Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Abortion *should* be unnecessary. We should not copulate if we can't support a child, or simply don't want one right now. But that doesn't reflect the empirically-confirmable observation that humans don't or won't act in such a responsible way. And so we have abortion, a practical approach to a real-world problem. In short, it shouldn't be necessary, but it *is* necessary, to avoid consequences that are even less desirable than abortion. Such as unwanted children, or (most likely, and most important?) that the parents are not in a position to support a child (for whatever reason(s)).

Rape, of course, must always be a special case. No woman should ever be *required* to bear her rapist's baby.

Yes, abstinence works, but you may be unaware that there have been several relatively recent discoveries called Birth Control.

Fancy a doctor promoting the cold-blooded murder of innocent sex cells! You must be aware by now that every sperm is sacred, that every sperm is great, and if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Never gets old...

Bizarrely, it's never been more pertinent. Many truly believe that an embryo with a brain equivalent to a flatworm can suffer as we do. Yet they don't think fully grown pig, cow or lamb can suffer.

I am so angry at what has happened to academia and science. It was my foundational baseline, and it's being corrupted. Grants are apportions on partisan grounds. An example in here, along with other manipulations behind the scenes: https://www.heritage.org/public-health/ ... n-covid-19

The upshot? As science loses trust, there's more of the flat Earth, Moon landing denials, godlike control over elections, sentient embryos and the Magic Man in the Sky. Just goes to show that recent gains tend to be fragile.

[LuckyR]

Yes, abstinence works, but you may be unaware that there have been several relatively recent discoveries called Birth Control.

Fancy a doctor promoting the cold-blooded murder of innocent sex cells! You must be aware by now that every sperm is sacred, that every sperm is great, and if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Never gets old...

Bizarrely, it's never been more pertinent. Many truly believe that an embryo with a brain equivalent to a flatworm can suffer as we do. Yet they don't think fully grown pig, cow or lamb can suffer.

I am so angry at what has happened to academia and science. It was my foundational baseline, and it's being corrupted. Grants are apportions on partisan grounds. An example in here, along with other manipulations behind the scenes: https://www.heritage.org/public-health/ ... n-covid-19

The upshot? As science loses trust, there's more of the flat Earth, Moon landing denials, godlike control over elections, sentient embryos and the Magic Man in the Sky. Just goes to show that recent gains tend to be fragile.

I get your point but I wouldn't classify the musings of Jeff M Smith as either academia nor science. He's just a hack with an agenda.

[Lagayascienza]

I disagreed with the both option 1. and option 2. My reasons for disagreeing and choosing option three are as follows:

I see no sound reason, moral or otherwise, to deny an abortion to the impoverished teenager in the very early stages of pregnancy who has been raped by a close family member. Denying an abortion to her is preposterous and would be cruel not only to the teenager whose life is at risk but also to the child who, according to the scenario given, is likely to be born with a severe genetic disorder. This is just a no-brainer to me. The girl gets her abortion.

In the second scenario where we have a wealthy woman who is past her delivery date and is, presumably, on the verge of giving birth, I have serious misgivings. This is smacks of infanticide to me. The child is fully developed. The woman has carried the baby for nine months already. Moreover, the woman is wealthy and could afford the best of care - she could have a spinal tap or caesarian section under general anesthetic and so need not suffer labor, and she could immediately give the child up for adoption. Moreover, since the woman is on the verge of giving birth, rupturing or removing the placenta in an induced abortion may result in a live birth anyway. I would make such late term abortions, in the circumstances given, illegal.

I had to re-read otpion two. It's far more ridiculous than option 1. There is absolutely nowhere in the entire world, not doctor of any kind that would consider for a moment aborting a a full grown child "5days AFTER" due. So whilst at first I was puzzled who would chose option 1, even more staggered to think that twice that number would vote 2. I cannot think that they could have read it through properly. as that would be infanticide and not an abortion. That is murder.

I think the UK and the US have it right. legal and timely terminations are the bst way to go.
Ironically many who want to ban all abortion would also ban sex education and birth control.
So, let's face it the US is under the yoke of a minority of extremist moralists.

