Morality of abortion

[Prodromos]

For instance, pro-life beliefs are usually considered authoritarian rather than libertarian. But if you believe the unborn are living human beings, how in the world is it authoritarian to oppose killing them?

Posts moved from there. ~Abdülmecid I

[PikeStance]

Every political compass I have come across is biased toward a leftist worldview. For instance, pro-life beliefs are usually considered authoritarian rather than libertarian. But if you believe the unborn are living human beings, how in the world is it authoritarian to oppose killing them?

This is a bad example. The Libertarian party actually doesn't take a position. While pro-choice is a position that keeps government out of your personal business, the Non-Aggression Principle supports a pro-life position. It is a classic paradox which explains the LP's position on the issue. Personally, I am morally against abortion, but it is governments business to interfere in the rights of the individual. However, when does life begin? Conception, Second trimester" Third trimester? For me, the "choice" is based on when you ethnically consider life beginning. Beyond that point, then you are violating the NAP. Since medical science cannot yet give us a definitive answer, we have only our ethics to determine our choices.

This is from the LP platform

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

In 2016 think they streamlined it. When I attended the LP Convention back around 2000, what I stated was part of the discussion.

[Muizer]

But if you believe the unborn are living human beings, how in the world is it authoritarian to oppose killing them?

What would be your justification for acting? Why should your sense of right and wrong trump someone else's, especially if to you it's just an abstract value judgement but to the other it's a decision with immediate, concrete and far reaching consequences? What stake do you have in the matter that you feel justified to call on the mutual obligations in the social contract that underpins government interference? Those are, I think, some questions a libertarian would ask themselves. If you don't and instead you appeal to some claim to know absolute right and wrong and instead of a social contract appeal to some higher power, I guess that would make you an authoritarian.

[Prodromos]

What would be your justification for acting? Why should your sense of right and wrong trump someone else's, especially if to you it's just an abstract value judgement but to the other it's a decision with immediate, concrete and far reaching consequences? What stake do you have in the matter that you feel justified to call on the mutual obligations in the social contract that underpins government interference? Those are, I think, some questions a libertarian would ask themselves. If you don't and instead you appeal to some claim to know absolute right and wrong and instead of a social contract appeal to some higher power, I guess that would make you an authoritarian.

This is a bad example. The Libertarian party actually doesn't take a position. While pro-choice is a position that keeps government out of your personal business, the Non-Aggression Principle supports a pro-life position. It is a classic paradox which explains the LP's position on the issue. Personally, I am morally against abortion, but it is governments business to interfere in the rights of the individual. However, when does life begin? Conception, Second trimester" Third trimester? For me, the "choice" is based on when you ethnically consider life beginning. Beyond that point, then you are violating the NAP. Since medical science cannot yet give us a definitive answer, we have only our ethics to determine our choices.

This is from the LP platform

In 2016 think they streamlined it. When I attended the LP Convention back around 2000, what I stated was part of the discussion.

Libertarianism and anarchy aren't the same thing. Libertarianism is about maximizing liberty for all people, not letting each individual do whatever they want, which often includes violating the rights of other people. It's justified to ban abortion just as it is justified to oppose murdering born people. It's perfectly libertarian to oppose murdering the born and the unborn alike. All arguments for abortion can be applied to murder of born people too. "If you oppose murder, then just don't do it. What right do you have to stop other people from doing it? Why should your morals be imposed on other people?" You're either for liberty or you aren't. You're either against murder or you aren't.

As for why the unborn are people too, it's simple: They are live human beings distinct from their parents. Anything else, like sentience, intelligence, size, etc., is ultimately irrelevant. If we start denying human beings their natural rights based on arbitrary metrics, like what stage of development they're in, or whether they are wanted by other people, or what their gender or ethnicity or nationality they are, that just contradicts the entire point of human rights.

[swabian]

Libertarianism and anarchy aren't the same thing. Libertarianism is about maximizing liberty for all people, not letting each individual do whatever they want, which often includes violating the rights of other people. It's justified to ban abortion just as it is justified to oppose murdering born people.

No... Where is the logical connection between the two? Abortion is an unfortunate fact of human life since millenia and you know that very well. Are you trying to put it like you were suddenly confronted with a secret baby-sacrificing cult you never heard about before?

It's perfectly libertarian to oppose murdering the born and the unborn alike.

This is not libertarian, it's not conservative, it's not socialist, it's just crazy. What you are saying is that abortion equals murder. What does this have to do with critical thinking and rational thought? What does this have to do with modern, Western thought?

