Debate: Pro-Choice: Argue that Abortion is morally justified.?

Question

READ CAREFULLY: This question is for Pro-abortionists ONLY. I am trying to see whether Pro-lifers/anti-abortionists OR Pro-choice/pro-abortionists can give the best arguments for their position on abortion. I have made TWO separate questions, one for each side. For the Pro-life side, get out of here, and find the Debate: Pro-life question. I understand that some people are somewhere in the middle. Please answer the one that applies the MOST to your position on this issue. I am looking for arguments, not only opinion statements. Explain your reasoning for your position to show that you rationally hold your position. I am asking a MORAL and thus philosophical question here. Please DON'T simply state legal facts.

Professor C: You didn't read carefully. I said, "I understand that some people are somewhere in the middle. Please answer the one that applies the MOST to your position on this issue." So, my classifications are not narrow.

Professor C: You are a moral relativist, and that is logically problematic.

The pro-lifers are WINNING this debate so far. And, they are the only ones that have read carefully enough to not answer the wrong question.

If you want to know about my arguments and position on the abortion issue, see the link below:

http://ca.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-uoSKbWs9bqXGXT04QmlFeG5S52ZOmL4ZOmL7YZkhLXT96Q--?cq=1

If this link does not work, search for Solez Mar's Blog in Yahoo.

I am strongly opposed to abortion. Here is a list of my main reasons for my pro-life stance.

Abortion draws attention away from important social issues that can influence the woman's choice to abort. If society were to first solve these issues, there would be no need to see abortion as an alternative. These issues include poverty or lack of economic resources; lack of social support; for example, lack of family support, lack of support in the workplace, such as, inadequate maternity policies at work, socially contingent time management problems, for example, the incompatibility some women find between obtaining career success and child rearing; coercion from the father when he does not want the pregnancy to continue; and potential social stigma for being a single mother.

Abortion reinforces oppression in our world. Abortion reinforces sexism-More females get aborted than males, and abortionist policies don't recognize the reproductive rights of men (the fathers). Abortion reinforces racism-Coloured mothers are driven by their proportionately more disadvantaged circumstances to abort more often than whites.
Abortion reinforces classism-Economically disadvantaged women are more likely to abort., and abortion draws attention away from the need to solve the poverty that can influence the choice to abort.

Abortion reinforces ageism-Abortionists view the unborn as too young to have rights in two ways.
(1) Abortionists temporally discriminate: Society arbitrarily demarcates what should be considered the time of birth. The concept 'birth' is culturally constructed and socially contingent, and thus lacks internal construct validity: Some view the birth of the human being as occurring at the time of conception, because at that time genetic development is put in motion.
(2) Abortionists discriminate against "unborn" human beings based on psycho-developmental and bio-developmental stage differences. They perceive the "unborn" as too under-developed, while they choose what "developed enough" means to fit with society's arbitrary concepts "birth" and "personhood."

The abortionist position is fallacious. It question begs by definition, that is, it assumes that the pro-abortionist way of defining "birth" and "human being" are the only ways. Abortionist claims suffer from lack of objectivity, since it is possible to define birth in other and more scientifically valid ways. By scientific fact, from the time of conception, one is a human being in the process of developing. Lacking scientific basis for their view of what a human being is, abortionists dehumanize the unborn. When abortionists recognize the right to choose what happens with one's body, they recognize the existence of the woman's body only, and ignore the developing human body within the pregnant woman. They do not permit anyone to represent the life interests of the distinct human body growing within the mother.

Abortion contributes to population size control to the disadvantage of unborn females, visible minorities, and poor people, and thus it is eugenicist in practice.

Pro-choice people need to recognize that the woman's choice to abort is neither completely free when abortion is legal nor completely unfree when it is illegal. Oppressive social factors, such as the ones I mentioned earlier, in the woman's situation influence her choice and thus the degree of freedom of her choice. If women are willing to risk their own life while killing another through abortion that is their choice, and outlawing abortion cannot take that choice away from them, for; they can still choose to abort illegally. However, society has no moral or ethical obligation to minimize the risk that women take when they illegally kill their unborn, for, they are committing an immoral or unethical act.