Yes, in the US, after the overturning of Roe vs Wade by the Trump stacked Supreme Court, a number of states which are currently ruled by the rabid-religious-right, have made abortion illegal. A second Trump presidency might see abortion banned completely in the US.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, "Birth Control" works, but you may be unaware that, just as humans copulate when they don't want children, they also copulate without using birth control, even when they 'should'?

Agreed. Which do you think is likely to be more achievable, abstinence or Birth Control use?

Neither, in practice. That's my point. There are various things we could do to prevent unwanted babies, but humans will always 'forget', or set them aside in the fumbling ecstasy of courtship. *That*, I think, is the problem here?

[Sculptor1]

I disagreed with the both option 1. and option 2. My reasons for disagreeing and choosing option three are as follows:

I see no sound reason, moral or otherwise, to deny an abortion to the impoverished teenager in the very early stages of pregnancy who has been raped by a close family member. Denying an abortion to her is preposterous and would be cruel not only to the teenager whose life is at risk but also to the child who, according to the scenario given, is likely to be born with a severe genetic disorder. This is just a no-brainer to me. The girl gets her abortion.

In the second scenario where we have a wealthy woman who is past her delivery date and is, presumably, on the verge of giving birth, I have serious misgivings. This is smacks of infanticide to me. The child is fully developed. The woman has carried the baby for nine months already. Moreover, the woman is wealthy and could afford the best of care - she could have a spinal tap or caesarian section under general anesthetic and so need not suffer labor, and she could immediately give the child up for adoption. Moreover, since the woman is on the verge of giving birth, rupturing or removing the placenta in an induced abortion may result in a live birth anyway. I would make such late term abortions, in the circumstances given, illegal.

I had to re-read otpion two. It's far more ridiculous than option 1. There is absolutely nowhere in the entire world, not doctor of any kind that would consider for a moment aborting a a full grown child "5days AFTER" due. So whilst at first I was puzzled who would chose option 1, even more staggered to think that twice that number would vote 2. I cannot think that they could have read it through properly. as that would be infanticide and not an abortion. That is murder.

I think the UK and the US have it right. legal and timely terminations are the bst way to go.
Ironically many who want to ban all abortion would also ban sex education and birth control.
So, let's face it the US is under the yoke of a minority of extremist moralists.

Yes, in the US, after the overturning of Roe vs Wade by the Trump stacked Supreme Court, a number of states which are currently ruled by the rabid-religious-right, have made abortion illegal. A second Trump presidency might see abortion banned completely in the US.

I cannot imagine why Trump is still ahead in the polls.
And it does not help that Biden is starting to alienate his own constituency by his disgusting stance on Isreal.
THe choice between a criminal and genocide Joe in the next election is a stark reminder od the degree to which democracy has failed America.
Trump and Project 2025, will spell the end of the last vestige of democracy, and the USA will be effectively a dictatorship, owned by corporate power.
Never in my life did I ever imagine things getting this bad. The UK is much the same with the Labour party making a massive lurch to the right with its blass in the hand of Israel.

[Sculptor1]

Yes, "Birth Control" works, but you may be unaware that, just as humans copulate when they don't want children, they also copulate without using birth control, even when they 'should'?

Agreed. Which do you think is likely to be more achievable, abstinence or Birth Control use?

Neither, in practice. That's my point. There are various things we could do to prevent unwanted babies, but humans will always 'forget', or set them aside in the fumbling ecstasy of courtship. *That*, I think, is the problem here?

Clearly the more means that we have available to avoid unwanted babies the better.
Sex education.
Birth control with ease of access regardless of age
and timely abortions on demand
I can see zero moral objections here as there is nothing more sad than an unwanted child.
THere is no argument for sad childless couples, as there is an unremitting supply of infants that need homes.

[Pattern-chaser]

I can't and don't disagree with any of that. But is does leave us with abortion as a practical, real-world, response to unwanted pregnancies. I don't have a moral issue with that, and you don't either, but others do.

