Abortion and Morality

[Hawker]

In the UK, you can get an abortion for almost any reason in the first 5 months of pregnancy.  Except for 1 reason...if you don't want a little girl, you are not allowed that as a reason for an abortion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9103839/Scotland-Yard-launches-investigation-into-doctors-who-agreed-to-illegal-abortions-of-baby-girls.html

Now we have a scandal that doctors are allowing women to don't want girls get abortions.  The health minister says “Carrying out an abortion on the grounds of gender alone is in my view morally repugnant”  Interestingly all religious figures say nothing at all about this - presumably the priests are busy looking at nice new dresses to wear on Sundays.

Let's think about this a second.  If you got to a doctor and say "I am pregnant and do not want a baby" abortion is legal and no-one passes judgement on your morality.  But add the word "girl" to the end of that sentence and you not only are committing a crime, you get government ministers saying its "immoral!"

Does this make any sense at all?

[1714829846]

1714829846

[1714829846]

1714829846

[1714829846]

1714829846

[memvola]

Does this make any sense at all?

People are all up in arms seeking vigilante justice after watching a kitten tortured on YouTube. They are of course comfortable with eating burgers while doing that. Same phenomenon.

[Jon]

[kronosvl]

let's not forget that in India in some town lots of very young girls were forced to sexchange operations just because of some fucking traditions where a male child is more desirable than a girl.

This is just fucked up.

As for the future mom that doesn't want a baby GIRL. OK. Abortion aproved. Any posibility to have another child denied. This would be the best punishment

[memvola]

They should make people get permits by law to be allowed to have children based on the same principles as being allowed to adopt the child (as it is the same thing). Anyone putting a child on the world without the permit gets their child taken away + 10 year prison sentence. Will solve A LOT of problems.

The problem with central governance is that when you equip them with powers, there is no taking it back. I don't like the idea of abortion one bit either, but I wouldn't prefer the other evil. On the other hand, I'm an outspoken critic of abortion, but the sheer number of people around me who took that step makes it a hopeless endeavor. There is no perfect solution I guess...

[SgtSpike]

They should make people get permits by law to be allowed to have children based on the same principles as being allowed to adopt the child (as it is the same thing). Anyone putting a child on the world without the permit gets their child taken away + 10 year prison sentence. Will solve A LOT of problems.

Yes, because the government doesn't already have enough control over our lives!  

As much as I abhor the fact that people kill little babies who haven't yet been born, I am still unsure whether it is my moral obligation to speak out against it or stop them.  I feel like I am being judgmental of people if I do so.

Then again, the US invaded Germany to stop them from killing people, and no one outside of Germany thought what Germany was doing was right, so maybe it IS appropriate to use force to stop mass genocides.

 

[V4Vendettas]

Who says population needs to drop? Does earth have a set capacity for our species and if so how would you even start to work that out?
Also a parasite gives nothing to its host and I’m not so sure you can say that for a future human being.
 
Edit: Birth permission..Do our goverments really need anymore power than they have already? Nope didnt think so.

[Timo Y]

Does this make any sense at all?

Makes just as much sense as "animal rights" laws that say torturing animals for meat consumption is ok, but torturing them for entertainment is evil.

Such laws are not really about protecting the animal or the fetus, they're mainly about protecting your Right Not To Be Offended.

[dayfall]

The OP gives an interesting dilemma.  My thinking goes like this:  I would have not minded if my mother had decided that it was best for me to not be born.  Hence, I am pro abortion choice.  (I would also not have minded if my parents used contraceptives. Same reasoning.  I am pro contraceptive choice.)

However, aborting just girls upsets the gender balance for the living.  This I would object to had I been a female and my mother used this as the reason for my abortion.  This would be detrimental to society for just selfish reasons.  I am not saying it should be illegal, but that mother should be shamed.

[Explodicle]

I am not saying it should be illegal, but that mother should be shamed.

