When is abortion morally acceptable?

[JohnnyCougar]

I don't mean to bring up a sensitive topic, but I am curious to see what the response is.

This question is independent of your views on who should decide the legality of the issue, and whose choice it is to have an abortion. This question is also independent of how the child was concieved.

For the purposes of this question, assume the child was NOT concieved due to rape or incest, and the health of the mother is NOT at risk.

[DemInDistress]

1. It shouldn't be anyone's business but the lady

undergoing the process in a clinic instead of in a back room with a
hanger.Also,gov't should make the morning after pill readily available
to any women anytime on demand,sort of like condoms are readily available.

[Walt Starr]

103. That's the legal stance. You have not given the moral stance. n/t

[radwriter0555]

109. That suggests that something is morally wrong with birth control, which is

just what abortion is. It's a form of birth control. If it is in ANY way morally wrong, then all forms of birth control must also be morally wrong in some manner, to some degree.

I don't think there is anything moral about birth control at all. It's not right or wrong, it just is. It's like the air, it exists.

[Walt Starr]

110. I do think there is something morally wrong with abortion

In nearly all cases, I believe it is morally wrong.

There is a huge moral difference between contraception and abortion, and I do not morally approve of abortion as a means of birth control. Not now. Not ever. It is morally reprehensible in my opinion.

That said, it is immoral for me to tell any other person what they can and cannot do with their own body. Because a fetus requires a woman's body as a life support system for the period of gestation, the fetus cannot hold any legal sway over the rights of the woman to control her own body. Thus, from a legal stance, it would be immoral for me to impose my personal beliefs about abortion over another human being with some form of a law.

That line between the two moral stances is crossed when the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb.

[foflappy]

114. well said.

i don't always agree with you positions but thay are well spoken.

[radwriter0555]

115. I don't. It's just birth control, that's all. Imposing any other standard

on it is just pointless.

It's been around since the dawn of time in many incarnations, for many reasons and it always will be.

It's just birth control. End of story.

There is no way on this planet that an unwanted mass of fetal cells is more important than *I* am.

[Walt Starr]

116. I do impose a different standard

but then again, I think that's the whole point of this poll.

I do not consider abortion a legitimate form of birth control from a moral perspective. To me, on a moral level, it is nothing short of murder.

I do not impose this moral standard on others, but it is mine to hold and mine to believe on a personal level.

Also to me, I have no right whatsoever to tell somebody else what they can or cannot do with their own body. Morally, that applies to anything. If somebody wants to eat rat poison and knows the consequences, yet still wants to do it, I have no right to use the force of law to stop them from ingesting rat poison.

On both moral questions, the law agress with me to a degree and disagrees with me to a degree.

[yppahemnkm]

121. Abortion is birth control?

I just do not see it that way at all.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

2. Need a choice saying for life/health of mother, etc.

I have a problem morally with abortion of a viable fetus unless for danger to the life of the mother or serious health risks, rape, incest, etc. (That doesn't mean I want to tell other people what to do - just aborting a viable "baby" makes me squeamish.)

[REP]

5. *Any* Pregnancy Poses A Risk to The Woman

Any pregnancy poses serious risks to the life and health of the woman undergoing the pregnancy. Abortion is safer than childbirth.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

19. I do not know statistics, but would think third term abortion dangerous.

Do you know of any statistics on this issue? (This is getting off topic, sorry.)

[REP]

27. "Third Term Abortion" is BIRTH

Yes, I do know the statistics - and the facts. Abortions aren't done in the third trimester. A very few are done in the late second trimester, and yes, they are safer than childbirth. Source: CDC.

[insane_cratic_gal]

99. 3rd term is labeled partial birth

abortion and has been hijacked as the new slogan for the Anti-choice crowd.

Of all abortions preformed it's accounts for less then 1% of the total. By the time most people get third trimester your going to carry through.. not just up and decide you don't want to be a mother anymore.

The reason they are so low is because they are only preformed in cases where the child has died during the 3rd trimester. Or will not survive more then a few hours outside of the Womb due to some birth defect.

However Anti-choice people will make it sound like Women are showing up in droves to kill off their 3rd trimester babies.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

122. I do not disagree with you - just wondered about the danger.

Obviously, the life of the mother should never be sacrificed to preserve a dangerous pregnancy.

[JohnnyCougar]

6. Well, I made some assumptions for the sake of this question.

That the health of the mother is not at risk, and it is not a product of rape or incest. So in your case, the answer would be "never."

Including health concerns and how the child was conceived is beyond the scope of this poll, although I did want to add them in somehow. I just don't think it would produce accurate poll results.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

11. I see your point, but it isn't a simple issue, as we know.

If the qualifier "morally" was also excluded, I could answer anytime.

[SledDriver]

7. Second that.

If we're talking "baby", one that could at that point survive outside of the womb. Risks to mom notwithstanding, I guess I would say prior to third trimester.