[Aexodus]

This is not libertarian, it's not conservative, it's not socialist, it's just crazy. What you are saying is that abortion equals murder. What does this have to do with critical thinking and rational thought? What does this have to do with modern, Western thought?

Abortion is the euthanisation of an unborn child. A foetus is just a stage of human development like any other.

[Prodromos]

No... Where is the logical connection between the two? Abortion is an unfortunate fact of human life since millenia and you know that very well. Are you trying to put it like you were suddenly confronted with a secret baby-sacrificing cult you never heard about before?

I'm aware abortion has been practiced for a long time, just as theft, murder (of adults), slavery and other practices have, but that's not a valid reason to keep the practices. It's still wrong.

This is not libertarian, it's not conservative, it's not socialist, it's just crazy. What you are saying is that abortion equals murder. What does this have to do with critical thinking and rational thought? What does this have to do with modern, Western thought?

I explained my reasoning above. If you believe in human rights, that logically extends to humans at all stages of development, all ethnicities, both genders, etc. Otherwise it isn't human rights, but adult rights, or female rights, or Polish rights, and so on. All available evidence shows that the unborn are human beings. There's just no rational reason for excluding them from having human rights.

[The spartan]

Abortion is the euthanisation of an unborn child.

Not according to most of the Western World, it's not. I think we will be using the commonly used definitions of liberalism and authoritarianism, not the religious right's personal definitions.

[Aexodus]

The west is not one single bloc. In my country, it is illegal, that is the definition where I come from.

Also, my statement has nothing to do with religion

[Muizer]

As for why the unborn are people too, it's simple: They are live human beings distinct from their parents. Anything else, like sentience, intelligence, size, etc., is ultimately irrelevant. If we start denying human beings their natural rights based on arbitrary metrics, like what stage of development they're in, or whether they are wanted by other people, or what their gender or ethnicity or nationality they are, that just contradicts the entire point of human rights.

The reason we have laws at all is that by collectively deciding to uphold them, we protect ourselves. It's an insurance policy, if you will. If someone robs you, others will denounce them not because it is written somewhere, but because they would want you to do the same for them. Now the codification certainly helps to apply the rules, but it doesn't abstract them from their origins. So, regarding abortion, it may be codified that killing a person is bad and that may lead to a biological debate about when a foetus becomes a human being, but that's a wild goose chase. The question is, whether you have a stake in its fate the same way I described above concerning robbery. That stake is what justifies interference in the lives of others. What's your stake in some anonymous foetus? Could it be you next time?

[Aexodus]

It could be your child next time, if the mother wants an abortion but the father doesn't, what happens then?

At any rate, I don't think murder is illegal becuase 'it could be you' etc. In society, we see murder as morally wrong, and obviously we then prohibit it. If you consider a foetus to be human, then surely you must apply the same principle

[removeduser_487563287433]

Oh man, if there's one thing to ignore it's Northern Ireland's views on abortion. A country so heartless and savage even regular Ireland is leaving it behind in the dust on that topic.

The only unified vote NI's Parliament ever held was with regards to making abortion illegal. ing pontificating, inhumane, uneducated barbarians. Happy to see their children flee by the thousands annually to the mainland to get abortions, so long as its out of sight, out of mind. Oh yes, don't fool yourself, Northern Ireland has abortion. They just let the rest of the UK take in the women they abandon. Cowards.

[Himster]

The west is not one single bloc. In my country, it is illegal, that is the definition where I come from.

Yeah, but, the place you come from is basically stuck in some kind of time warp.

If you consider a foetus to be human, then surely you must apply the same principle

This view is evidently becoming more and more obsolete in developed countries.

[Muizer]

It could be your child next time, if the mother wants an abortion but the father doesn't, what happens then?

That is indeed the closest you could get to having a stake in the woman's decision. It's not such a convincing argument though if you consider what is lost is a potential yet to be realised.

In society, we see murder as morally wrong, and obviously we then prohibit it. If you consider a foetus to be human, then surely you must apply the same principle

I would rather say that concluding aborting a cluster of cells is murder is a case of 'reductio ad absurdum' demonstrating the falsehood of its premise.

The weakness in your argument is that this 'morality' seemingly comes from nowhere. The problem with having no foundation for this principle apart from "that's just how it is", is that you're not equiped to deal with unforeseen situations like the ones that medical science presents to ethics.

BTW, I hope you will excuse me for taking my leave of this thread. My argument has been that I don't think there's a case for governments to interfere in the individual's decision. IMHO that leaves the new topic in the realm of "moral guidance" and I just do not feel the necessary level of personal involvement for that.

