I saw this headline this morning. More than anything I think it illustrates a slippery slope. I'm not sure whether pro-abortion advocates had this in mind or not, but my guess is not. However, once you start down the slope, it becomes easier and easier to rationalize decisions like this. Once you've made abortion acceptable and lawful from a legal and political standpoint, where do you draw the line from an ethical standpoint?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Once you've made abortion acceptable and lawful from a legal and political standpoint, where do you draw the line from an ethical standpoint?

It depends on what you consider to be the ethical problem here.

Essentially, the entire abortion debate boils down to whether the fetus should be conferred the rights of a fully developed human being or not. The way I see it, if you believe that the fetus should be conferred those rights, then abortion must be considered universally wrong. Surely no rationale behind the "murder" of the fetus could be considered to be better than any other: the killing of an innocent is still the killing of an innocent. If, however, the fetus should not be conferred the rights of a person, then I fail to see where an ethical angle can be introduced. If the fetus has no rights, then there can be no more a right or wrong reason to have an abortion than there can be a right or wrong reason to have an appendix removed. The only moral consideration is that of the mother's.

In essense, I fail to see how the reasons behind having an abortion changes the framing of the debate at all. I may personally find something distasteful about a woman undergoing an abortion for "cosmetic" reasons, but I don't think there is a moral or ethical transgression here. The choice is hers and it is for her to decide what to do with the clump of cells in her womb, not me. On the flip-side, can it credibly be argued that the killing of a child because it happens to be ugly is really any worse a moral transgression than killing of a child because it was born out of wedlock? Isn't that basically what this is about if you support a moderate interpretation of "fetal rights"?

If there is an ethical dilema here, then it is that of late-term abortions. The point at which a fetus can credibly be said to be conferred with the rights of a human being is, for me, at the point of biological independence. As soon as there is a likelihood that the fetus is capable of surviving independently of the womb, then an abortion becomes at the very best a grey area or, more consitently, a moral and ethical wrong. Where the fetus is grossly disformed (and I'm not talking about webbed fingers, here) or the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, then a late-term abortion is almost certainly the lesser of two evils, but other than that I'm not sure how it could be justified. In a biological sense, it's essentially infanticide.

So to sum my opinion on the matter up, an abortion performed before the third trimester is ethically acceptable and the rationale behind it is completely irrelevant. The real ethical issue here is that of performing late-term abortions for reasons that aren't motivated by serious medical concerns. Yet again, if the reason doesn't fall under one of these two categories, then it is completely irrelevant in terms of any ethical considerations: aborting an "infant" in the third trimester because it was conceived through a brutal act of incestuous rape would be just as wrong as aborting an "infant" in the third trimester because it has the wrong colour eyes.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Gattaca anyone?

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade aborting an "infant" in the third trimester because it was conceived through a brutal act of incestuous rape would be just as wrong as aborting an "infant" in the third trimester because it has the wrong colour eyes.

Do you really believe this statement?

In cases like these, I think an abortion should be mandatory. I sure as hell don't want those parents' genes passed on, and I highly doubt their capacity to properly raise a child, anyway.

i agree with renegade.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Do you really believe this statement?

yes, he stated that the reasons for the abortion are irrelevant to the primary concern- the status of the foetus. thus an incestuous rape child has the same legal rights as a child with the wrong coloured eyes. i think it would be difficult to argue one child has a greater right to life than another.

imo a parent should be able to choose what they wish for their child. are we going to let the state make these decisions? then we'd be plagued with definitions of acceptable & unacceptable deficiencies in any given foetus. i think it should remain a private decision.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i agree with renegade. yes, he stated that the reasons for the abortion are irrelevant to the primary concern- the status of the foetus. thus an incestuous rape child has the same legal rights as a child with the wrong coloured eyes. i think it would be difficult to argue one child has a greater right to life than another. imo a parent should be able to choose what they wish for their child. are we going to let the state make these decisions? then we'd be plagued with definitions of acceptable & unacceptable deficiencies in any given foetus. i think it should remain a private decision.

I don't necessarily disagree with Renegade--I was just a bit troubled by the statement that an abortion resulting from a brutal incestuous rape is morally/ethically no different than an abortion due to a baby having a cleft chin or some other minor, cosmetic defect. Personally, I can't get myself to that position given the likely motivation behind said abortions. Yes, in a completely objective setting (not a bad thing), an abortion is an abortion is an abortion. But as stated, I find ethical differences given the underlying rationale behind them.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter In cases like these, I think an abortion should be mandatory. I sure as hell don't want those parents' genes passed on, and I highly doubt their capacity to properly raise a child, anyway.

I don't think that kids with minor defects that will correct themselves normally as they age should be aborted, let alone mandatory. The thing is that there are just so many people with bad genes, that if you'd start aborting them all now, there wouldn't be much of them left. But if it's a really bad defect or something that would make the kid suffer because of it, either emotionally or physically, then I'd go with the abortion. But ultimately, who says that all of these defects are exclusively harmful? Like why should a child with an extra digit be less capable at everyday life than a normal 5-fingered person? At least they'd make really good piano players

As for the fetus, I don't think it should be viewed as such a either-or situation, regarding whether it's an independent lifeform or a lump of tissue inside a woman. It's kinda both at the same time, and classifying it as one of those two categories is really not describing the full picture.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I don't think that kids with minor defects that will correct themselves normally as they age should be aborted, let alone mandatory. The thing is that there are just so many people with bad genes, that if you'd start aborting them all now, there wouldn't be much of them left. But if it's a really bad defect or something that would make the kid suffer because of it, either emotionally or physically, then I'd go with the abortion. But ultimately, who says that all of these defects are exclusively harmful? Like why should a child with an extra digit be less capable at everyday life than a normal 5-fingered person? At least they'd make really good piano players

i believe arbiter was referring to the behaviour of the parents who would like to abort due to (curable) cosmetic defects as genes

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 As for the fetus, I don't think it should be viewed as such a either-or situation, regarding whether it's an independent lifeform or a lump of tissue inside a woman. It's kinda both at the same time, and classifying it as one of those two categories is really not describing the full picture.

so, considering this belief of yours... where do you place the line between what's 'right' and 'wrong' ethically?

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't necessarily disagree with Renegade--I was just a bit troubled by the statement that an abortion resulting from a brutal incestuous rape is morally/ethically no different than an abortion due to a baby having a cleft chin or some other minor, cosmetic defect. Personally, I can't get myself to that position given the likely motivation behind said abortions. Yes, in a completely objective setting (not a bad thing), an abortion is an abortion is an abortion. But as stated, I find ethical differences given the underlying rationale behind them.

Here's how I rationalized my beliefs ... the only rights that matter are the rights afforded to the fetus as opposed to the rights afforded to the mother. If a fetus has rights that supercede the parent than it doesn't matter how it was conceived ... it doesn't matter whether it was brutal rape or willing procreation. The fetus has inherent inalienable rights regardless of method of conception or it doesn't.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Here's how I rationalized my beliefs ... the only rights that matter are the rights afforded to the fetus as opposed to the rights afforded to the mother. If a fetus has rights that supercede the parent than it doesn't matter how it was conceived ... it doesn't matter whether it was brutal rape or willing procreation. The fetus has inherent inalienable rights regardless of method of conception or it doesn't.

You sir, have no rights.

The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!

My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all

oh...sorry...the retro Avatar and sig made me have a lapse.




Eugenics is such a fun topic.....


MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.