[Walt Starr]

104. Read the assumptions laid out. n/t

[Hissyspit]

3. The health of the mother is ALWAYS at risk. Any can die in childbirth.

You can't seperate that from ideas of morality.

[Walt Starr]

105. The assumption is that the health is not at risk.

Read the conditions of the poll.

[rwheeler31]

4. Wooh

If you are a female this is personal. not a poll question

[Erika]

9. Absolutely

It is NOT the decision of anyone else.

[JohnnyCougar]

12. And that is noted in the poll.

This is asking your personal opinion.

[liberalpragmatist]

8. I don't understand how people can say there's nothing morally wrong...

... in the hypothetical of an abortion a day before birth.

OBVIOUSLY, such a thing never happens. I am NOT arguing with the right to choose or trying to cast judgement on women who are getting abortions.

And since I'm not telling anyone what they can or cannot do, I don't see why we can't have this discussion. I don't want to have a flame-fest. I just find this a very interesting philosophical discussion.

Personally, I cannot understand how a child that is one week from birth is not fully formed. At such a point I personally don't think it's ethical to have an abortion unless the mother's life is at risk. I realize too that this is a situation that is virtually never to occur. But as a hypothetical it's still an interesting question.

[Erika]

15. There has been considerable D.C. debate on this

There are NO cases when this was done when neither the mother nor the child were in danger. None at all. It is a non-issue. In the testimony there were two cases presented for late term abortions, one whose child had severe spina bifide (sp) and the other who with congenital heart deformities could not have survived birth.

What do you think women are? Cold blooded who would hack their child to death a week before birth? Get real.

[REP]

21. And Those Were late Second Trimester, Not Late Third

I swear to god sometimes I just want to go on a smacking frenzy with a clue-by-four. Not because of you, obviously!

[liberalpragmatist]

41. No. I just think we can have a philosophical discussion on this

Everytime I say this, someone shouts out "why do I hate women"? Will any of you who say this bother reading what I am writing? I am not condemning women who have abortions, I do not believe women are evil. And as I SAID, TWICE in the post, I KNOW that such an abortion never occurs.

I am just stating an interesting hypothetical for philosophical discussion. Do you never do this in normal conversation with people? Do you find it possible to have reasonable, respectful discussions on this?

You're post is a huge leap in logic. You connect my stating an unlikely hypothetical to a statement on all women and all abortions when I explicitly limited the hypothetical to the one stated.

Have you never heard of ethical debates on pushing the fat man off the bridge to stop a runaway train? OBVIOUSLY, that NEVER happens. This is a hypothetical. If you're going to get so outraged by this and consider this off-limits, I can only wonder where your sense of perspective is. If any philosophical or ethical debate on abortion - even one that doesn't question the right-to-choose - is off-limits or an "insult to women" what else can I not say? What other ethically controversial areas are "off limits" to discussion?

[REP]

45. We Can Also Debate Who'd Win Spiderman Vs Superman, But Why?

Why not stick to things that happen in real life? Aren't those things complicated enough without having to make things up that never happen?

[REP]

16. Nothing Morally Wrong With Something that NEVER HAPPENS

Or do you pretend that some women are having abortions a week or a day before delivery for any reason? HINT: at that point, it's called PREMATURE BIRTH.

[Quixote1818]

24. I am with you 100% nt

[sandnsea]

32. It's a diversionary tactic

It's fine in the abstract I suppose, but when people take this to heart the way some of the anti-abortionists do, it's just a terrible distraction. It doesn't happen, why give it any credence by debating it as if it did.

Abortions happen in the first few weeks. It's difficult to know exactly when a microscopic blastocyst becomes life that has a constitutional right to protection by the state. But that's where the moral debate should be, not on abortions a day before birth that don't happen anyway.

[liberalpragmatist]

44. But I'm not taking it to heart like anti-choicers

And since we aren't debating choice, I don't see why we can't discuss this in the abstract as a philosophical debate. People say such a debate should be off-limit because it somehow legitimizes RW-talking points. But what else should be off-limit because it legitimizes RW-talking points or offends some people? I don't see why within Democratic Underground, as an online community of left and left-leaning political junkies we can't talk about these kinds of hypotheticals in the abstract? If you or someone else doesn't want to, they don't have to join the discussion. I'd rather that, then for people to jump into the debate and keep shouting "you hate women!" (not that you said this sandnsea, but it's something I've gotten whenever I try to talk about this).

[REP]

49. Why Do You Want To Debate Something That Doesn't Happen?

[liberalpragmatist]

55. Just as an ethical discussion

This is a silly example, but have you never had a philosophy class in which you discuss hypotheticals that may never happen? The one that sticks out in my mind is the discussion in which we argued about pushing a fat man over a bridge to stop a runaway train loaded with children headed for a cliff.