+1

[Hawker]

I am not saying it should be illegal, but that mother should be shamed.

+1

Making sure I understand you both:
If the "mother" says kill any or all unborn kids inside her, you see nothing wrong.  But if she spares an unborn child because its a boy, you think she should be ashamed.

[FirstAscent]

Does this make any sense at all?

Makes just as much sense as "animal rights" laws that say torturing animals for meat consumption is ok, but torturing them for entertainment is evil.

Killing animals humanely for meat consumption is not the equal of torturing animals for entertainment. Killing animals in an unkind way for meat consumption is not equal to torturing animals for entertainment.

[memvola]

Makes just as much sense as "animal rights" laws that say torturing animals for meat consumption is ok, but torturing them for entertainment is evil.

Killing animals humanely for meat consumption is not the equal of torturing animals for entertainment. Killing animals in an unkind way for meat consumption is not equal to torturing animals for entertainment.

Not equal? Yes, they are different things. So tell me, if you had to choose between being tortured for entertainment (and let's suppose, consequently let go), or being killed, what would your choice be? And what's the kind way of killing someone? EDIT: A better way to put it: By which method would you prefer being killed and how much of a difference does it for you compared to the full worth of your life?

[FirstAscent]

Makes just as much sense as "animal rights" laws that say torturing animals for meat consumption is ok, but torturing them for entertainment is evil.

Killing animals humanely for meat consumption is not the equal of torturing animals for entertainment. Killing animals in an unkind way for meat consumption is not equal to torturing animals for entertainment.

Not equal? Yes, they are different things. So tell me, if you had to choose between being tortured for entertainment (and let's suppose, consequently let go), or being killed, what would your choice be? And what's the kind way of killing someone?

Nature's life cycle depends on prey/predator relationships. I think you can figure it out from there.

[Explodicle]

I am not saying it should be illegal, but that mother should be shamed.

+1

Making sure I understand you both:
If the "mother" says kill any or all unborn kids inside her, you see nothing wrong.  But if she spares an unborn child because its a boy, you think she should be ashamed.

I can't speak for dayfall, but...

Yes. The difference, to me, is that sex-selective abortion will cause serious social problems like what is happening in China. Not having any children at all (or having them equally) is preferable to contributing to a sex imbalance.

[memvola]

Nature's life cycle depends on prey/predator relationships. I think you can figure it out from there.

And, rival clans/families kill each other too, so murder is OK as well?

EDIT: I don't mind you preferring to eat meat, etc. but how can you compare killing something and torturing it and decide that torturing is worse?

[FirstAscent]

Nature's life cycle depends on prey/predator relationships. I think you can figure it out from there.

And, rival clans/families kill each other too, so murder is OK as well?

EDIT: I don't mind you preferring to eat meat, etc. but how can you compare killing something and torturing it and decide that torturing is worse?

Do you like dogs? If you don't like the idea of killing, then consider a campaign to eradicate dogs from the surface of the Earth, as they eat meat.

Do you like the idea of the Earth existing, and life on Earth? Because if you do, consider learning about trophic cascades and the necessity of the predator and prey relationship. For starters, learn about wolves, riparian zones, and clean water.

I don't advocate sick little serial killers in the making torturing animals. Is this what you're referring to? Are you having trouble discerning torture from natural processes? Are you trying to compare sick people to the way things work? Are you challenged with regard to this subject?

[Timo Y]

Killing animals humanely for meat consumption is not the equal of torturing animals for entertainment. Killing animals in an unkind way for meat consumption is not equal to torturing animals for entertainment.

It is equal from the perspective of the animal. Do you really think the animal cares, or understands, why it is suffering?

And if the perspective of the animal is irrelevant, the whole concept of "animal rights" is irrelevant too.

The only difference between cock fighting and battery hens is that one offends HUMAN cultural norms and the other one doesn't.  Cultural norms are subjective.

