I’m against abortion rights, so no, not acceptable.
I’d have no problem if he was paying women to not have an abortion.
I don’t find the idea immoral but as others have pointed out, it’s certainly not very smart either.
That. There are more effective ways to reduce population growth.
The ethical issue I would have is that you’re providing an incentive for women to have an abortion. You’re not only going to be paying women who are already pregnant to have abortions; you’ll also be paying at least some women who will deliberately become pregnant in order to make ten thousand dollars by having an abortion.
While I am pro-choice, I’ll admit I have qualms over that. My ideal on abortions is “safe, legal, and rare.”
In my view, the right to abortion (that is, to entirely control one’s own body), is entirely unaffected by the value of the fetus/baby inside. When one being is inside another, then in my view the “host” being has (or should have) the inalienable right to determine whether they stay or go.
I’ll note that this may necessitate killing the fetus/baby, but it may not. If we had Star Trek transporter technology, and artificial wombs, then I don’t think I would be opposed to abortions being required to utilize this technology to keep the fetus/infant alive (at another’s expense) outside of the pregnant mother. I don’t believe that anyone has the ultimate right to kill another being inside of them, unless they want to get them out and there’s no other way to do it safely to them.
So, according to my philosophy, the right to control one’s own body says nothing about your hypothetical necrophiliac or organ sellers. I can be entirely pro-choice, as I am, while still not supporting legalized necrophilia or fetal body part sales, and be consistent, based on the principle of the right to control one’s own body.
Aborted foetuses are supposed to have some benefits when minced up and applied in skin care products. If you’re of the opinion that a foetus is nothing more than a lump of cells then one should have no problem with a billionaire paying women to have abortions and used the abortion to make his own skin care products, so she can stay younger a little longer. I asked this question before here, and that was indeed the answer I got. All’s good.
99+% of the world has laws that disagree with you. Women, and people in general don’t have the right to do with their bodies as they wish because the state says so.
Why stop at fetal body parts. It’s a long-standing libertarian opinion that selling your own organs should be completely legal. Although I don’t think there’re any countries where this is actual the case.
Brings up the old parable of “what kind of woman do you think I am”:
From:
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/
His cause does not generally match the reason behind abortion, and in such is subverting Woman’s reasons for aborting and thus woman’s credibility and eventually their ultimate authority as a full co-partner in humanity with man. And their ultimate authority in this decision must remain theirs, or the right will be subject to review on its merits and ultimately changed from the rights of the woman to decide to the need to limit human population and thus dis-empowering women as a valued member of society.
So in general this is a antichoice offer, the women who chose to accept it limit the choice of women and dimish respect for women making such decisions, and is ultimately counter-production to the cause of choice, of limiting our population, however God can use all to the good as God is - always, even abortion. IMHO
As long as this guy has his wallet out, for 5k I’m willing to spill my seed upon the ground.
I’m fine with whatever reason people choose to abort and incentives to do so.
That’s bad and should be changed.
Advocating for the right to abortion into the 9th month is such an extremist position that it’d likely have the exact opposite result or restricting abortion further.
The point of the idea was not to actually implement this, but to shed some light on the decision making process about the sale of kidneys.
Hmm. I agree with you on the general principle that women should have control over their own bodies (and I’m pretty firmly pro-choice), but I’d argue this deal is ethically questionable precisely for that reason. Paying someone else $10,000 to have an abortion is an attempt to assert control over that person’s body. Yeah, it’s control-by-positive-incentive rather than control-by-force, but it’s still introducing an external influence into a decision that ought to be the woman’s own, and there are bound to be some women who do not actually want an abortion, but are also so desperate for money that they don’t feel free to walk away from the offer. (Indeed, the whole plan rests upon the assumption that there will be a fair number of women who met this description.)
I agree it’s ethically questionable (or could be), I just don’t think it should be illegal.
In most states women can do this assuming they and the doctor determine a medical need.
Philosophically and morally, I believe that a woman in the 9th month who wishes to end her pregnancy immediately (aside from some unusual complication) should work with a doctor to induce labor and give birth (which ends the pregnancy). I think very, very few women decide to get abortions late-term for reasons that are not morally valid, whether they have to do with physical or mental health. I don’t believe that government should be involved in these sorts of decisions since circumstances can vary so widely, and since the right to bodily autonomy is (or should be) so important.
Ninety-nine plus percent? Don’t you think that figure is a little high? The United States alone makes up 4.4% of the world population.
If a woman is expecting a child and wants to abort, is it okay for the man who knocked her up to kidnap her, hold her until she gives birth, and then insist on keeping the baby? “She wanted to abort. She’s an unfit mother.”
I personally have never really bought into the notion that fetuses are not people, and not deserving of rights. I support a woman’s right to abortion because despite the fact that the fetus is basically a person, it’s a person who is living only because of a symbiotic (or you might view it as parasitic if you don’t want it) relationship inside another person. If that host wants to break the relationship, I cannot impose my will on the host. If it so happens that the fetus is able to live on its own without the host, then I confess I do not support the abortion.
So with this in mind, I find it ethically inappropriate to pay people for abortions. One, it provides an incentive to getting pregnant with knowledge that one has no interest in carrying the fetus to term. Even once.
More importantly, an abortion is the result of an unfortunate series of decisions where a potential mother has decided she cannot care for the child growing inside her and she must discontinue the pregnancy. Our abortion policy is our current best resolution to a conflict of rights between two humans. I do not believe we should be allowed to promote one human’s negation of another human’s rights through monetary compensation. I do not believe this type of issue of rights comes up when paying a person to give a kidney.