I don't mean anything malicious by talking about this thing and my guess is neither does the OP. If you don't want to discuss hypotheticals, then why do you have to join the discussion and asking why we want to do this?

[sandnsea]

58. I understand that

But I guess to me, it's exactly what I'd say if I were having a cup of coffee at my kitchen table. It's like debating the type of instrument you should use to spank a child with. If one doesn't believe in spanking a child, then you just wouldn't have the debate at all. Even though theoretically, a fly swatter wouldn't be more harmful than a light swat on the rear. But why have the debate if you don't believe in spanking?? Just don't go there, like just don't go there with abortions the day before delivery. That's just how I see it.

[liberalpragmatist]

70. Well, maybe not a kitchen table discussion

But, say, in a philosophy class or even at a late-night after-party chillout with friends?

[sandnsea]

77. That's what I'd say

Why discuss something that doesn't happen? To conjure up horrifying images to bias people on the issue?? No other reason to have the discussion.

But my family discusses everything over morning coffee at the kitchen table. Aunties and uncles and cousins as far back as I can remember. Late night is for funny story telling. :)

[iamthebandfanman]

10. hmm

nevermind.

[JohnnyCougar]

14. The question is to be independent about laws. It is only about morality.

But if you think morality has nothing to do with laws, I suggest you rethink things.

I don't want to divide anyone here. We are all just offering up a personal opinion.

[Erika]

22. You're an offense to women

Just a personal opinion.

[JohnnyCougar]

39. Thanks for your objective commentary :-)

I haven't even stated my position on this issue. Just because I post a poll means I am an "offense to women?"

[iamthebandfanman]

31. well

i think morality shouldnt have anything to do with laws, not that it currently doesnt. morality is individual, and is not meant to be cast onto the masses. laws dont have to be morality, so much as common sense.
is it a moral issue to say stealing is wrong? no, its not yours, simple as that. common sense.
is it a moral issue to say that speeding is wrong? no, it increases your chances of having an accident. common sense.
is it a moral issue to say having sexual relations with someone against their will is wrong? no, you dont own that persons body, common sense.

i dunno
i think there can be a pretty great devide in law and morality.
maybe im silly tho.

logic and reason will dictate wrong and right at almost every issue you can through at it, and i dont think morality has anything to do with it.

[JohnnyCougar]

43. I see your point somewhat...

But I would argue that common sense is simply moral common sense, as in the moral answer is so obvious that nearly all would agree on the morally correct path of behavior.

[Demit]

62. You don't want to "divide anyone here"? How disingenuous.

Your poll is designed to divide respondents into five groups.

And you didn't "mean to" bring up a sensitive topic? How really disingenuous! You shouldn't have posted then.

The fact that you didn't include "to me"--as in "morally acceptable to me"--is very telling. Obviously your premise is that you think morality is something that can be dictated to other people.

I find your position dishonest and your premise repugnant.

[JohnnyCougar]

66. Hahahahahaha...

What position? I haven't even stated a position on the issue in the poll.

As for the poll, disagreement does NOT mean division. It sucks that you think so.

[Demit]

74. You have been stating your position throughout this thread.

In your post #14, though you claim that the poll question is independent of laws, you chide the poster that morality and law are connected.

In #43, you say "the moral answer is so obvious that nearly all would agree on the morally correct path of behavior."

In #33, you say "So we can't impose our own morality on others?"

You are making your position quite clear, though you yourself don't see it. Or you aren't willing to admit it.

[JohnnyCougar]

78. Come on....are you for real?

You are taking things out of context that don't have anything to do with my views on legislating abortion or the abortion issue at all. Then you are putting it all together again to form some sort of giant conspiracy.

For your information, my views on abortion aren't close to what you imply.

But I think you are getting a little too :tinfoilhat: right now.

In #14:
Morality and law are connected, whether it is right or not. Try arguing that they aren't to any judge.

In #43:
I am not even talking about the moral answer regarding abortion. Reread this comment carefully and in its entirety.

In #33:
I do think at some point, we do have to expect some sort of morality on others. At what point (and whether abortion is past that point) was never talked about. You, however, seem to have no qualms about imposing your tinfoil fantasies on others.

[Guaranteed]

13. A woman is always within her moral rights in terminating

a pregnancy.

[SledDriver]

37. I guess the question then becomes

When is a woman no longer considered pregnant?

Is a woman within her moral rights to terminate her pregnancy while in labor? When the baby's head is crowning? :shrug:

[REP]

42. When Does That Ever Happen?

I'm assuming you're unfamiliar with medical issues, and not simply being provocative.

[SledDriver]

65. Hopefully never.

I'm just saying that if the argument is "a woman is always within her moral rights in terminating a pregnancy", then it's going to come down to splitting hairs -- "when does a woman cease to be classified as being pregnant".