You wrote or offered some eloquent passages. However, your position is ambiguous or too open to interpretation. It is not clear whether (1) it is morally relativistic, that is, whether you are claiming that what is ethical for one person is not necessarily ethical for another or whether (2) you entirely reject ethics, that is, whether your claim is that there is no such thing as ethical truth. Each of those claims is logically problematic. For, if you are a moral relativist, you claim that abortion is moral and immoral; and thus you contradict yourself. And, if you reject ethics, it cannot be unethical for society to assume that there is ethical truth about abortion and claim that abortion is morally wrong and outlaw it.

You are clearly correct, if your claim simply is that ethical conduct is not necessarily what social conventions claim is good conduct.

There is a difference between what is moral and what is legal and between what is moral and what is popularly viewed as good or what tradition claims is good. Since the dominant social perceptions and social conventions change as history progresses, it would be morally relativistic to claim that what popular social perceptions and social conventions claim is ethical actually IS ethical. For, ethical conduct IS good conduct, according to the truth, regardless of what popular opinion and tradition may claim or what historical age one is in. And, there IS such thing as TRUTH about how moral agents SHOULD conduct themselves or about what is ethical conduct. Ethical knowledge does not regard only universals, but requires understanding of the particulars of the moral agent's case. (I am starting to run out of space, so I am not sure whether I will be allowed to post anymore.)

So, when judging whether the moral agent's actions are ethical/morally justified, it is very important in all ethical matters to consider the social circumstances of the moral agent; for example, that it would be more socially convenient for a pregnant student to abort than to drop out of school or for a destitute pregnant woman to abort than to bring a child into a life of poverty with a cost to the welfare system.

However, it is even more important to consider the factors that are causing or contributing to those circumstances. For example, society should get rid of the circumstances that make it inconvenient for the student to have a child; this can include society making available more temporally flexible post-secondary programs. For another example, society should get rid of the economic inequality that permits the poverty that, in turn, makes it financially inconvenient for society to allow a poor woman to have children who will have to receive welfare.

Therefore, if the choice to abort is influenced by unethical circumstances, such as social oppression, society should work to get rid of the root circumstantial causes instead of simply insisting that the unethical circumstances can justify the abortion.

I appreciate that some of you gave rational answers. I received more rational answers than I initially expected that I would receive, and I appreciate that you took the time to write. You helped me to understand more clearly some differences between pro-choice people and pro-abortionists.

However, for those who gave dogmatic answers, please don't assume that your position is infallible or that it cannot be wrong. The pro-choice and pro-abortion sides are not necessarily ethical just because they claim that they are not sexist; and they are not necessarily more rational than pro-lifers. Dogmatic arguments can be given for both sides alike. And so can rational ones.

Path less traveled:The comment above that started in this way, "You wrote or offered some eloquent passages" was in response to your answer.

Answer 1

The first two answers above are great ones indeed.

And I do here speak as the man child if not an upside to and on behalf of humanity itself. Further, I have little interest in the dialectic on abortion, for much has been argued and even less has been resolved. For what is the mind but a carousel that may offer the oberver little but a different scenery and a new beguiling nonetheless fitted with the selfsame theme?

For Power will have its way, alas. And this is the way of the Mind if left to its own accords -- a constant and consistent looping, providing the illusion of progression but in reality only the sensation of movement.

Now, this thing on abortion is more simple than one who is against abortion could believe; for the reasoning and dynamics of all things on birth and the truths thereto are far too esoteric for the likes of pro-lifers, even a stretch for those who are pro-choice, the basis of which is most spiritual but which truths have long been perverted and distorted, and which device was that of what came to be known as morality, a precept and ideal having no more true import than requiring but the merest of cursory perusal, and never was it to be countenanced or adopted beyond the rhetorical to impart example for Argument and Forensics sake -- mere mental masturbation.

