The (im)morality of abortion

That's the criteria the medical community uses

But that's just an appeal to authority. If you believe the medical community have good (ethical) reasons for using that criterion - especially given that they wouldn't use it for an adult human - and you accept their authority because they have good reasons, then what are those reasons?

An undeveloped foetus also isn't the same as an adult human!

Nor are any number of different life forms - but that's beside the point; the point is that it is a living being which, as such, deserves the respect we (especially as vegans) accord all living beings - and even more so given its vulnerability and dependence!
 
But that's just an appeal to authority. If you believe the medical community have good (ethical) reasons for using that criterion - especially given that they wouldn't use it for an adult human - and you accept their authority because they have good reasons, then what are those reasons?



Nor are any number of different life forms - but that's beside the point; the point is that it is a living being which, as such, deserves the respect we (especially as vegans) accord all living beings - and even more so given its vulnerability and dependence!

I don't get why you keep comparing unborn foetuses to adult humans? I accept their authority because Veganism is about suffering right? If they don't feel pain, haven't got a fully developed brain etc then it's hard to argue an unborn foetus at the early stages can really suffer. Abortions are a reality whether we like or or not, and I don't want to live in a society that would deny women abortions. They have to carry the child to term and many women do abortions illegally if they are forced to.

An unborn early stage foetus isn't living in the same a human or an animal is. Are you saying that you don't believe abortions shouldn't happen at all? Where do we draw the line? No morning after pill?
I simple made the distinction I made as it's based on currently medics/scientific consensus on pain, I believe women have the right to have an abortion, and abortions will happen anyway.

If we really don't want abortions to happen, alievating poverty, giving young people more opportunity, improving education etc will be more effective routes.
 
Abortion is the last thing I thought might draw me out of lurk mode but I have a couple of observations, if I may. Firstly, this forum seems to be veering towards a more socio-political talking shop than it used to be. Perhaps that is not surprising considering Trump in the USA and Brexit/Right Wing resurgence in Europe but the polarisation that has always existed has now shifted to the extent that I find myself in agreement with Malf more often than David Bailey these days. Perhaps I'm also lurking in the wrong threads though.

What does that have to do with abortion? Well, on a socio-political level the issues seem to be concerned with women's rights, the right of the unborn child or the causes of unwanted pregnancy including poverty and education. I find that I have little to add to that debate because I'm seriously under-informed on the legal, social and medical complexities. So I tend to look at it from a spiritual perspective. Obviously, that means accepting a certain worldview about how the question of the life prospects of an unborn child (and, of course the mother) might be viewed in the larger spiritual context.

So, in my worldview, the greater soul of the child and mother have a connection beyond the physical. Perhaps an agreement to share an experience. Perhaps the mother needs the experience of pregnancy without the ensuing motherhood. I can't see how, in the larger spiritual context, the "higher self" or transcendent soul of the child would prepare for a life only to have it unexpectedly cut short by abortion. I think there is more foreknowledge than that. As to (im)morality, again I would consider the intent behind the actions as being karmic. If decisions are taken without compassion, whether that be for the mother or the developing child, then at some point a karmic lesson might be required to provide further opportunity for compassion.

As usual, this is impossible to discuss as a single and limited issue because all of life is a continuum with intersecting challenges and reactions. So being judgemental about a single, though important, decision isolates the event and ignores the spiritual context.
 
If we really don't want abortions to happen, alievating poverty, giving young people more opportunity, improving education etc will be more effective routes.

This. In my experience, the anti-abortion crowd aren't at all interested in what happens to the kid/adult, just as long as they get here, no matter what.
 
I don't get why you keep comparing unborn foetuses to adult humans? I accept their authority because Veganism is about suffering right? If they don't feel pain, haven't got a fully developed brain etc then it's hard to argue an unborn foetus at the early stages can really suffer. Abortions are a reality whether we like or or not, and I don't want to live in a society that would deny women abortions. They have to carry the child to term and many women do abortions illegally if they are forced to.

An unborn early stage foetus isn't living in the same a human or an animal is. Are you saying that you don't believe abortions shouldn't happen at all? Where do we draw the line? No morning after pill?
I simple made the distinction I made as it's based on currently medics/scientific consensus on pain, I believe women have the right to have an abortion, and abortions will happen anyway.

If we really don't want abortions to happen, alievating poverty, giving young people more opportunity, improving education etc will be more effective routes.

Veganism to me is about recognising the rights of other living beings. The right to freedom from avoidable suffering is only one right among many. The right to life is the primary one, for humans as well as for animals and plants - and that means humans at all stages of development, including in the womb. The only definitive place to draw the line is conception, yes.

Morally, I see it as clearly as that. Legally and politically is harder - I'm uncertain as to the best way to prevent abortions from happening. Alleviating poverty may be part of the solution, but I think you're fooling yourself if you think that well-off, educated women of opportunity don't choose to abort (I speak from having had one such woman confide in me her awful truth, which she came to regret bitterly).
 