Rape, incest, health risks notwithstanding, just a woman who changes her mind at the last minute. If that's the argument, then is a woman within her moral rights to terminate her pregnancy if, say, the baby's head has emerged, but the rest of the body is still in the birth canal? Is she still considered "pregnant" at that point? Without going too far out, is she within her moral rights if she stops pushing and requests an abortion at that point?

All standard disclaimers, apologies, etc.. not arguing the RW points. Just trying to add some depth to the discussion.

[Guaranteed]

97. She IS terminating her pregnancy when she's in labor. nt

[Walt Starr]

106. Not "moral" right, her *human* rights

Two different things. One goes to legality and the other to personal morality.

[kestrel91316]

17. Any time before viability, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Between viability

and birth, depends on circumstances. But it is the woman's decision, not yours, not mine, and not the state's. Certainly not some religious nutjob's.

[Quixote1818]

18. I am sorry, but once the child starts to look like a person and has brain

function and pain perception, I think a person would have to be sick or under extreme mental anguish for abortion to be morally OK. Just my opinion. I am cool with it up to the second or third trimester but not after that.

Drafting a law on that is another issue.

If the mothers life is in danger or she was raped among other things I can't claim to understand the mental anguish that goes through a womans mind under a variety of these circumstances. In some cases I would find it morally OK to abort long after the child has taken on human features and thought processes including pain perception.

Morality is one thing. Imposing laws is more complex.

[REP]

25. Then You're Cool With Abortion Into the Late Third Trimester!

The 'higher brain functions' don't start till then, and some not until after birth.

edit: typo

[Erika]

28. No woman wants an abortion at that time

Unless neither she nor the fetus would survive delivery.

[REP]

30. They Aren't Done Then

Labor is induced and the fetus is delivered.

[Quixote1818]

75. Plenty of women want to abort right up until birth

Just recently their was a case where a girl asked her boyfriend to hit her in the stomach with a bat so she would miscarriage. She was well past the third trimester. How about all the abandoned babies in garbage cans? Obviously these women have severe mental problems and need psychological help.

Did you read the Polls qualifiers? Johnny Cougar wrote:

"or the purposes of this question, assume the child was NOT concieved due to rape or incest, and the health of the mother is NOT at risk."

Still 43% voted up until birth???

[Erika]

80. That's plenty?

The contempt you hold for women is interesting.

[JohnnyCougar]

86. I seriously doubt that Quixiote has contempt for women.

Can we move beyond juvenile slogans and ridiculous debate framing? Or does anyone who tries to discuss things objectively "hate women." Do you really believe that?

[Quixote1818]

89. You may want to read my post below where I talk about what things

would be like if men could get pregnant. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5251299&mesg_id=5251601


Why do people always try to make disagreements personal? :eyes:

[Quixote1818]

29. Thanks for clearing that up for me. nt

[Erika]

26. Do you think women set off to kill their own?

Get real. You've listened to the right wingers who hate women much too long.

[Quixote1818]

38. I haven't listened to anyone but my own conscience

I strongly believe in free-thought and coming to my own very personal conclusions about morality and truth. I personally would find it morally reprehensible to abort if the baby had complex brain function (after the third trimester). If it were me I don't think I could ever bring myself to abort after that point. Then again, I have never been in that situation. Thats my opinion but I am certainly not into imposing my morality on another especially since I cant be inside their body and understand their very personal dilemma.

I don't know why that would be offensive to anyone. I am just stating my own personal heart felt belief and not trying to impose it on anyone else. Thats what this thread is about. You are free to take it or leave it. I don't have any power over you unless you grant me that power.

[rwheeler31]

47. Oh please get a life.

You anti women goofs are so disgusting. You can always play with yourselves like the ------- do.

[Quixote1818]

54. Take some time and actually read my post not just what is in the subject

line.

[rwheeler31]

48. Oh please get a life.

You anti women goofs are so disgusting. You can always play with yourselves like the ------- do.

[rwheeler31]

50. Oh please get a life.

You anti women goofs are so disgusting. You can always play with yourselves like the ------- do.

[SoCalDem]

20. It's NOT our duty to decide what's moral and what's not...for another

The person HAVING/or NOT having the abortion gets to choose.. If SHE thinks it's wrong, then she should not have one.. If she thinks it;s wrong, and still has one, it's between her/doctor/religious deity in the hereafter..

If she sees not problem with it, and has one, it's NONE of our business..

[JohnnyCougar]

33. That's laughable.

So we can't impose our own morality on others? So we should just let Bush nuke Iraq and say "well, I disagree with it, but we can't bind anyone else to our own set of morals."

[REP]

35. Non Sequiter

Is Iraq in Bush's body? Your analogy makes no sense.

[JohnnyCougar]

36. But that wasn't the argument.

The argument stated that we have no business imposing our own morality on others. There was no mention about the parameters of "being part of one's body or not."

