not to the level where you are doing it with new people every day / week

I believe sex is only ok as entertainement with your partner. If youre doing it with new people every week, then yes, I agree that pregnancy is absoloutely your fault and that is not appropriate behaviour, but for many women who get abortions that is not the case.

 

[Syniq]

Well first of all, once a baby is born it typically does have some kind of conscience so that's different, and second of all nbd is doing that. Abortions are done in early pregnancy.

It's a hypothetical. For this, they do not any conscience.

NBD? Never heard of it, sorry.

And I'm using your logic: If something doesn't posses conscience and hadn't lived a life before, it means it can be killed

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

A natural consequence, something that could have been avoided.

Sometimes, not always.

 

[Syniq]

Sometimes, not always.

In this case, it was not r**e or anything forceful.

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

It's a hypothetical. For this, they do not any conscience.

NBD? Never heard of it, sorry.

And I'm using your logic: If something doesn't posses conscience and hadn't lived a life before, it means it can be killed

Nbd standard for nobody, and my "logic" can not just be generalised and applied to anything. Im not saying a fetus can "just be killed" I simply believe that in certain specific situations a womans life is worth more than that of something that does not posses conscience. Tldr the life of something with conscience, a past and a future is of greater importance than that of something with none.

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

In this case, it was not r**e or anything forceful.

Condom breaking, or any form of contraception including birth control not working for whatever reason.

 

[Syniq]

Nbd standard for nobody, and my "logic" can not just be generalised and applied to anything. Im not saying a fetus can "just be killed" I simply believe that in certain specific situations a womans life is worth more than that of something that does not posses conscience. Tldr the life of something with conscience, a past and a future is of greater importance than that of something with none.

So this logic can only be applied to fetuses? Why?

Will the fetus not have a past and future once it is born

The woman's life is not in danger in this situation let's say. My fault not making it clear. Here I'll set out a situation


The woman is healthy
The fetus is not from r**e
The woman will not die

 

[Syniq]

Condom breaking, or any form of contraception including birth control not working for whatever reason.

Still could've been avoided. Do not have sex

 

[Br4va]

I believe sex is only ok as entertainement with your partner. If youre doing it with new people every week, then yes, I agree that pregnancy is absoloutely your fault and that is not appropriate behaviour, but for many women who get abortions that is not the case.

Agreed

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

So this logic can only be applied to fetuses? Why?

Will the fetus not have a past and future once it is born

The woman's life is not in danger in this situation let's say. My fault not making it clear. Here I'll set out a situation


The woman is healthy
The fetus is not from r**e
The woman will not die

I think if the womans life is not in danger that changes things a little although I do still believe there are very certain hyperspecific situations in which abortion is still appropriate. It should eb legal at least as everyone deserves autonomy over their body.

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

Still could've been avoided. Do not have sex

Right, but i think that's unrealistic for most of the world.

 

[Syniq]

I think if the womans life is not in danger that changes things a little although I do still believe there are very certain hyperspecific situations in which abortion is still appropriate. It should eb legal at least as everyone deserves autonomy over their body.

Does that right leave everyone to the standard of acceptable murder?

If a baby is born, the mother has right over her breast and milk. Is it righteous for her to leave him to starve because she has autonomy over her body?

 

[Syniq]

Right, but i think that's unrealistic for most of the world.

Still, doesn't make it more moral. Something being realistic doesn't change the moral situation at hand.

Like, it's unrealistic for a serial killer to not exist. It does not make it moral for him to kill

 

[Overthrown]

So it being conscience makes it have a higher moral value? By that standard, people in comas can be killed.

Also, is the potential of life not great in moral value too?

people in commas do not deserve to be killed because their perspective is consciousness, and then nothingness. They had prior consciousness. When it comes to a fetus, it nothingness. So terminating it is just continued nothingness.

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

Does that right leave everyone to the standard of acceptable murder?

If a baby is born, the mother has right over her breast and milk. Is it righteous for her to leave him to starve because she has autonomy over her body?

But were not talking about once the baby is born though, we're talking about when the baby is in the stomach. Once the baby is born that's a full fledged human being, in stages where it can still be aborted its not. A woman has a right to remove herself from the equation because that's her body. No one should be forced to go through with pregnancy. I mean have you heard how traumatic pregnancy can be? I mean not even mentioning the 9 months of torture keading up to it, the delivery can and do be horrible. I mean that rips women open down there completely sometimes in bad cases. Post partum depression is also a thing that can in some cases lead to suicide. Pregnancy is not a one and done thing.

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

Still, doesn't make it more moral. Something being realistic doesn't change the moral situation at hand.

Like, it's unrealistic for a serial killer to not exist. It does not make it moral for him to kill

Nearly everyone has sex, not nearly everyone is a serial killer. Serial killing is not a completely normal and natural thing, sex is.