Veganism to me is about recognising the rights of other living beings. The right to freedom from avoidable suffering is only one right among many. The right to life is the primary one, for humans as well as for animals and plants - and that means humans at all stages of development, including in the womb. The only definitive place to draw the line is conception, yes.

Morally, I see it as clearly as that. Legally and politically is harder - I'm uncertain as to the best way to prevent abortions from happening. Alleviating poverty may be part of the solution, but I think you're fooling yourself if you think that well-off, educated women of opportunity don't choose to abort (I speak from having had one such woman confide in me her awful truth, which she came to regret bitterly).

So you're against morning after pills? And do you think women should, or shouldn't have the right to abortions? We're in agreement more then you think we are here but abortions will happen if they're legal or illegal, and I don't think saying women can never have them is right - it is their bodies!

Affluent women do still have abortions, but crucially, they use contraception more and get pregnant way less, so they have less abortions:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ven_though_middle_class_women_abort_more.html

So even though richer women have a higher rate of abortion, they get pregnant much less so they have less actual abortions.

Tackle poverty, educate people, give access to contraception, have abortion legal, well regulated with clear guidelines and women will have less abortions and safer abortions.
 
So you're against morning after pills?

Not if they work as this page claims (emphasis mine):

Evidence gathered by the World Health Organization has found that both emergency contraceptive pills work by stopping or delaying ovulation (the release of an egg from a woman's ovaries). They may also prevent the egg and sperm from meeting. Emergency contraceptive pills do not prevent implantation of a fertilised egg and do not cause an abortion.

And do you think women should, or shouldn't have the right to abortions?

I don't think anybody has a moral right to abort a developing baby unless the mother's life is in danger should the pregnancy continue (to term). As I wrote in my previous post, I'm not sure whether or not the legal right to abortion should exist.

it is their bodies!

The womb is part of the mother's body; the foetus is not: it is a separate, unique being.

So even though richer women have a higher rate of abortion, they get pregnant much less so they have less actual abortions.

Interesting.

Tackle poverty, educate people, give access to contraception, have abortion legal, well regulated with clear guidelines and women will have less abortions and safer abortions.

Perhaps you are right. I really don't know.

Knowing Laird's politics relatively well - I doubt he comes under this category! He's a good guy!

Thanks, my friend, you're very kind, and I would definitely describe you as a good guy too.

Yes: the reason I entertain ideas like socialism is to aim for a system in which everybody - and their children! - has at the very least their fundamental needs met.
 
Abortion is the last thing I thought might draw me out of lurk mode but I have a couple of observations, if I may. Firstly, this forum seems to be veering towards a more socio-political talking shop than it used to be. Perhaps that is not surprising considering Trump in the USA and Brexit/Right Wing resurgence in Europe but the polarisation that has always existed has now shifted to the extent that I find myself in agreement with Malf more often than David Bailey these days. Perhaps I'm also lurking in the wrong threads though.
That worries me a bit - we don't really want to become a general talking shop.
What does that have to do with abortion? Well, on a socio-political level the issues seem to be concerned with women's rights, the right of the unborn child or the causes of unwanted pregnancy including poverty and education. I find that I have little to add to that debate because I'm seriously under-informed on the legal, social and medical complexities. So I tend to look at it from a spiritual perspective. Obviously, that means accepting a certain worldview about how the question of the life prospects of an unborn child (and, of course the mother) might be viewed in the larger spiritual context.

So, in my worldview, the greater soul of the child and mother have a connection beyond the physical. Perhaps an agreement to share an experience. Perhaps the mother needs the experience of pregnancy without the ensuing motherhood. I can't see how, in the larger spiritual context, the "higher self" or transcendent soul of the child would prepare for a life only to have it unexpectedly cut short by abortion. I think there is more foreknowledge than that. As to (im)morality, again I would consider the intent behind the actions as being karmic. If decisions are taken without compassion, whether that be for the mother or the developing child, then at some point a karmic lesson might be required to provide further opportunity for compassion.

As usual, this is impossible to discuss as a single and limited issue because all of life is a continuum with intersecting challenges and reactions. So being judgemental about a single, though important, decision isolates the event and ignores the spiritual context.
I guess abortion in one of those 'socio-political' issues that has a lot more relevance to SKEPTIKO, because from a materialistic perspective, there is just a steady gradation from a few cells, ending up with an actual human being! Others aren't so sure - If humans undergo reincarnation, for example, there may be a definite point beyond which abortions should not take place. There is a bit of data on this coming from between-life hypnotic regression.

Personally, I think we should allow early abortions, and do everything possible to ensure that hose who need them, do get treated.