[REP]

40. My Mistake; I Thought You Understood The Issue

I see I was wrong.

[Protagoras]

56. You just gave me a mental image

that I'm sure would make Bush very uncomfortable.

[Quixote1818]

46. Thanks for making the point I was going to make. nt

[TahitiNut]

60. Legality should NEVER be the arbiter of morality.

This is, in my opinion, where ethics and morality diverge. (I regard ethics as interpersonal and morality as personal. This is a personal distinction.) In a liberal society, one absolutely cannot impose a majority sense of morality on a sizable minority. Attempts to do so result in police states. Example: Prohibition. That's a basic tenet of liberalism: protection of the civil liberties of minorities from the tyranny of a majority. The other keyword is 'society' - and laws are only legitimately enacted to achieve justice for acts which cause harm to members of that society either deliberately (felony) or inadvertently (civil torts). A fetus is not a "member of our society." In a sense, I personally regard a birth certificate symbolic of immigration into society. Until that time, the fetus is, in effect, a subject of an independent foreign sovereign power: the pregnant woman.

Insofar as the strawman example of Bush* nuking anyone, or invading Iraq, that act is an act of our government. That government has rather well-defined (less so recently, it seems) boundaries on the exercise of its delegated powers. The Constitution defines limits on the exercise of government powers. That which is NOT specified is NOT permitted. The Constitution does NOT define limits on human rights or civil liberties, nor does it "grant" them. This is where the current rhetoric regarding "judicial activism" is total bullshit. The neoconservatives decry "activism" when it comes to protecting civil liberties and embrace it when it comes to extension of federal (or corporate) power to infringe on those liberties. That's justice standing on its head!

[JohnnyCougar]

73. This is a very interesting argument

The other keyword is 'society' - and laws are only legitimately enacted to achieve justice for acts which cause harm to members of that society either deliberately (felony) or inadvertently (civil torts). A fetus is not a "member of our society." In a sense, I personally regard a birth certificate symbolic of immigration into society. Until that time, the fetus is, in effect, a subject of an independent foreign sovereign power: the pregnant woman.

I have never thought about the "legality" issue in that light. I kind of like that argument.

BTW, I was not arguing that morality and legality are interchangable. If you'll notice, I only commented that it was wrong to say that legal code had nothing to do with morality. That doesn't mean that they are one and the same.

[TahitiNut]

101. Thanks. Looked at another way ...

Laws are only legitimate in a free society when they are the minimum needed to provide a basis for justice in individual interactions, not intraactions.

Think "commerce clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution). No other clause in the Constitution has been used as much to expand federal powers. Originally, however, it simply said that states had the sole authority to regulate commerce taking place wholly within their borders and the federal government had the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

At the same time "activist" judges have expanded the entitlement powers of the federal government (contrary to the inherent nature of the Constitution to delimit them) in such an area, they have eroded a philosophically congruent Civil Liberty ... regulating the affairs (reproduction) of a woman wholly contained within her personal "borders." (Let's never ignore the fact that a Civil Right to Privacy is ubiquitous and not gender-specific.)

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

95. Excellent post. n/t

[mikelewis]

23. Who knows? That's why it's not my decision.

Roe V Wade protects a woman's right to privacy in making that decision. Whatever decision a woman makes in regards to this issue is based on her own personal morality. It boils down to the fact that it's none of our business why a woman makes this decision. We are legally bound to accept her privacy as she reaches the conclusion to have an abortion. We cannot suppose the child wasn't conceived due to rape or incest or health issues. We can only suppose that her decision was based on private and personal reasons that led to the termination.

[uppityperson]

34. With the qualifications, not rape, incest, no health of mother/babeat risk

and seeing as third trimester abortions do not happen except for those reasons, and seeing as I have worked for yrs and will continue to do so for abortion rights/ women's right to choose, 3rd trimester. If the qualifications are not all entirely met, birth since rape/incest/health of mother rule of a higher morality. And realizing that 3rd trimester abortions "just for the sake of it" don't happen, or happen so rarely that it is a non-issue.

It is complicated.

[Erika]

51. I'm with you completely

I am outraged that anyone thinks a woman takes the decision lightly in the last trimester. These people must truly detest women.

[JohnnyCougar]

53. Who says they take it lightly?

[sam sarrha]

52. when You have to make that decission...

[tishaLA]

57. I think abortion is a medical, not a moral issue

So my response is that it's a flawed premise.

If I were to follow my religious teachings, though, the answer would be "at any juncture before birth."

[tritsofme]

59. With those qualifiers, how could anyone say until birth?

How could you abort a child that could otherwise live outside of the womb?

[Quixote1818]

72. I agree

I am stunned at the number of people who find it morally OK to abort right up until birth with the following qualifiers:

or the purposes of this question, assume the child was NOT conceived due to rape or incest, and the health of the mother is NOT at risk.