Hence, the likes of such was used commonly among the ancient philosphers in schools and fields in those days in North Africa, South Europe, the Middle East, and Asia Minor.

None lingered in the works of Morality except for sake of the theoretical nor were theirs the need for extended study in it with aspirations to excel.

All knew and studied it: that importing morality to society and convention was never more than a controlling tool got-up by the clergy and power-brokers. True several millenia ago; true today. No prophet, great saint, holyman or holywoman or savior ever espoused the use of what is now called morality, for they knew the dangers of such; they knew its use was but a corruptive tool of power to instill fear -- the greatest of the tools of power.

Moreover, it existence could never be more than falsehood; and its use, that of fallacy. For in ancient times, fear and anger were of the most paramount concern to avert and extinguish, and not few enlightened beings suffered as results of Fear and Anger.

The prime flaw, in dialectical terms, over the said arguments of abortion rest with the word itself " morality." And founding one's take on abortion as "wrong" soley based on moralistic terms does surely lose already.

Now, I am skipping here, for Yahoo is not quite the medium to broach so important a topic and yet expect any resolve to come of it -- but, then, such a medium is no less a good start than any put-up before today's conventions.

I will say this. Bear in mind that much of this thing on abortion supposedly bases on precedent of the Church -- which is a second loss already.

Do realize that the Church of two and three millenia ago, and still true of today, was more off side on the concerns of women than one would dare admit: the inequities and maltreatment amid women's rights of today would pale in comparison with regard to the times of Moses, Mohammad, and Jesus.

The Church and its complementary Aristocracies were extreme violators of women's rights moreover ursurpers of freedoms for all -- man or beast -- to say the least, and cared little about bearing equality to human beings, regardless of gender.

As individuals of the world evolve and ascend and grow of heart and mind, they will easily peer into and across the veil of reality as we know it and behold the truths regarding birth, sustenance, and dissolution of physical life. As well, they will come to know the true dynamics centered on the cycle of gestation, from inception up to the point of birth and immediately following: they will come to know the true mystery involved concerning conception and be well able to distinguish between the inception of true sentient life and that of essentially mere cellular replication enlivened and animated by the host itself, that is, within the uterus and I should say the mind of the pregnant woman herself -- something which none can or shall dare legislate short of an edict of the Angelic Hosts put forward: and in this wise, no such edict stands...

That a woman has to behold if not forebear the woof and warp of councils or legislatures of hide-bound men still, and this, after several thousands the years, should prompt one to know that enough is enough from not only Mankind but by God Itself; and that laws and constraints set-up against abortion and what a woman is to do with her body, were and are not Laws set up by God but rather, Man himself -- strike that -- by Men...

What 'is' violation, however, is that one would dare to violate the domain, space, and private empties of another's world, and obstruct the divine rights of any to have and afford oneself Free Will.

There exists no Morality that one need abide. It was ever and only to quell the passions of those of the early day and millenia who evidenced no device to control of themselves. For few then, and even today for sure, had advanced sufficiently but to fall to what would become Moral code...
There exists truly only Free Will and above it all, Divine Will.

Morality has now to stand down and get out of the way, as do Clergy who still dare to propagate such a ruse as this upon the societies of the world.