Regarding us terrible 'right wing' resurgents, you might want to read what Paul Nuttall had to say on the missile attack on Syria:

http://www.ukip.org/paul_nuttall_has_condemned_the_us_missile_strikes_on_syria_as_trigger_happy

Nigel Farage had something similar to say. Wouldn't you rather have people like that in power, rather than war mongers? Take a look at some of the latest discussion on the Trump thread. The 'Left' should be about avoiding the catastrophe of WWIII, but nowadays it seems to want to bring it on.

If you become a right wing extremist for opposing war, I am happy to be called a right wing extremist!

(If you want to reply to the political points, I suggest we use the Trump thread, rather than pile in here)

David
 
I would like to know if typical pre-abortion counselling includes discussing other options such as adoption or if it is only geared towards saying "abortion is OK, don't worry!" My other worry is bigger - the human race is far too sex obsessed. Relationships are far too often built upon desire rather than love and mutual respect and we end up with unwanted children, women who are addicted to abusive partners and who knows what else.
 
That worries me a bit - we don't really want to become a general talking shop. David

Well, David, IMO the world is plainly in a state of flux at the moment, and everyday experience is all part and parcel of our spiritual experience of life in general; it's perhaps hardly surprising that it should be touched on from time to time. More often than not, it's done so within an implicit, if not explicit, psi or spiritual context. We don't all agree on how to interpret the world in this context, and so sometimes dialogue can be a touch fractious. In my view, it's not at the moment a serious issue and so I don't think you should be unduly worried.
 
I would like to know if typical pre-abortion counselling includes discussing other options such as adoption or if it is only geared towards saying "abortion is OK, don't worry!" My other worry is bigger - the human race is far too sex obsessed. Relationships are far too often built upon desire rather than love and mutual respect and we end up with unwanted children, women who are addicted to abusive partners and who knows what else.

I suspect that more women are trapped in abusive relationships because of religion than sex obsession? Admittedly it might worth seeing what data is out there though.
 
I suspect that more women are trapped in abusive relationships because of religion than sex obsession? Admittedly it might worth seeing what data is out there though.
More or less women isn't the issue. Whatever the reason, it shouldn't be happening. Sex has a way of making people addicted to other people whether love is there or not. I doubt that most relationships in the world have a religious foundation as most people these days are not religious. I have come across several abusive relationships in my life and none of them were religious - the only religious relationships I have seen were good ones. My experience is limited however and the Middle East is still very religious so would have to be included in any statistics. Most religions are centered on principles of love but those principles get forgotten and an unbalanced focus on whatever the person prefers to believe happens. Religious scriptures are easy to bend to one's preferred interpretation but seen in context with the rest of the scriptures we can often get a better picture of what they are supposed to be about. People do this with general opinions too of course!
 
I will just recommend you check out Dr. Jordan Peterson's work.
Thanks for turning me on to him . . . I listened to him on this Duncan Trussell Family Hour podcast:

http://www.duncantrussell.com/episodes/2017/1/15/jordan-b-peterson-1

. . . And will be checking out his other stuff, too.

He said that you can now be sued, potentially, in New York state for calling a person by the wrong gender they identify with for up to 250,000! . . . Does anyone care to comment or rebut this in any way?
 
Curious what people think:

What the Bible says about Abortion from the Skeptic Annotated Bible

As we all know I'm pretty critical of "skeptics" but these are just pasted passages that don't exactly give me confidence in "God" being particularly anti-abortion?
 
Pro-life people are typically among the most immoral people in the world, so much so that when you hear about cases of rampant child abuse from highly religious parents a common joke I see in the comments section of articles is "Bet you $10 they're pro-life too" along with other comments mocking the morality that religious people claim to have while they commit horrible acts.

Here are the facts, if someone has the ability to kill that fetus, and they want that fetus dead, the fetus dies, end of story.

Caring objectively about the life of a fetus is either self contradictory or grandly hypocritical.

If you care about the life of one thing then you must care about the life of all things or else you're a hypocrite. But things die, so caring about any one life is self contradictory since it's going to end anyways. Doesn't matter how or when.

::EDIT::

Caring subjectively has no such contradictions
 
Last edited:
Thanks for turning me on to him . . . I listened to him on this Duncan Trussell Family Hour podcast:

http://www.duncantrussell.com/episodes/2017/1/15/jordan-b-peterson-1

. . . And will be checking out his other stuff, too.

He said that you can now be sued, potentially, in New York state for calling a person by the wrong gender they identify with for up to 250,000! . . . Does anyone care to comment or rebut this in any way?
Hi Reece, sorry, haven't been here for a while.

I'm not sure about the New York law. As far as I know it's been proposed but I don't think it's been voted in.

Also, if anyone is interested, Dr. Peterson is doing a whole lecture series on a psychological investigation of the Bible. It's actually really interesting. You can find them on his YouTube channel.
 
Back
Top