[gkhouston]

111. the qualifiers don't appear to include that the fetus is viable

most late-term abortions are because the fetus has already died in utero or has a deformity so severe that it would perish shortly after birth and the mother doesn't want the mental and physical stress of finishing the pregnancy.

[cloud_chaser1]

61. I am not sure why abortion must be a morality issue.

Its a medical procedure done following cosultation between doctor and patient.

[Quixote1818]

83. So then you think it's morally fine to abort the day before birth even

under the polls qualifiers:

For the purposes of this question, assume the child was NOT conceived due to rape or incest, and the health of the mother is NOT at risk.

You call that a medical issue and not a moral issue? You might want to think about that.

[cloud_chaser1]

119. As a reporter of 45 years, I have covered stories of girls beaten,

some were close to death because their fathers, or other family members, highly religious, had discovered they were pregnant. Rape and incest are also not the only reasons. Check recor5ds and find out how many mentally retarded girls have ended uppregnant because they were not capable of inderstanding the dangers of sex.

Another reason a pure and simple accident. They had sex when they shouldnt have and the girl got pregnant. The girl's financial status, family status, mental status.....all aspects that might point to ending the pregnancy.

and you cannot push medical reasons to the side. Medical reasons are a great poercentage of reasons for abortion.

I have said this countless times.....NOBODY THINKS ABORTION IS A GOOD THING. Abortion is a tragedy, a societal failure, a personal failure and I guarantee you, no one says, "Oh Goody, I'm gonna have an abortion.!" But abortion is a medical procedure that is performed because of a specific reason, medical or otherwise. And I am one of those who believes in choice........the choice to be made by the pregnant woman or girl and her physicians and NO ONE ELSE.

[Mind_your_head]

63. You neglected to put 'other' in your survey

As you know, abortion is an extremely complicated issue.

It's late and I 'don't want to get into it too much right now', but ~by definition~ 'moral' basically means: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments>

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/moral

'I' am not basically good myself, meaning I can do/say/behave in not good & loving ways AT ALL TIMES, so who the heck am 'I' to decide what is 'moral' for everybody else? For myself, I probably would never have an abortion, but I don't want to put my 'sense of right/wrong' on someone else. My 'morality' isn't any better/worse than any other human.

So then we take a step up - to God's sense of right/wrong. Well, who's God? Which rules? Some people believe they don't have a God, and hence, they mustn't have any rules except their own rules, I guess.

It's complicated alrighty. For myself, I don't feel I have the 'authority' to decide for someone else - only myself.

In conclusion, I select for your survey "OTHER"

[JohnnyCougar]

67. The poll is independent of who your morality is imposed upon

...hence all I am asking for is personal opinion.

What would you do yourself?

[realisticphish]

64. That question

assumes an absolute moral standard, which i don't believe is the case

[JohnnyCougar]

68. No, it doesn't.

It is asking about personal opinion and it is clearly stated that the question is to be considered irregardless of who is enforcing it.

[realisticphish]

69. ok

i guess i didnt read it correctly, it is an opinion poll. my bad

[Quixote1818]

71. These poll results are interesting. 58% have a turn point where Abortion

becomes morally wrong. I voted third trimester but I understand the complexities such as the unknown factors like claiming to understand what it's like being in someone else's shoes. Seems to me Abortion laws should ONLY be voted on by women, as they have or may have to deal with this moral dilemma. Men cant possibly claim to understand this issue.

As one person said "If men could get pregnant, then abortions would be offered at every corner convenience store".

[Extend a Hand]

76. Whenever the woman who is pregnant decides that it is moral

For example, in this womans situation, I too would have choosen an abortion:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/

[Quixote1818]

79. So if the baby is due in a couple of days then it's morally fine to abort?

Are you sure about that?


Read the poll qualifier:

"For the purposes of this question, assume the child was NOT conceived due to rape or incest, and the health of the mother is NOT at risk.

[Erika]

82. Knock it off

This is never the case. If you think it is than cite the specific case.

[Quixote1818]

88. You didn't read the poll qualifiers did you?

Take a look:

"For the purposes of this question, assume the child was NOT conceived due to rape or incest, and the health of the mother is NOT at risk."

And by the way, I did cite cases above in my other post. It happens illegally all the time or the baby is abandoned after birth.

[Erika]

90. Like I said knock it off.

I guess I trust women.

[Quixote1818]

91. Who made you moderator?

You have accused me wrongly of having contempt for women and you keep telling me what and what I can't debate on? Thats NOT for you to decide. You and I probably agree 90% of the time but find one sticking point which is mostly misconception on your part and I become your enemy??? Can't we just debate in a friendly manor and try to get along?


Read this because you are way off on your perception of my arguments and feeling toward women: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5251299&mesg_id=5251601

[Erika]

92. Misconception on my part? How interesting.

Does it tell you anything? I plan on actively defending women and their right to choose.

