Should abortion remain a woman's right to choose, even though it is probably immoral?

Question

Things do not become illegal, just because they are immoral. Moral decisions are usually made by individuals, rather than by act of government.

In the abortion debate, there are many anti-abortionists who confuse the issue of morality with the law. Abortion, they reason, should be illegal because it is immoral.

By contrast, the "pro-choice" lobby argue that abortion should be a woman's right to choose. However, just because women have the right to choose, it does not necessarily follow that any choice they make will be a good moral choice. Giving people the right to choose means that people can make bad choices!

The strange thing is that I never hear feminists acknowledging that abortion is a moral problem and I never hear anti-abortionists acknowledging that there could be significant problems in outlawing abortion.

Joan H seems to reject morality completely. As long as you do what is right for you, you can "fuk" (sic) the rest of the world. What a depressing outlook!

Juan Hombre: I'm sorry for the contentious (but not necessarily false) premise! If you read the full question, I hope you will see that I was trying to establish the point that there could still be a moral problem with abortion, even if we believe that abortion should be a woman's right to choose. I wasn't trying to "impose" my view on others because you can disagree with the premise if you want to (and you do) but please support your disagreement with reasons. Just saying that abortion should be a woman's right to choose is not a justification for concluding that abortion is not immoral.

"Veritas" gave a very interesting answer in making the point that, even though the law cannot legislate against all that is immoral, the law should still have an ethical basis. In allowing women to abort, there is a violation of human rights. In many ways I agree. However, in allowing women a right to choose, the law is passing on the moral problem to its citizens. It is not actually advocating abortion. The right to choose does not remove the moral problem. In practice, the state cannot stop abortions. The only people who can, in practice, stop abortions are pregnant women. That's why I believe that, if the pro-life lobby really want to stop abortions taking place, they should focus on the moral choice that women have the right to make and they should stop focussing on the law, which is ineffective anyway.

"Chrissi" is one of several people who appears to have completely missed my point. If we allow women to have freedom of choice on this issue, then nobody is "forcing" a women to have a child against her will. The woman has the right to choose. However, giving women the right to choose means that they have the capacity to make immoral decisions and many in the "pro-choice" lobby seem to be completely ignoring the moral issue. They are pretending that the moral issue doesn't exist. They are supposing that something is moral just because it is legal or they are suggesting that anything is ethical as long as it's in your own self-interest. That is a terrifying attitude but, sadly, an increasingly common attitude.

Answer 1

You don't state whether you think that it is acceptable that morality doesn't necessarily play a roll in law making. I think that it should but, unfortunately, often doesn't. Our moral code derives from fundamental Christian principles, and that they both should inform the laws that we choose to live under. I don't think that mankind was capable of creating a set of moral principle's to live by, without drawing from religious teachings because, how would they know that they had created a truly moral code?

However, I am well aware that some of our laws seemed to have had a morality bypass during their making. And abortion, is top of the list for me. I know that all those things that might be considered immoral, can't necessarily be made illegal. But in those areas where we do create legislation, then surely there shouldn't be a conflict between morality and the law.

Back to abortion, which I think can only be justified in the most extreme cases. Feminists, in their zeal to give more and more power to women, seem to have bullied the government and medical researches into giving them what they want, "The Woman's right to choose". If ever there was a bit of creative morality, that's it. That's why I stated above, the danger in mankind inventing morality out of thin air. The woman's, "right to choose" can be re-interpreted as "the baby has no inherent right to life" and "the man, also, has no say in the matter". This looks like feminists gaining power for its own sake, regardless of moral considerations. Isn't it also a direct assault on what it is to be a woman, caring, nurturing. Shouldn't this operate at an instinctive level. If we don't care for our children why should we care for each other, not to mention the old, the sick.

I believe that there are about three hundred and eighty thousand abortions in the UK alone, each year. Because the legislators have given a green light to abortion, and the medical profession are quite happy to carry them out, then women think that all moral considerations have been taken care of on their behalf. But, as you point out in your question, women still have a moral choice to make. Following my logic, abortion, on the scale that currently exists, wouldn't be allowed under the law, because I would not pass immoral legislation. Where is the so called 'Human Rights' for unborn, never to be born, children.

Feminists, don't see a moral problem, because the left wing zealots don't believe in God or religion. They are truly operating in their own moral universe.

Answer 2

Yes, I think it should remain a woman's right to choose. I think your statement: "By contrast, the "pro-choice" lobby argue that abortion should be a woman's right to choose. However, just because women have the right to choose, it does not necessarily follow that any choice they make will be a good moral choice. Giving people the right to choose means that people can make bad choices!" is absolutely valid.

It has always been a woman's choice to abort a child (I mean, there were means to that end even in the Middle Ages, most likely a long time before that too), and it was always a moral question that different women found different answers to.

Besides the fact that now abortion is safer for the mother than it used to be (some of those miscarriage-causing ailments could well kill the mother as well; and we know what was caused by a bad doctor in Dirty Dancing), I don't see what has changed. While abortion is legal, regulations can be observed regarding the quality of service, preserving the health of the mother and her capability of bearing children in the future, which I consider a very important argument against outlawing abortion...

The arguments back and forth are infinite; the fact is that whatever the law, abortion will be practiced, as it always was. Why not have it right and proper and legal, though on really shaky moral grounds?

