Abortion

[A_gurl]

my 2p's worth

Examples of feasible reasons for opting for an abortion:
*The female in question already has children, was sterilised after deciding that she is happy with number of children she already has and then finds she is pregnant? (and this can happen) If she decided to opt for abortion she she not be judged.
*The female in question has a medical condition that would not allow her to either..continue a pregnancy, would put her baby's life at risk or indeed complicate her illness or even cause her death.
*If downs syndrome, cystic fibrosis or other condition that is detected early in a pregnancy, therefore jeapordising the child's quality of life.
*When a women has been subjected to rape.

I'd just like to point out that abortion is indeed a woman's own personal choice and that it is not the easiest of decisions for many. Counselling is often needed before, during and after and even then the women may feel guilty, upset, depressed afterwards. All i would say is that it is something that shouldn't happen without great thought and that with the current methods of contraception available, unwanted pregnancy shouldn't happen in an ideal world. All things are not 100% though and 'accidents do happen'.
It is a subject that will always cause deep discussion.
I am neither for or against depending on the situation, but i know it is something i could not even contemplate. (my own personal opinion)

*i have not voted on the poll

 

[Stone]

I'm sorry but what is quality of life, compaired to acutual living... just because someone has been diagnosed with it, for one does not even mean that, that person will have it, as no tests are 100% fool proof...

And personally, if i had the choce between living, with a disability, and not living at all, i would choose to live...

So just because someone may not have a good quality of life, is no reason to kill them....

 

[Apos]

But in this case the decision is being taken prior to the being a person who can care about whether they live or die.

Question: if awareness and function define when it's wrong to kill something, then how can one be against abortion but eat meat: when most mature animals are smarter and more self-aware than a fetus, and certianly more than a zygote? People can go on and on about how being human makes a difference, but we're talking morally here: how does the moral work SPECIFICALLY to include a prohibition against killing in unaware humans, but exclude aware animals from consideration of their interests? And "soul" aint gonna cut it as a philosophical argument.

 

[ComradeBadger]

The foetus is not a baby until it's brain starts to transmit biochemical and bioelectrical signals to the rest of the body... any time before that the bundle of unrelated cells can be aborted... the reason there is whole debate about this is becuase some people believe that more humans are intrinsically of more value to the world than more animals. If people were aborting Rabbit births then no-one would care. my personal belief is that killing fellow humans isn't ok.... since we are truly able to contemplate what we are doing and that it is wrong.... but killing animals for food is merely using them for what they have evolved for.

 

[green1152]

I think if the baby can't feel it... Go ahead. It will be saving the childs life if he/she will not be supported when they grow.. They will probably be malnurished and so on... Only if there is a ood reason for abortion should it be.

 

[Fat Tony!]

Wot about teenage pregnency?

 

[Apos]

The foetus is not a baby until it's brain starts to transmit biochemical and bioelectrical signals to the rest of the body...

Generally, I find that vague terms like "baby" and "fetus" that many peopel define differently are unhelpful in abortion discussions, and it's more useful to simply talk about what it is about the entity under question that makes it deserving of particular moral consideration. This prevents people from equivocating.

since we are truly able to contemplate what we are doing and that it is wrong.... but killing animals for food is merely using them for what they have evolved for.

In terms of morality, that is neither here nor there. Whether or not anything has evolved for something or not (and it's a bit silly to say that animals have evolved to be eaten: they've evolved, like everything else, to reproduce their species) is rather irrelevant to the consideration of their moral interests.

The fact is, humans are able to contemplate what they are doing in both aborting a fetus and killing an adult animal. The only difference is that the animal is far more aware of itself in time than the fetus, or even the baby, is. And I can't think of anything more important than something's awareness and feelings when you're thinking about it's interests. The fact that humans might value humans of ANY sort more than animals of ANY sort is not morally justifiable in any way I can see: it's just a prejeduce.