Objectively, both are cruel.
 

[memvola]

And, rival clans/families kill each other too, so murder is OK as well?

EDIT: I don't mind you preferring to eat meat, etc. but how can you compare killing something and torturing it and decide that torturing is worse?

Do you like dogs? If you don't like the idea of killing, then consider a campaign to eradicate dogs from the surface of the Earth, as they eat meat.

Do you like the idea of the Earth existing, and life on Earth? Because if you do, consider learning about trophic cascades and the necessity of the predator and prey relationship. For starters, learn about wolves, riparian zones, and clean water.

Way to miss the point. I didn't once say killing animals is absolutely bad now, did I? It's all relative (or subjective, one might say).

The question is not that the behavior is not natural, it is your cherry picking of what's natural and what's not. Evidenced by you dismissing my question about the "naturality" of violence within a certain species. You can't have one and leave the other. Typical naturalistic fallacy.

I don't advocate sick little serial killers in the making torturing animals. Is this what you're referring to? Are you having trouble discerning torture from natural processes? Are you trying to compare sick people to the way things work? Are you challenged with regard to this subject?

This is a common fallacy with ethical reasoning, and the same kind OP is referring to. It is sick, because you perceive it as sick, and the more people perceive it as sick, the more deviant the behavior will be, and who's more deviant than sick people. Mind you, I really do think that generally sick people torture animals, but I don't identify them as sick because they torture animals, but because in general, only sick people are that deviant. There was a time when torturing animals was a common entertainment, and those people weren't sick little serial killers in the making, they were ordinary people like you and me, looking for fun.

This is kinda like condoning arbitrary killings committed by your national army but criticizing conditions of prisoners of war. Or turning a blind eye to indiscriminate murdering of civilians but get on the high horse when it's considered a "genocide". Or condoning abortion of fetuses for random reasons but intervening when the reason is gender-related.

[FirstAscent]

And, rival clans/families kill each other too, so murder is OK as well?

EDIT: I don't mind you preferring to eat meat, etc. but how can you compare killing something and torturing it and decide that torturing is worse?

Do you like dogs? If you don't like the idea of killing, then consider a campaign to eradicate dogs from the surface of the Earth, as they eat meat.

Do you like the idea of the Earth existing, and life on Earth? Because if you do, consider learning about trophic cascades and the necessity of the predator and prey relationship. For starters, learn about wolves, riparian zones, and clean water.

Way to miss the point. I didn't once say killing animals is absolutely bad now, did I? It's all relative (or subjective, one might say).

The question is not that the behavior is not natural, it is your cherry picking of what's natural and what's not. Evidenced by you dismissing my question about the "naturality" of violence within a certain species. You can't have one and leave the other. Typical naturalistic fallacy.

I don't advocate sick little serial killers in the making torturing animals. Is this what you're referring to? Are you having trouble discerning torture from natural processes? Are you trying to compare sick people to the way things work? Are you challenged with regard to this subject?

This is a common fallacy with ethical reasoning, and the same kind OP is referring to. It is sick, because you perceive it as sick, and the more people perceive it as sick, the more deviant the behavior will be, and who's more deviant than sick people. Mind you, I really do think that generally sick people torture animals, but I don't identify them as sick because they torture animals, but because in general, only sick people are that deviant. There was a time when torturing animals was a common entertainment, and those people weren't sick little serial killers in the making, they were ordinary people like you and me, looking for fun.

This is kinda like condoning arbitrary killings committed by your national army but criticizing conditions of prisoners of war. Or turning a blind eye to indiscriminate murdering of civilians but get on the high horse when it's considered a "genocide". Or condoning abortion of fetuses for random reasons but intervening when the reason is gender-related.

You're the one not getting it. But I'll give you a second chance. If you're so certain what my viewpoint is, then please clarify it for me so that I know what I'm defending. Please do tell me what I advocate and what I don't advocate. Be precise.