Answer 3

Absolutely! But what you must rememer is that once you make that choice there is no going back, no regrets etc. Making decisions whether good or bad means accepting fully the consequences of your actions - you cannot live any other way. None of us knows what is around the corner and therefore a 'good choice' today could prove to be a 'bad choice' tomorrow, but it is imperative to 'stick to the moment' you made that choice and remember all the reasons for making that decision.
Governments & religions should be there to support people and help them live better lives; outlawing operations (within the medical guidelines given) and laying guilt upon individuals does not make a happy citizens.
Society can have a moral guideline but this will not necessarily influence an individual. Morals held by individuals depend upon individual perception, and therefore what one may find acceptable another would abhor. It is only when an individual's strong views against abortion are challenged by making a personal choice that the morals are upheld, or change according to the individual's circumstances involved in reaching the decision.
Does anyone accept that it is moral to make a woman have a baby if she was raped (possibly incestuously) etc, if SHE DOESN'T WANT TO?

Answer 4

Her body, her choice. I'm not for abortion except in extreme cases like rape. Many anti-abortionists huff and puff but when the woman gets pregnant they take no more responsibility and scarper. If they're so pro-life then they should stick around and help, e.g. the fathers who thnk the whole baby thing is an unfortunate by-product of sex and not their problem. These arent virgin pregnancies Even in countries when there is strict religious and moral grounds against abortion and they condemn her if she tries to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, do very little or nothing to help. I knew several Irish women who suffered badly at the double standards of a system that lays all the hypocrisy at the child-bearing woman's door.

If legal abortion is banned it wont stop women trying to abort, it'll just drive them back to the horrendous backstreet abortions.
It is not really a question of morals but how the law chops and changes with what is legal or illegal. Moral attitudes are a fickle thing. One day it's immoral for something the next day perfectly normal.

Answer 5

The very same people that are against abortion are all for sending our solders off to war where many lives are lost. Some baby's will lose their lives do to war. They will stand and cheer when they kill a convict. What gets me the most is if the mother chooses life for a baby that these same people will cry about paying taxes to help support it.
That being said and to answer your question. Abortion is a piss poor means of birth control. It should be used only in extreme cases but it is a decision that a mother makes that is between her and her god and the government has no business legislating her morality.

Answer 6

I would agree to some extend that abortion is a moral choice for a woman. I had an abortion a few years ago, and I would do it again under the circumstances. My husband and I were thrilled that we were having a baby, but then we found out that the baby had severe Down's Syndrome. We decided that as painful as the decision was, we could not, morally, bring a child into this world and force him to live a life like that.

Answer 7

I had a friend once whose mother was verociously anti-abortion. She told him when he was five that he was never wanted and was a mistake. He was pretty messed up as a result.

Yes I think it should be a woman's right to choose. No, I wouldn't have one myself. But the alternatives are far worse - back street abortions, ruined lives, etc. It's not pleasant, and I don't think it should be allowed past three months for other than medical reasons, which it usually is not, but it's a fact. I find it worrying that this issue is becoming so debated now in the UK because of what's been going on in America. I'd rather we focus on averting unwanted pregnancies and helping people rather than assuming the problem will just go away and we can force them to carry to term.

Answer 8

I understand where your coming from, but i do think that it would be totally immoral for an unwilling woman to endure pregnancy. Even if the baby was to be given up at birth, it is a completely traumatic experience for the mother to have gone through all of that and then to lose the baby to strangers because the circumstances of her getting pregnant were not right.

Equally it is completely immoral and inconceivable for someone that does not want a baby or is not responsible enough to care for a child and bring it up as some sort of delinquent or neglect it.

Also have you considered what sort of a right an unborn and undeveloped child has when it is a baby of a rapist? What sort of a life would the mother and child have if they couldn't get over that hurdle.

When talking of morals it is only acceptable for the mother to have the child if she is willing to dedicate the next 20 (and hopefully more) years of her life to it and the circumstances are right and that the child will be brought up as an upstanding citizen.

A happy mother will have a happy child so the first responsibility is to the mother and then to the child in theses circumstances.

Answer 9

I believe it should stay a woman's choice. And in saying that, the father of the child should be involved in the decision if possible. I have never had to make that decision myself, and hope I never have to, but there are a lot of people out there that simply needed to. The issue of morality is a tough one to deal with. There are situations in which it would be a moral decision to have the abortion, for example: if you found out the child was affected by a disorder that would leave it in pain for what little bit of a life it would have, or if carrying it meant the mother and child would be ask risk.

To me, the only real solution to this dilemma that will always affect Americans society is education. In a country where all kinds of preventive measures and post-delivery options are available why don't we educate our youth to take advantage of it. Sex is a part of our world now, no matter how much anyone likes it. Without a comprehensive sex-education program in high schools and throughout public education there will always be a need for abortion, because there will always be unwanted pregnancy. Until the American people truly separate church and state and stop allowing Christian views (be aware I'm Catholic and saying this) to affect what is taught in schools, there will always be kids trying "it" out, without fully understanding what they are doing and what is out there to protect them.

Answer 10

Yes I think if we lived in a third world country and had no birth control than diffinently a woman's choice. But speaking of some one from the U.S. I think it is complete ignorance at the very least. If we put half the money into education and prevention as we do into pork barrel spending than there wouldn't be a need for the decision to be made in 99% of the cases. I personally think male babies should have a vasectomy when they are born. It's completely reversible and when they want to have kids they only need a simple procedure. I know it sounds out there but it's one simple way to prevent many abortions. It's just one example of things a world power could prevent if they wanted to.