Ethics of Abortion

Discussion of the Ethics of Abortion. Biomedical Ethics, Tulane University. 6 April 2011

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ethics
• Abortion

[JennandMolly]

@thenumber13dotnet Uhh people pay for their own abortions. In fact because of how safely and quickly they can be performed, abortions are considered low-cost procedures that many people can afford or can get assistance to pay for. Now on the other hand, billions of taxpayer dollars are supporting children in the welfare system every year.

[TheAndiePerson]

@orgelquaeler1 I am so tired of hearing about this "God" character. You shouldn't put your trust in your own sense of self-security and DEFINITELY not in a 2,000 year old tome that supports slavery, domestic abuse, discrimination, and other fanciful tales of people who do terrible things to prove their blind devotion to God. Spending your time thinking about what could be is a very stupid thing to do cause then you take away from what's already there, especially when you have no control over it.

[Unicontro]

There's a surprisingly interesting discussion going on here. I'm impressed!

[JennandMolly]

@Genktarov I'm not trying to justify abortion by any means, I don't even personally agree with it myself, but I am trying to take a realistic approach to abortion as a medical procedure that needs to be protected for the safety of women and ultimately of their wanted children.

[JennandMolly]

@Genktarov True, it does not logically follow that because some pregnancies are dangerous, you will be endangered by your own, but in real life women must consider that there is a risk. That's why ideally all mothers would be ready--physically and emotionally--to care for a child, but this is not the case.

[JennandMolly]

@Genktarov I agree, particularly from a VE perspective, that abortion is a selfish act, but you're mixing up your ideologies here by saying something is either good or it isn't. I don't believe that rule based ethics are an effective system of measuring morality. Dictating women's decisions to act ethically (or not) is not characteristic of VE, and is certainly not a realistic application of ethics.

[JennandMolly]

@Genktarov Ah now here's what I was looking for! I do appreciate the response. I, like you, was once a virtue ethicist. I, like you, am also morally against abortion for the same reasons as I'm against the killing of animals; however, I'm also a realist and the realistic consequences for outlawing abortion far outweigh the consequences of keeping it legal and safe.

[Genktarov]

@JennandMolly Finally, the last two. It does not logically follow that because some women are endangered by their pregnancies, all abortion is fine and dandy. I further object to this on the grounds that a mother should have enough love for her child to take the risks involved in bringing it life. Abortion is a singularly selfish act.

Complications during pregnancy can lead to disease, yes. Generally, they're easily treated. And besides, the risk of disease does not justify all abortion.

[Genktarov]

@JennandMolly A fetus is not a mere part of a woman's body. It has a different DNA, a different heart, internal organs, face, hair, fingernails. Biologically, the new life begins at conception, as any textbook written before the encroachments of 1960s radical feminism will tell you.

Ethics according to the school I come from says that we can't do whatever we want with our bodies.

[Genktarov]

@JennandMolly I will happily prove to you there is far more logic behind my position than yours.

If values are personal, then they have no meaning. Either something is true, or it isn't. Either something is good, or it isn't. Ethics must be normative to mean anything at all. Also, if values are personal, on what grounds do you say that my values should not dictate what women can do with their bodies? Isn't that projecting your values on to me?

[Genktarov]

@JennandMolly Actually, only one strain of Enlightenment ethics does. From them we get this strange idea of rights as moral entitlements. The problem with their thinking is this: there is no standard for determining a true right. When two rights are in opposition, how does one decide which to honor? There is no standard for the decision.

I come from the school of ethics that everyone came from before the "Enlightenment": virtue ethics.

[JennandMolly]

@Genktarov There are many schools of ethics and overwhelmingly they revolve around autonomy. You may believe in a different kind of ethics but that does not automatically make your reasoning logical. There are very good arguments for the immorality of abortion, but your moral values should not dictate what other women can do with their bodies. Being pregnant does not always violate the sanctity of her life, but it can and there's no denying that. Pregnancy's not a disease, but it can cause them.