Answer 2

There is a legitimate confusion as to exactly where a human life begins. Is an unfertilized egg cell a human being? Is a fertilized egg a human being? Most reasonable, intelligent people would look at a 9-month fetus, ready to be born, viable outside the mother's body, and say yes, that's a person, with a right to live. But these same reasonable people would look at a fertilized egg, too small to be seen with the naked eye, with no brain, no heart or other organs, no personality or consciousness, and they'd say no, that's not a human being. That could be removed, destroyed, and we wouldn't feel bad about it. So for many years the legitimate question was; Where between these two extremes do we say life begins? There are many 'milestones' between these two stages. You could arbitrarily pick any one of these and say 'Okay, that's life. Now you can't kill it.' To pick fertilization as the beginning of life is arbitrary and artificial. We know now that half or more of all fertilized eggs never implant on the uterine wall and begins to develop. They are unviable, genetically incomplete, and they flush out of the woman's body with her next period, before she ever knew she was 'pregnant'. Can we believe God 'kills' half of all 'human beings'? Implantation would be a better standard, because it's a necessary step in the process. What if we considered the beginning of brainwave activity as the beginning of life. The embryo is a 'person' when it begins generating its own brainwaves. After all we see the end of brainwave activity as the end of life. Nobody has ever come back from 'brain death'. Brainwaves begin around the 10th or 11th week of life, about the end of the first trimester. So if we saw it that way, that would allow a woman 6-8 weeks to learn she's pregnant (because it often takes that long) and another couple of weeks to consider it, to talk to her doctor, her family, her husband or boyfriend, her minister, and to make a decision. Let's say -after- the first trimester you need a good excuse to get an abortion, like severe birth defects or danger to the health of the mother. Wouldn't that be more reasonable than simply calling any fertilized egg a 'human being' even though half of them fail all on their own? In the US (and I suspect elsewhere) the abortion issue is a political issue dressed up as a religious issue. The issue is -designed- in such a way as to never be resolved, so the Republican Party can milk the maximum political mileage out of it (which by now they have).

Answer 3

The emphasis on the child/embryo is misplaced in this argument; the rights of the woman involved take precedence.

"To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable... Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the antiabortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly..."

"By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?"



"The proper, philosophically valid definition of man as 'a rational animal' would not permit anyone to ascribe the status 'person' to a few human cells."

Answer 4

The embryo isn't a human. The woman feels and thinks while the embryo doesn't, it simply can't be considered human. Remember, in Genesis Adam wasn't alive until God gave him the breath of life same when we are born. Our life begins when we are born. Abortion isn't immoral becuase it doesn't kill a human. Any person in their right mind looking at an embryo wouldn't describe it as human but rather as an organism. The woman is more important especially in cases of rape where she didn't even have a choice. Who do you feel for more the woman or the embryo that doesn't reason? Would you rather save a person or a fertilized cell? The cell isn't a person in what society and what religion considers a full person thus abortion isn't murder.

Answer 5

pro-choice and pro-abortion are very different opinions. i am pro-choice. women should have the right to chose what they do with their bodies. i am very much against abortion in that it is a rather barbaric operation and sadly used as a form of last choice birth control largely by people who were never educated on the wide range of things they can and should do to prevent pregnancy.

most women that undergo abortions are never warned of the chances it will lead to complications years down the road including periodic interal bleeding and infertility. if we stop looking at things as black and white (like abortion) we can see all the choices we have inbetween -- like giving people the tools to make informed decisions for themselves on what is best for themselves and society as a whole. ok im off my soapbox now. have a good friday night.

Answer 6

Spirit is from the Latin spiritus, which means breath. No spirit no life. Any life in order to be truly alive must be able to breathe on it's own. Cell division alone cannot constitute life or cancerous tumors would be classified as life and the people that have the tumors removed would be classified as murderers.

Answer 7

Wouldn't that be great if I had to justify myself to you. I don't. I will do whatever I need to maintain legal abortions.

Given this is a philosophy area, you might have rephrased in terms of ethics which can be seen as something different from morality.

I don't accept others morals or ethics. Sorry, I don't fit into your neatly constructed paradigm.

Answer 8

In short, unwanted pregnancy can mean seriously wrecked life for a woman. Living your life in constant fear of unwanted pregnancy is unnecessary.

Answer 9

Sorry- But I am not in one of your narrow classifications- I am PRO-CHOICE ie women should be able to choose for themselves even if it is a different choice than I would make.