But back in our Ivory Towers, it is quite clear that abortion is wrong, morally. In absolute terms, I don't think this can be disputed. To me, the response is that this morally-wrong act becomes necessary to avoid or undo other things that are more wrong. They are "more" wrong because they do *more* harm than abortion does. Much more. And in very many ways.

[LuckyR]

Yes, "Birth Control" works, but you may be unaware that, just as humans copulate when they don't want children, they also copulate without using birth control, even when they 'should'?

Agreed. Which do you think is likely to be more achievable, abstinence or Birth Control use?

Neither, in practice. That's my point. There are various things we could do to prevent unwanted babies, but humans will always 'forget', or set them aside in the fumbling ecstasy of courtship. *That*, I think, is the problem here?

Exactly. Folks routinely fumble around in courtship, that is: abstinence is a statistical failure >>90% of the time. Whereas even the pull out method fails less than that.

That's why antecedently planned BC used by thoughtful women (who else, right?) are the success stories in the abortion prevention universe.

[baker]

Exactly. Folks routinely fumble around in courtship, that is: abstinence is a statistical failure >>90% of the time.

As if it weren't people, conscious beings, who court and get involved ...

That's why antecedently planned BC used by thoughtful women (who else, right?) are the success stories in the abortion prevention universe.

Even tubal ligations aren't 100% reliable. The problem of unwanted pregnancies and abortions remains, contraceptives just lessen the scope of it. The nature of the problem remains, what you're suggesting only limits its scope.

[baker]

Yes, in the US, after the overturning of Roe vs Wade by the Trump stacked Supreme Court, a number of states which are currently ruled by the rabid-religious-right, have made abortion illegal. A second Trump presidency might see abortion banned completely in the US.

But surely not for rich people. As the OP states, the two options are "a little unscientific poll", but they do indicate that the legality of abortion is actually primarily a status/class issue. Rich people will have safe abortions regardless of the legal status of abortion. But if abortion becomes illegal, then that's another thing with which the upper class can control and subdue the lower class.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, in the US, after the overturning of Roe vs Wade by the Trump stacked Supreme Court, a number of states which are currently ruled by the rabid-religious-right, have made abortion illegal. A second Trump presidency might see abortion banned completely in the US.

But surely not for rich people. As the OP states, the two options are "a little unscientific poll", but they do indicate that the legality of abortion is actually primarily a status/class issue. Rich people will have safe abortions regardless of the legal status of abortion. But if abortion becomes illegal, then that's another thing with which the upper class can control and subdue the lower class.

A side issue. Abortion is all about the religious belief that an early human embryo, not much different to a flatworm, has a full suite of cognitive and sensory abilities and must be treated as fully human.

[LuckyR]

Exactly. Folks routinely fumble around in courtship, that is: abstinence is a statistical failure >>90% of the time.

As if it weren't people, conscious beings, who court and get involved ...

That's why antecedently planned BC used by thoughtful women (who else, right?) are the success stories in the abortion prevention universe.

Even tubal ligations aren't 100% reliable. The problem of unwanted pregnancies and abortions remains, contraceptives just lessen the scope of it. The nature of the problem remains, what you're suggesting only limits its scope.

True. But that's the issue he raised (lowering the need for abortion).

[LuckyR]

Even tubal ligations aren't 100% reliable. The problem of unwanted pregnancies and abortions remains, contraceptives just lessen the scope of it. The nature of the problem remains, what you're suggesting only limits its scope.

True. But that's the issue he raised (lowering the need for abortion).

Though I'm open to your ideas on eliminating the need altogether.

[Lagayascienza]

I, too, am open to the idea of eliminating the need for abortions altogether. I just don't see how it would be possible. What about rape, or worse, a girl raped by a family member. This horrible stuff happens. Ideally, medical abortions rather than surgical abortions would cover most such cases. We must make abortion available in such cases.

The other thing we need to do is to reduce the need for abortion by providing good sex education and making contraception more easily available. I include in that the morning-after pill.

[Pattern-chaser]

That's why antecedently planned BC used by thoughtful women (who else, right?) are the success stories in the abortion prevention universe.

Exactly so. ... Except that it's the failures to prevent pregnancy that are occupying our minds here, not the successes...?