Feel free to have the last word, of course.

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

First, I think as a man I honestly do not know how pregnancy feels what consequence there are and I'll never give birth to anybody. So basically find it's bigot if men judge over abortion because our part in this just ends in the creating of human life with giving the semen.

Apart from that there is only one institution where our current abortion laws based on, the Catholic Church, which by the way basically banned abortion due to a translation error in the Septuaginta and on the idea that more subjects of the state are bringing more wealth, so basic population politics. In addition they initially thought that the unborn was only then human life when the soul entered its body, somewhere in the middle of the pregnancy.
For the ancient Romans the unborn was no human life and an abortion was only punished if a woman aborted without the consent of her husband because the husband was denied the prospect of a future heir and successor in the family.
So the reasoning behind this morality is not really convincing and there is no absolute law on how to judge on abortion. In fact it's the part of our moral framework where Christianity plays still a huge part.

[Cyclops]

Interesting debate.

My personal view is I don't like killing babies, and foetuses seem like babies to me, theoretically.

I grieved when my partner miscarried, but I have to be honest it did not feel as bad as I do for friends and family whose born babies die. I can only conclude that foetuses mean less than live or "viable" babies to me, and to most of us.

All that is namby pamby personal . Society needs free abortion on demand determined by the mother solely. The correlation between abortion on demand and a drop in crime rates seems unarguable to me. If you like increased crime and a ed up society, ban abortion.

I don't know what the relationship is, maybe women who don't want their babies are more likely to raise a criminal? Probably women who want an abortion want it because they were raped or are poor or cannot care for a child well for other reasons.

Societies need abortion to decrease crime. The foetuses who are heartlessly killed are killed for the good of the society.

[fkizz]

Societies need abortion to decrease crime.

Well going by China, India and Pakistan, where sex-selective abortions are common, the result is that the performance of abortion creates a more male population, as it's mostly female fetuses who are discarded/killed off.
So the result is that their effort for a more eugenic and less criminal society endures such gender imbalance being born out of the procedure. Kinda ironic that this "crime reduction" and "female liberation" method, numerically speaking, reduces the amount of female human beings in the world, and increases the amount of male ones.


As science progesses, it may be possible to find out other things, let's say theorically, we make scientific progresses to such a point where we can determine if the fetus would grow to be a future gay person or not (assuming homosexuality is not a choice). After such a thing, do you think the parents would give order to discard/kill the fetus, or would they consent to raising gay progeny from start? Would they be understanding enough to refuse to abort a (futurely) "gay-gene fetus", or would they prefer to go allow only exclusively futurely heterosexual fetuses?

Would it be anti-Ethical to discard/kill the gay-gene fetus to try again for a hetero one, or would it be Ethical to discard the gay-gene fetus, as the parents are allowed to choose the best for their offspring well-being?

[Aexodus]

ing pontificating, inhumane, uneducated barbarians.

ok

Yeah, but, the place you come from is basically stuck in some kind of time warp.

How do you mean.

This view is evidently becoming more and more obsolete in developed countries.

Is abortion really 'progress'?

That is indeed the closest you could get to having a stake in the woman's decision. It's not such a convincing argument though if you consider what is lost is a potential yet to be realised.

But it's not a woman's decision. It's not even her 'body' we're talking about. It's the unborn foetus, which is 50% the mother and 50% the father.

If you expect men to have no choice in their child living or dying, the nephew you can't expect them to participate in the upbringing of the child. Unless you actually do want more single mothers, right?

I guess women's rights trump human rights.

I would rather say that concluding aborting a cluster of cells is murder is a case of 'reductio ad absurdum' demonstrating the falsehood of its premise.

That 'cluster of cells' is simply a stage of human development like any other, infancy, puberty etc.

Maybe you disagree that it's murder, but do you agree that it is at least the 'killing' of the foetus?

The weakness in your argument is that this 'morality' seemingly comes from nowhere. The problem with having no foundation for this principle apart from "that's just how it is", is that you're not equiped to deal with unforeseen situations like the ones that medical science presents to ethics.

The morality comes from the ideal that all human life is equal, and human rights can't be restricted on arbitrary characteristics.

First, I think as a man I honestly do not know how pregnancy feels what consequence there are and I'll never give birth to anybody. So basically find it's bigot if men judge over abortion because our part in this just ends in the creating of human life with giving the semen.

Really? Men's only part to play is in sex? Is the foetus not half the man and half the woman's genes?