 

[Syniq]

people in commas do not deserve to be killed because their perspective is consciousness, and then nothingness. They had prior consciousness. When it comes to a fetus, it nothingness. So terminating it is just continued nothingness.

This just ignores the potential of life. It is not in a state of nothingness forever.

 

[Syniq]

But were not talking about once the baby is born though, we're talking about when the baby is in the stomach. Once the baby is born that's a full fledged human being, in stages where it can still be aborted its not. A woman has a right to remove herself from the equation because that's her body. No one should be forced to go through with pregnancy. I mean have you heard how traumatic pregnancy can be? I mean not even mentioning the 9 months of torture keading up to it, the delivery can and do be horrible. I mean that rips women open down there completely sometimes in bad cases. Post partum depression is also a thing that can in some cases lead to suicide. Pregnancy is not a one and done thing.

Why cannot we not apply the right to anatomy over a baby, but for a fetus we can?

Also, again, natural consequences. They took the risk, the risk being pregnancy.

 

[Syniq]

Nearly everyone has sex, not nearly everyone is a serial killer. Serial killing is not a completely normal and natural thing, sex is.

It doesn't deduct from my argument. If something is unrealistic, it does not make it less immoral.

It is natural. Natural: "in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something" Someone can have it within their nature or be shaped by their circumstances to kill

 

[Overthrown]

This just ignores the potential of life. It is not in a state of nothingness forever.

But we don’t grant rights based on potential. If we did, the fetus would be given the right to vote or drive a car. We grant them based on our current circumstances, and in the case of the fetus it doesn’t have consciousness.

 

[Syniq]

But we don’t grant rights based on potential. If we did, the fetus would be given the right to vote or drive a car. We grant them based on our current circumstances, and in the case of the fetus it doesn’t have consciousness.

Those are 2 very different things. They require skill and IQ. Being alive requires cells.

Also, does life always mean consciousness? By that defintion, a guy in coma is dead.

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

Why cannot we not apply the right to anatomy over a baby, but for a fetus we can?

Also, again, natural consequences. They took the risk, the risk being pregnancy.

The baby can survive without its host, the host being the mother, the fetus cannot. It is not capable of surviving without the mother and therefore doesn't have the same right to anatomy as an outside of womb baby does. And while I agree that the mother of course took the risk fo pregnancy and that should not be ignored, that doesnt mean she should be forced to go through with it, simply because it'd be cruel if she doesn't want to. Thats like a roller coaster accident happening and then not sympathising with the victims because they "took the risk". Same thing goes for a plane crash. You have to take risks to live life. Sometimes those risks end up in consequences you didn't perceive as likely. Sometimes you have to endure the consequences, but when they're this severe, if there's a way to prevent them, we should.

 

[Deleted Member 123330]

Inform me

what

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

It doesn't deduct from my argument. If something is unrealistic, it does not make it less immoral.

It is natural. Natural: "in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something" Someone can have it within their nature or be shaped by their circumstances to kill

But sex isn't immoral whatsoever. Some even consider it a human need.

 

[Syniq]

The baby can survive without its host, the host being the mother, the fetus cannot. It is not capable of surviving without the mother and therefore doesn't have the same right to anatomy as an outside of womb baby does. And while I agree that the mother of course took the risk fo pregnancy and that should not be ignored, that doesnt mean she should be forced to go through with it, simply because it'd be cruel if she doesn't want to. Thats like a roller coaster accident happening and then not sympathising with the victims because they "took the risk". Same thing goes for a plane crash. You have to take risks to live life. Sometimes those risks end up in consequences you didn't perceive as likely. Sometimes you have to endure the consequences, but when they're this severe, if there's a way to prevent them, we should.

The baby cannot survive on it's own. It requires food for survival, that food being it's mothers milk. A fetus survives in it's natural environment. Put anyone in space and they die because it's not natural towards them.


By that reason, a serial killer shouldn't be forced to experience punishment for killing even tho they took the risk. The disasters that you pointed out are different. They do not involve taking someone's life. I do have empathy for pregnant women, I just do think it is moral righteous for someone to take another life for their pleasure.

 

[Overthrown]

Those are 2 very different things. They require skill and IQ. Being alive requires cells.

I think what you’re getting at is that a human being regardless if it’s conscious or not, deserves the right to life? If I’m not mistaken

Also, does life always mean consciousness? By that defintion, a guy in coma is dead.

Well when you’re in a coma, you are unconscious but you’re still considered alive because all of your organs can function and you still have the potential to recover. So I think there is definitely nuance to what qualifies as a life, including having fully functional organs/a body that can sustain itself and as well as having consciousness.

 

[Syniq]

But sex isn't immoral whatsoever. Some even consider it a human need

I laughed so much at this. I don't even know why, you're right. I just found it funny.

