Let's just presuppose that the total moral benefits of abortion outweigh the moral costs.
Should we employe this utilitarian methodology everywhere else in society? Simply run the numbers and as long as the benefits outweigh the costs we should do it irrespective of the moral damage we're causing as long as the moral arithmetic checks out.
& if you restrict access to abortion, you are putting women at risk. If a woman feels she needs an abortion badly enough, she will find a way to get one. Usually, this means illegally, and this she is vulnerable to getting taken advantage of, and the procedure is often done unsafe and unsanitary. Women who wish to terminate their pregnancy do not very often just go "well, darn. it's illegal here."
It did not stop women in Ireland. It did not stop woman in the US before abortion was made federally legal. It did not stop women living in Romania under Decree 770.
When you restrict access to abortions, you do not make anyone safer. You just make it a thing that happens under the table, in backrooms and hotels, and something you cannot regulate (you could compare this to prostitution.)
Restricting access to abortion leads to more unwanted children born, and children born to lower income families who are unable to take proper care of them. Restricting access to abortion disproportionately effects lower-income individuals, since those with access to money are more often able to travel to where abortion is legal (this is not even just a country-by-country basis, in some areas, you might have to drive for 4 or more hours to get to the nearest place in your state that provides women with abortion services. Poorer women are less likely to be have the means of such travel). A lot of research supports claims that the legalization of abortion had a positive effect in the drop in crime the US saw in the 1990s.
besides there are several million other children who are still bouncing around the temporary fostering system, and we wouldn't want these numbers to add up too high.
I'll just have you know that the bodily autonomy argument logically doesn't allow you to kill the fetus, only physically remove it from where it is to a place where it isn't.
In your analogy with the burglar, (which is not entirely terrible however extremely logically short sided) according to the autonomy argument he doesn't have the right to live at my expense because body my body and the fruits of my body (my labor) have integrated with my property.
Should I be able to contact a professional, who will use extreme violence and aggression to forcefully remove the burglar from my house, leading to his death? Most people would say yes.
However, what if instead of instantly killing the burglar, we could transfer the burglar to a place where he is no longer in your home, doesn't have to die a horrifically violent death and can develop in a way which he no longer needs to steal in order to survive. Is that option more reasonable and moral than instantly grinding him up and sucking his bone and flesh into a vacuum?
"Well, I personally believe that no one has the right to exist at the expense of another, just because we may in the future develop the methods of capturing burglars when they are early in their crimes and evicting them does not prevent me from exercising my autonomy over my property to immediately kill anything that overstays it's welcome. After all this house is mine, and even if I invite someone in, the moment they overstay their welcome or bring someone else I should have the exclusive right to kill them, otherwise what choice do I have? Regardless how close these parasites in society might approximate to people does not eliminate my right to destroy them while they are within the confines of my autonomy, irrespective of personhood."
deletedalmost 6 years
If population control is not a pressing problem, then I stand by my original stance.
But my stance still doesn't even hold up ethically. Are people with fetal defects less human.
>> Or maybe it does make sense, because the needs of many trumps the needs of a few; same idea as abortion for overpopulation.
deletedalmost 6 years
I'm not aware of that, but it makes sense I guess. Although generally I have a policy to vote against anyone that uses the word "taxpayer".
The population will eventually even out at around 10 bil, as far as we know.
But as long as you are not restricting womens right to choose, I don't mind whatever personal feelings you hold. Same w/ gay marriage.
deletedalmost 6 years
But I don't know how big a problem overpopulation is, or really how good/bad adoption is. So maybe everything should always be legal?
For reference, the political party that I voted for last and will vote for again is pro-choice and would make abortion legal even without any justification (I'm a leftist mostly).
Are you aware that by restricting access to abortion, you are contributing to crime and placing burden on the taxpayer?
deletedalmost 6 years
Gonna use Wikipedia legal reasons for abortion because why not: - 1. Maternal life - 2. Health of mother - 3. Mental health of mother (includes forced sex) - 4. Fetal defects - 5. Socioeconomic factors - 6. Don't want a baby
What I would vote for (if a referendum was in front of me right now). ALWAYS LEGAL: 1,4 OFTEN/SOMETIMES LEGAL: 2,3 NEVER LEGAL: 5,6.
My main question then, is outside of ethics, how do you feel about laws restricting abortions?
deletedalmost 6 years
I know it's not a simple emotionally disconnected solution. I just don't think its ethical to kill them to "protect" them, or to protect yourself emotionally.
If you give a child up for adoption, you run the risk:
- your child is abused.
- you child is sexually abused.
- you child is raised with views you strongly object to.
- your child will later track you down.
- your child will never track you down, they will want nothing to do with you.
- to put your baby up for adoption might depress you too much
- you're going to get too attached during pregnancy, and aren't even going to be able to go through with putting the child up for adoption
- maybe you don't wish for the father to raise the child (it is possible if you don't step up to the plate of raising it, he may)
- your family might hate you (in some familie, if you get pregnant you keep the baby, simple as that)
- your child might resent you if they feel you would have been able to give them a better life than their adoptive parents
- you know, deep down, you will always wonder late at night, how your child is doing. you will never be able to forget it, even after years past. every time a friend or coworker gets pregnant you will feel that emptiness and worry. and wonder if you could have raised that child. and wonder if they are doing okay.
these are just SOME reasons why it's just just as simple as: oh, i'll just put the baby up for adoption.
giving up a child as a mother is one of the hardest things to do. there is a reason you know more children of single mothers than you know children who were adopted.
deletedalmost 6 years
@davidlmao I think abortion is ok when non consensual sex occurs.
You're right, but frankly it's not ok to rather have your progeny killed than have it raised by someone else.
I already explained why asking a woman to put her baby up for adoption is a *lot* to ask, and even why it is a bit problematic when men just paint that as the obvious choice.
In theory, yes you are absolutely right. If human were perfectly logical robots who did not have any sense of attachment, it does indeed make perfect sense that, in the best interest of furthering our species, if a woman or child will be killed by a pregnancy, a woman should birth and give up her child if she is not able to take care of it for whatever reason.
That is not, however, how people operate. People for attachments, and they are biologically driven.
but what about the 'too young/parents object' case? if a young girl is r4ped and gets pregnant, what is the appropriate course of action in your view?
deletedalmost 6 years
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't accept the reasoning "I'm not ready to have a baby" - which is used to justify a significant ratio of abortions - if you went and had sex with someone and knew the risks, certainly if you didn't use protection properly.