What about the role men play to take care of the mother during pregnancy?

What about the rearing of the child in infancy?

What about providing a role model for the child?

What about the fact that men are (usually) the main breadwinner and financial backbone of the family? Does none of this matter?

I've never been murdered, I've never been abused, I've never been a victim of fraud and I've never been raped, but I know those things are wrong and I'm allowed my opinion on them, but apparently not on abortion.

Apart from that there is only one institution where our current abortion laws based on, the Catholic Church, which by the way basically banned abortion due to a translation error in the Septuaginta and on the idea that more subjects of the state are bringing more wealth, so basic population politics. In addition they initially thought that the unborn was only then human life when the soul entered its body, somewhere in the middle of the pregnancy.
For the ancient Romans the unborn was no human life and an abortion was only punished if a woman aborted without the consent of her husband because the husband was denied the prospect of a future heir and successor in the family.
So the reasoning behind this morality is not really convincing and there is no absolute law on how to judge on abortion. In fact it's the part of our moral framework where Christianity plays still a huge part.

So why is abortions illegal in modern secular countries.

All that is namby pamby personal . Society needs free abortion on demand determined by the mother solely. The correlation between abortion on demand and a drop in crime rates seems unarguable to me. If you like increased crime and a ed up society, ban abortion.

What is this obsession with it being solely the mother's choice? It's the father's child just as much as it is the mother's.

98% of abortions in England and Wales in 2016 were 'on demand'. In other words, otherwise healthy foetus's were terminated simply for the sake of the mother's convenience.

If abortion is made legal, it should only ever be available for cases where the mother's life is at risk (which is how things are in NI) but not for ground E cases. Why? Because conditions like downs' syndrome can only be detected after 10-13 weeks, and such a practice is in effect, eugenics.

This is a 12 week abortion.

Northern Ireland's ban on abortion has saved the lives of 100,000 people since 1967. If that's a savage, heartless, undeveloped, primitively or 'ed up society', then so be it.

The Human rights Declaration of the rights of the child

Whereas the child, by reason of his physical andmental immaturity, needs special safeguards andcare, including appropriate legal protection,before as well as after birth,

There is no human rights treaty that explicitly demands abortion at will

[Cyclops]

Well going by China, India and Pakistan, where sex-selective abortions are common, the result is that the performance of abortion creates a more male population, as it's mostly female fetuses who are discarded/killed off. ...

Yes that's a demographic disaster, so abortion policy can't exist in a vacuum. In modern Western societies its a positive benefit to have abortion on demand for women.

Would it be anti-Ethical to discard/kill the gay-gene fetus to try again for a hetero one, or would it be Ethical to discard the gay-gene fetus, as the parents are allowed to choose the best for their offspring well-being?

Interesting scenario, not sure about the outcome. Killing a foetus for being "likely to be gay" seems evil, but I don't think a mother's motives can be questioned: if she doesn't want it it dies. I guess its the "not wanted" part that tends to make a child more likely to be criminal.

...
Really? Men's only part to play is in sex?

Well not even necessarily in the sex act, they can to ejeculation and the semen can be implanted with a turkey baster.

Is the foetus not half the man and half the woman's genes?

Actually it starts as a female gamete with a trace of male DNA implanted, forms an egg inside the woman's body that hatches, the little wriggler that emerges implants in the uterus wall and essentially parasitises on the woman's body by attaching a feeding organ (the placenta). Its not viable as a separate entity until the last trimester usually, but the barriers are being pushed. So the answer to your question is really you need to inform yourself a bit more rather than asking silly rhetorical questions.

What about the role men play to take care of the mother during pregnancy?

What about the rearing of the child in infancy?

What about providing a role model for the child?

What about the fact that men are (usually) the main breadwinner and financial backbone of the family? Does none of this matter?

Not really. If the mother does not want the child its more likely to be a criminal IMHO. Your hypothetical "good father' could mitigate that but real life is a but different to hypotheticals.

Maybe you want "Good Fatherhood" guaranteed? I mean divorce settlements try to enforce this but its pretty hard to get many men to even see their children. Mandating "good behaviour" is an aspirational goal of many backward systems like Presbyterian and Catholic Christianity or Chinese Communism.

I've never been murdered, I've never been abused, I've never been a victim of fraud and I've never been raped, but I know those things are wrong and I'm allowed my opinion on them, but apparently not on abortion.

I think you have a right to your opinion, but this is a grim pragmatic decision best left to cold Malthusian decision makers rather than people with idealistic visions of caring fathers for every child.

So why is abortions illegal in modern secular countries.