But, again, my argument is: "Just because something is unrealistic, it doesn't mean it's not immoral"

 

[Syniq]

I think what you’re getting at is that a human being regardless if it’s conscious or not, deserves the right to life? If I’m not mistaken

Well when you’re in a coma, you are unconscious but you’re still considered alive because all of your organs can function and you still have the potential to recover. So I think there is definitely nuance to what qualifies as a life, including having fully functional organs/a body that can sustain itself and as well as having consciousness.

Yeah

Fully functional organs? Someone might have kidney failure, does that mean, they're dead? A fetus can sustain itself, it is in its natural environment. It can sustain itself, just like how you and me can. We cannot survive in space, it is not natural for us.

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

The baby cannot survive on it's own. It requires food for survival, that food being it's mothers milk. A fetus survives in it's natural environment. Put anyone in space and they die because it's not natural towards them.


By that reason, a serial killer shouldn't be forced to experience punishment for killing even tho they took the risk. The disasters that you pointed out are different. They do not involve taking someone's life. I do have empathy for pregnant women, I just do think it is moral righteous for someone to take another life for their pleasure.

The baby can not survive on its own but it can survive without a host. A host in these circumstances would mean something it must be constantly physically attached to in order to survive and function, like a lamp plugged into the wall that can't shine unless it is. The fetus requires a host, always. In stages where it can still be aborted it would die immediately when detached from the mother.


And no, that is untrue. A serial killer should be convicted for his crimes because he killed multiple people which is immoral. Going on a roller coaster or a plane is not. I don't think women get abortions for their pleasure/just because they had sex and dont wanna deal with it, or at least that's isn't common. Abortions are expensive, physically and mentally painful. They're not something you just do

 

[Overthrown]

Yeah

Fully functional organs? Someone might have kidney failure, does that mean, they're dead?

Well I wrote organs as plural for a reason because there are people who suffer from specific organ failure issues

A fetus can sustain itself, it is in its natural environment. It can sustain itself, just like how you and me can. We cannot survive in space, it is not natural for us.

It cannot sustain itself without the help of its host (the mother), if we ripped it out of her stomach it would die. It’s entire life force is derived from her

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

I laughed so much at this. I don't even know why, you're right. I just found it funny.

But, again, my argument is: "Just because something is unrealistic, it doesn't mean it's not immoral"

Dude im sorry, I enjoyed debating you but its like midnight where I am and I can feel my brain starting to malfunction, I'll only get less and less cohesive from here on so I will respond to this argument tomorrow

 

[Syniq]

Well I wrote organs as plural for a reason because there are people who suffer from specific organ failure issues

It cannot sustain itself without the help of its host (the mother), if we ripped it out of her stomach it would die. It’s entire life force is derived from her

So? I cannot sustain myself without food; therefore, I'm useless. How dare I need another thing for my survival?

 

[Overthrown]

So? I cannot sustain myself without food; therefore, I'm useless. How dare I need another thing for my survival?

Well a hamburger and fries are not conscious beings, using them to sustain yourself is not an issue
When it comes to the fetus, it is relying on another human to sustain itself (a human that is already experiencing consciousness at that)

 

[True Spaniard]

I think if the womans life is not in danger that changes things a little although I do still believe there are very certain hyperspecific situations in which abortion is still appropriate. It should eb legal at least as everyone deserves autonomy over their body.

I find this just a little selfish, i see your pov tho having sex is just not like sleeping or eating, its not a basic need, when you involve yourself in the act of having children you need to assume that you might end up with a child and take the responsability after if you end up pregnant, also even if youre going for it knowing the risks it involves to it, it would be pretty logical to use protection, so theres just no excuse, since abortions coming from well done protected sex are less than 5% from all of them

 

[Syniq]

Well a hamburger and fries are not conscious beings, using them to sustain yourself is not an issue
When it comes to the fetus, it is relying on another human to sustain itself (a human that is already experiencing consciousness at that)

They use to be. A cow was alive and conscious

Again, so? What does that have to do with anything? Just because something is relying on a thing to live, it doesn't make it morally right to kill it.

 

[Overthrown]

They use to be. A cow was alive and conscious

Yes they used to have some degree of consciousness, but they died. With absolutely no chance of restoring that prior consciousness. This is also why unplugging brain dead patients is seen as morally permissible.

Again, so? What does that have to do with anything? Just because something is relying on a thing to live, it doesn't make it morally right to kill it.

Due to the fact that it’s using another humans body to sustain its own, it should grant the mother the choice of whether to keep it or not. Let’s just pretend one of your relatives needs an urgent kidney transplant, do you think it should be mandatory for you to hand over one of your kidneys?

 

[Syniq]

Yes they used to have some degree of consciousness, but they died. With absolutely no chance of restoring that prior consciousness. This is also why unplugging brain dead patients is seen as morally permissible.