[Quixote1818]

93. This has been a fascinating thread

It has forced me to think about being in such a situation. As I said above, this really is an issue Men should stay out of when it comes to making laws. Laws that ONLY affect women should ONLY be decided upon by women. I truly believe this. Still I can have an opinion on the moral implications and people are free to take them or leave them for what they are worth.

I struggle with the morality of abortion all the time and am grateful I don't have to worry about being in the situation where I have to make the decision to abort or not to abort.

[Cats Against Frist]

108. No. You're blanketly defending the "right," when the right isn't

even being called into question. I don't think that very many people here, who ask the question, "is it wrong to abort a fetus," or want to contemplate that question are advocating for the government to ban abortion -- so YOU stop it.

You are doing exactly what I hate, the most -- and turns me off about the pro-choice movement. Your refusal to consider that there is a moral question about when life begins is ignorant, closed-minded and defensive. Can I agree that it's the mother's right to choose? Certainly -- I'm a libertarian. And, from my libertarian viewpoint, I also believe that every human has the right to their life, liberty and the products of their labor. So, in that sense, am I justified, philosophically, in asking -- is a fetus entitled to its life? Of course, I am justified in asking, because I'm attempting to form an opinion not based on jackbooted ideology, or sloganeering, but on HUMANITY and REASON and my own moral standards.

It does the pro-choice movement no good to repeat ad nauseum that "it's the woman's right to choose," and to completely ignore, or become defensive about the moral question of abortion. Just as someone doesn't get to choose for the mother, YOU don't get to choose for everyone when life begins, or doesn't begin. YOU are not the final arbiter of the moral question -- and if you're a proponent of abortion, and you think that the legitimacy of your claim is derived from the validity of the assertion that a "fetus is not a person," then sorry, darlin' -- you just put your position on more shaky legal ground than if you had just simply advocated for privacy, or the right of the mother to her own body.

Asking these questions does not make people "hate women." That is patently childish and is a logical fallacy.

I'm conflicted -- good god, can I say that? Do I hate women, unless I think that all fetuses are equal gelitain fodder for the dumpster? Should I not recognize anyone's pregnancy, until the baby is born? If I get pregnant, again, should I not personify the child inside of me? One person's D & C is another person's CHILD -- and if you can't recognize that, you're a liability, as a speaker, for the pro-choice movement.

[lapislzi]

113. Your point is well taken, but it goes to a larger question

Philosophically speaking, of course.

IF you believe that abortion is immoral for the reason that you believe life begins at conception, THEN is abortion murder? That's the real question. And IF abortion is murder, THEN are you not morally obliged to oppose it? Isn't murder wrong for any reason? I see a straight line here from one to the other.

That's why I say to take the morality out of the argument. Talk about abortion as a medical procedure only. As it can't be "proved" when life begins, why debate it? The question belongs in the legal arena, not the moral one, because there's no winning that argument.

[Extend a Hand]

87. Did you read that article?

In that article the child was not conceived due to rape or incest.

Since childbirth always puts a mothers 'health' at risk you'll have to be more specific about the risk.

The woman telling her story would not have, as far as I could tell, have risked her life by carrying that fetus to term. And yet in her position, I would have made the same decision she did.

Edited to add- One might even reasonably argue that any birth puts a womans life&health at risk.

[Extend a Hand]

81. To all those posters who voted anything other than

morally acceptable anytime before birth:

Lets say:
you already have three children
you are in a car accident in the 30th week of your pregnancy
the fetus you are carrying is severly injured and you are told has sustained severe brain damage and will be paralyzed for life
your husband was killed in the car accident
you have no job and no skills
your husband didn't have any life insurance
you don't have any living relatives
your hospitalization will run out at the end of the year since your husband is dead unless you can afford expensive cobra coverage

What would you do?

[Erika]

84. We leave it to the woman to decide

Period.

[Extend a Hand]

85. Exactly

the point I was trying to make. Some people just don't get it as an abstraction.

[U4ikLefty]

125. Excellent response...gotta add that one to my arsenal against the

forced-birth crowd. THX!!!

[twenty4blackbirds]

94. agree that health of mother is ALWAYS at risk in real life

Hiya. My personal opinion is still unformed.

Positing that abortion is morally unacceptable and so the conception is carried to term, the health of the mother is always at risk in real life - you really can't tell until the push becomes painful.

If coming at the question from the alternate angle that abortion is always morally acceptable...then the decision of when to accept it is the choice of the person undergoing the risk of childbirth/abortion.

Recently the niece of a friend was undergoing natural childbirth (aromatherapy, you name it to make the experience positive) when all of a sudden things weren't going right anymore. Had to shoot off to the surgery hospital for a Caesarean, and thank goodness that it is a safer procedure than it is in ages past because mother and child survived and father doing well.

