As to the OP’s dilemma. There isn’t one. They are two different questions, a moral question and a legal question. The decision to terminate the existence of whatever you want to call it is a moral question, whether you can be prevented from doing it is a legal question.
Just like if you feel like killing someone who has wronged you.
Just like if you wish to assist someone to take part in voluntary euthanasia.
In every case the decision involved is a moral one and the consequences a legal one. In some countries you can do as you choose in the case of revenge or voluntary euthanasia and not face sanctions, in other countries not so much.
I have never understood why Pro-Choice advocates bother with the stupid arguments about when life begins. It’s a legal right afforded women. End of story. You have to make your own decision about the morality of using that right.
For me it is a question of morality. I feel that it is immoral to purposely abort a baby. If I had an abortion I would go insane with guilt an would not be able to live with myself. I can guarantee that 100%.
I also understand that different people have different morals and values. The pro-choicers seem to place more importance on the right of the woman to do what she wants with her body than morality. I know I’m not going to be able to convince anyone on here that abortion is wrong. Also none of the pro-choicers on here are going to be able to convince me that abortion is ok if that’s what the woman wants to do.
:rolleyes: No, most of us just don’t agree with your so-called “morality”. I don’t consider getting an abortion immoral in the first place, which isn’t the same as not caring about morality.
Didn’t I just say that people have different morals???:dubious: If you don’t think abortion is immoral then that’s fine as we clearly feel very different about what is moral.
The “pro-Choicers” place more importance on individuals’ right to live by their individual ethical and moral compass than having that compass dictated.
You call follow what morality guides you, in this issue, that you choose. If you choose the life of the baby/fetus over yours you can. I would never argue that you are immoral to do so. Hence, the choice. You don’t have to be convinced by anything in this thread. Live your life as you feel you must. It’s the same moral struggle we all make, even if our conclusions differ.
You also said “The pro-choicers seem to place more importance on the right of the woman to do what she wants with her body than morality”, which is an accusation that the pro-choicers agree with you that abortion is immoral but do it anyway because they just don’t care. I don’t think that abortion is immoral in the slightest.
Someone can think abortion is immoral and still be pro-choice. It’s the morality of individual choice on this issue that is what pro-Choicers believe in.
I think a fetus is a baby, particularly in the late-term. I am uncomfortable with abortion, I guess I’d call it a moral grey area for me, but I’m definitely pro-choice. The argument for safe, legal abortion can be made from a women’s rights perspective but it can also be made from a purely utilitarian point of view. When abortion is not legal, it happens anyway, and even more people end up dead. Nations with access to family planning services enjoy a higher quality of life. When women are forced to bear children, their prospects for upward mobility are significantly hampered. Unwanted children experience immense suffering and personal hardship, and are more likely to be impoverished, neglected and abused. The adults that unwanted children turn into are more likely to repeat the mistakes of their parents, become involved in crime, or just be miserable as a result of their neurological deprivation throughout childhood. Abortion may in some cases be a wrong thing, a selfish thing, even a bad thing - but I don’t think it can compare to the harm that is done to individuals and society by outlawing abortion.
That’s right lets just screw the right of the other body inside the woman’s body. After all the mother’s choice to do what she wants is more important than the baby’s right to life:rolleyes:
I’d rather be an advocate for the unborn baby who is completely innocent. I’d rather not punish the baby for its mother’s actions.
And that is exactly what I think every pro-life person believes. That the mother did something wrong by having vaginal sex when not wanting to have a baby, and that the baby is being punished for the mother’s mistake. That once a baby is conceived, you have the obligation to keep it alive.
I don’t understand people’s objections to other people forcing their morality. That’s what the law does. Any criminal law is about forcing one group of people to work by the morality of another. For example, child porn laws are about enforcing the morality that taking sexually suggestive pictures or enjoying looking at them is wrong. Or, to be more benign, a law about Jawalking is about forcing people not to walk across and impede traffic and to care more about their safety than the convenience of crossing the street.
No, the idea that it’s wrong to force your morality on someone else is not going to change anything. The only thing that will resolve the situation is when transplants or machines can make it where the violinist does not need to be hooked up to you.
And I agree with CA. I would have a moral obligation to remain connected to the guy, because my action would result in his death, while only serving to make my life more convenient. It is only the fetus not being a person that allows me not to be pro-life. But it’s also why I’m not pro-choice, either. I take Cecil’s position.
Heck, he’s the reason I’m no longer pro-life. That article finally convinced me.
This is my position. So instead of working for abortion to be outlawed, I support policies that make other alternatives for the mother (adoption, keeping the baby) more attractive and tenable. This includes stuff like adoption assistance, social programs and support mechanisms for unwed mothers, child tax credits, daycare/preschool/after-school programs for working parents, etc. If we reduce the burden of having a child, we see abortion rates drop and everyone is better off.
ETA:I should also clarify that I consider myself strongly Pro-life and anti-abortion. But, pragmatically speaking, we live in a secular society where people have the right to make decisions I find repugnant and I don’t seek to take that right away.
My position is probably quite close to yours and Cecil’s (and presumably Obama’s)…
..
But I’d like to address this part of your argument…
Murder is such a clear case of one person taking away another’s rights that almost every society has decided to enforce society’s morality on murderers. At the other extreme, drinking too much soda imposes much smaller costs on society but, when goverments try to ban it, many of us recoil, preferring to leave the choice to individuals. There’s a lot of grey between these extremes. I’d rather government only intercede at the clearer end of the spectrum.
Classylady, like many anti-abortion advocates wants to pretend that it’s all black and white (abortion is immoral; if you don’t agree you have no morals) but life’s not like that.
There are obvious benefits to banning soda, but i think the costs (all-powerful govermnent, black market in soda, diminished individual responsibilities) vastly outweigh the benefits (lower health care costs) so, in the soda case, i prefer to leave the choice to the soda drinker and his doctor.
The choice over whether to have an abortion is too complex for me - or a politician - to impose hard rules. The choice belongs to the women and her doctor.