They have powerful primitive religious factions that demand bizarre cult practices to prove they are in charge? Northern Ireland suffers from strong religious factionalism that has seen much bloodshed that horrified more civilised countries.

What is this obsession with it being solely the mother's choice?

Its not an obsession, its a cold calculation.

It's the father's child just as much as it is the mother's.

Practical experience will show you that in the vast majority of cases the children definitely belong to the mother more than the father.

98% of abortions in England and Wales in 2016 were 'on demand'. In other words, otherwise healthy foetus's were terminated simply for the sake of the mother's convenience.

Nonsense. You're making a sweeping and derogatory mischaracterisation of thousands of women. The women I know who have had abortions experience pain and guilt as a result even when it was indubitably ethically justified.

If abortion is made legal, it should only ever be available for cases where the mother's life is at risk (which is how things are in NI) but not for ground E cases. Why? Because conditions like downs' syndrome can only be detected after 10-13 weeks, and such a practice is in effect, eugenics.

Not if the test is "does the mother want it?".

This is a 12 week abortion.
Northern Ireland's ban on abortion has saved the lives of 100,000 people since 1967. If that's a savage, heartless, undeveloped, primitively or 'ed up society', then so be it.

...and you have it. I'm surprised you welcome a society characterised by bigot murderous violence and poverty. Most citizens aspire to a peaceful prosperous life.

The Human rights Declaration of the rights of the child

There is no human rights treaty that explicitly demands abortion at will

No its a grim pragmatic policy, one that works. You can cry about it but try not to interfere with policies that save your society. As mentioned Northern Ireland benefits from the rest of the British Isle's more civilised approach to abortion. If everyone was as backward as the tools in Stormont your country would be even worse.

[Himster]

How do you mean.

Norn Iron is an anomaly in almost every way imaginable. Visiting is like like visiting Amish country in Pennsylvania, except the puritans are more likely to froth at the mouth in one of those places. Then we have the popular views in Norn Iron: hatred of gays, a nearly erotic fetishization of imperialism, the election of terrorists and bigots to political positions (having no alternatives), the continued celebration and entrenchment of sectarianism, widespread racism and xenophobia.
While it is generally improving on all counts, especially in urban areas, it must be admitted that Norn Iron is still far behind every other western country.

Is abortion really 'progress'?

Women having sovereignty over their own bodies is progress, yes.

But it's not a woman's decision. It's not even her 'body' we're talking about. It's the unborn foetus, which is 50% the mother and 50% the father.

It is 100% the woman's body.
Consent and self sovereignty is so instantiated in western culture that even a corpse needs to consent to having its life saving organs removed in the form of an organ donor card.

The morality comes from the ideal that all human life is equal, and human rights can't be restricted on arbitrary characteristics.

It can't be restricted or extended. Such as extending it to a mass genocidal crisis worthy of international news concerning every cum soaked sock. Should we have a funeral every time a zygote fails to attach itself to the uterine wall? An event which happens to to 75% of all fertilized ova.
I don't think the "restriction" is a restriction. an embryo before the 9th-12th week lacks an independent metabolism, an essential criteria for determining life. A blurry line, to be sure. But far more meaningful than the arbitrary magical moments of fertilization or vaginal crowning.

What about the role men play to take care of the mother during pregnancy?

It's still not the man's body.

What about the fact that men are (usually) the main breadwinner and financial backbone of the family? Does none of this matter?

Wow.
What's it like living in the 1930s? Hey, watch out for the Adolf Hitler: He's a bad egg.

So why is abortions illegal in modern secular countries.

The only western country where this is the case is Ireland, and that's almost certainly about about to change in a few weeks. We're just kinda slow, punctuality is the thief of time after all.

If abortion is made legal, it should only ever be available for cases where the mother's life is at risk (which is how things are in NI) but not for ground E cases. Why? Because conditions like downs' syndrome can only be detected after 10-13 weeks, and such a practice is in effect, eugenics.

We exercise eugenics through sexual selection too you know. But yes, this is an excellent point.

Northern Ireland's ban on abortion has saved the lives of 100,000 people since 1967. If that's a savage, heartless, undeveloped, primitively or 'ed up society', then so be it.

It saved nothing. It merely forced thousands of women the traumatic experience and cost of travelling to Britain or the Continent for the procedure, making it not just a gender issue, but also a class issue. Increasing single motherhood, with the associated increased crime rates and crippling fiscal costs onto the already fiscally deprived, with further increases to the already unbridgeable socio-economic divide between lower and upper classes.