However, natural childbirth isn't all it's cracked up to be either. Natural childbirth can lead to incontinence - not a life-threatening risk but the health of the mother is affected.

Personally I would opt for abortion if I _know_ I cannot look after the child (or get a suitable caregiver - I believe a child should be loved and nurtured and educated and supported and have a good role model). 24/7 for over 20 years...life sentence.

I guess...my opinion is...'abortion is morally acceptable when the risk-taker accepts it'. Why do bystanders make judgements? It is a very personal issue.

[really annoyed]

96. Personal opinion?

MY personal opinion is that abortion is always morally wrong, no matter what the situation.

HOWEVER, that is MY personal opinion. I would never inflict my moral decisions to another woman.

I had a friend who sought out an abortion a while back. I don't agree with her decision, but I stand by her no matter what. She herself admitted it was morally wrong, but it was her only option. It was her decision and I did not tell her what to do.

[mmonk]

98. The better question is

what morality will be achieved when it is outlawed? Abortion will not go away, just underground to amateur "butchers" and organized crime.

[lapislzi]

100. Let's change the parameters...

When is appendectomy morally acceptable?

When is plastic surgery morally acceptable?

When is hernia repair morally acceptable?

Injecting morality into this discussion simply feeds the anti-choice position.

Get off it. It's a medical procedure.

[Walt Starr]

102. I voted never

Under the conditions laid out and the required assumptions, it would be morally wrong under any other circumstances as far as I'm concerned. Since legality and the recognition of rights does not enter into this, that's my personal stance on the issue.

[sepia_steel]

107. My personal preference is that it would be done before the 2nd Tri.

Abortion isn't something I could ever do (under normal circumstances) but I support the right to do it, whole-heartedly. The thought of mid or late-term, though, just bothers me. But I will not tell anyone that they can't or shouldn't. It just bothers me.

[foflappy]

112. Anytime before birth?????

WTF this has got to be a joke...freepers stacking this poll to make dems look bad.....

I really can't believe that anyone would believe this.

[twenty4blackbirds]

123. 'judge not lest you be judged yourself'

:shrug:

[Pepper32]

117. Interesting poll

To say the least... :wtf:

[slackmaster]

118. I've never been involved in an abortion and probably would not

I answered "Only before the third trimester" because I think late-term abortions cause fetal suffering.

I see it as 100% the woman's choice regardless of what stage of pregnancy. Personally I don't like it. I don't have sex with women with whom I would not be willing to have a child, and I would never ask one to have an abortion.

That said, I think Roe v. Wade is a good working truce in a war that will never end. Leave it alone.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

120. As part of my Catholic secondary school 'Sex Education' morning,

I was shown a video, which consisted of stills - along with narration - of a third-trimester abortion. As much as I'm pro-choice, & am cool with abortion to save the mother, I have a really sticky spot about late abortions by choice. However, I'm fully aware that the decision the woman would take would be enormously difficult because the foetus inside her is that much more of a real person. End result, I don't know if it's morally acceptable during the third trimester, I really don't.

On the subject of abortion, I must recommend Todd Solandz's latest film (out on DVD) Palindromes. I don't want to give the story away, but it tackles both the pro-life & pro-choice positions in a very interesting way.

[U4ikLefty]

124. Only if the child "grew up" & went to DU to ask loaded questions!!!

I note that you are a male..and like myself you will NEVER have to make that "moral" choice.

[JohnnyCougar]

126. Oh yeah?

What if I get a sex change operation, and decide to have a kid?

Then what?

And how is this question "loaded?" I made it as fair as possible. Is there some other response that you wanted to add in there to make it not loaded? It asks a simple question.

Is asking a simple question proving that I am anti-choice or something?

Because I am not. I am not anti-choice. But you are the second or third Don Quixiote on this thread fighting an imaginary windmill by assuming that because I ask a question, and that I am a male, I am anti-choice.

Not only are you fighting windmills, but you are also making sexist remarks. Your comment regarding my gender falls into the "normative gender stereotype" category. It is totally unwarranted.

[Bunny]

127. Do you really think that having a sex change operation would

leave you with a uterus, eggs, and the ability to conceive and carry a child????? Oh, that's just too funny!!! :rofl:

[B Calm]

128. When the female has been raped!

I don't like the way you worded the questions!

[Midwest_Doc]

129. Any time before birth PERIOD

I believe that life begins when the baby can be claimed as a tax deduction.

[Mass]

131. So, assuming that a woman gets an abortion at 8 months and a half

(which would be silly as she can as well give birth and give the child to adoption at this time), it would be OK on a moral POV.

[Mass]

130. Any time before the foetus can live on his own

After that, give birth to the child and give it to adoption.

I think all abortions fit in the frame I am describing. Given that an abortion in a very late term (after the 7th month) would be as difficult as birth, why would somebody do that anyway.

So in practice, I am for all abortions because I dont believe women are monsters.