Due to the fact that it’s using another humans body to sustain its own, it should grant the mother the choice of whether to keep it or not. Let’s just pretend one of your relatives needs an urgent kidney transplant, do you think it should be mandatory for you to hand over one of your kidneys?

A cow dies by someone killing it.

It would be moral and righteous to do so. Also, that analogy doesn't work. Since, you haven't actively hurt them. You haven't sped up their death. It was a natural process. However, abortion is the opposite, you actively hurt them. I'll expand on this further, do you think it's morally right for a mother to not use her breasts to feed her baby and let it her starve? Because it's using her body to grant a baby life

 

[Overthrown]

A cow dies by someone killing it.

It would be moral and righteous to do so. Also, that analogy doesn't work. Since, you haven't actively hurt them. You haven't sped up their death. It was a natural process. However, abortion is the opposite, you actively hurt them. I'll expand on this further, do you think it's morally right for a mother to not use her breasts to feed her baby and let it her starve? Because it's using her body to grant a baby life

I think the analogy does work because you have a familiar relationship with the person, and in this scenario they would need your kidney aka your personal resource and no one else’s, to sustain their life. Also I’m a bit lost by what you mean by “hurt” because for all we know the fetus can’t feel anything. It can’t hurt or even feel happy, it is just nothingness. If you mean hurt in the sense that you are preventing it from deploying a future conscious experience, then I understand what you mean.
I have heard this “stranded mother” argument before, and I dont think its the gray area everyone makes it out to be, it branches into two scenarios. 1, if the mother willingly chose to have that baby, its obviously not morally permissible for her to deny that baby her own resources, to help it live. Because once again, she chose to have it so she must take care of it. 2. If that mother was forced to have that child, it’s not entitled to using her bodily resources. So no she should not be forced.

 

[Syniq]

I think the analogy does work because you have a familiar relationship with the person, and in this scenario they would need your kidney aka your personal resource and no one else’s, to sustain their life. Also I’m a bit lost by what you mean by “hurt” because for all we know the fetus can’t feel anything. It can’t hurt or even feel happy, it is just nothingness. If you mean hurt in the sense that you are preventing it from deploying a future conscious experience, then I understand what you mean.
I have heard this “stranded mother” argument before, and I dont think its the gray area everyone makes it out to be, it branches into two scenarios. 1, if the mother willingly chose to have that baby, its obviously not morally permissible for her to deny that baby her own resources, to help it live. Because once again, she chose to have it so she must take care of it. 2. If that mother was forced to have that child, it’s not entitled to using her bodily resources. So no she should not be forced.

And like I said, it doesn't work. You are not taking away anything. Hurt means to injure something.

So, it's morally right for her to kill her baby? And you don't think a baby is entitled to food? So I see a starving child. I can look at it die, suffer while I mock his death, while I eat in front of their face's. Is that righteous me?

 

[dontcallthemfoidsbro]

I find this just a little selfish, i see your pov tho having sex is just not like sleeping or eating, its not a basic need, when you involve yourself in the act of having children you need to assume that you might end up with a child and take the responsability after if you end up pregnant, also even if youre going for it knowing the risks it involves to it, it would be pretty logical to use protection, so theres just no excuse, since abortions coming from well done protected sex are less than 5% from all of them

Yeah I see what youre saying, I didn't know it was less than 5 percent, that's interesting. In that case i agree, I think a woman should take the responsibility if she ends up pregnant after having unsafe or uncontrolled sex. I just always like to take into consideration that a woman might not care for the child as well of she doesn't want it which would of course not be fair to the kid. But that of course shouldn't be the case.

 

[Overthrown]

And like I said, it doesn't work. You are not taking away anything. Hurt means to injure something.

I still fail to understand why you think it doesn’t work. What do you mean by you aren’t taking away anything? In the abortion scenario you would be taking away the fetus’s potential for future consciousness, and by denying this relative of yours your organ, you would also be allowing their potential for future consciousness to be taken away

So, it's morally right for her to kill her baby? And you don't think a baby is entitled to food? So I see a starving child. I can look at it die, suffer while I mock his death, while I eat in front of their face's. Is that righteous me?

What my answer is is that if the mother was forced to have this human life, it is still very much not entitled to her own bodily resources. It’s up to her whether in this scenario whether or not she ends up wanting to feed it. The baby is entitled to feeding, but not off of the bodily resources of its mother who was forced to conceive it. It’s her choice. This position shouldn’t come as a shock
Your hypothetical does not fit here, as you’re speaking about a random child that has zero relation to you. Mocking its death and eating infront of its face (And I’d like to add we’re talking about bodily resources here, not regular food you get at the grocery store.) is not even analogous to the stranded mother scenario, as in the stranded mother scenario both the mother and baby don’t have any access to food

 

[ltb]

everything is moral unless you can justify it being immoral it doesnt work the other way around you have to justify your claim that abortion is immoral