I doubt that was the only reason she had it. I'm sure financial issues and her actual ability to raise the child were very important in the decision. But regardless, she didn't just have an abortion of the hell of it. There was a reason, even though many people would have considered it a racist one.
Abortion is choice in my opinion, I think if a girl makes a mistake, they should have the choice to restart and try again at a better way of life.
Hoo boy. This is a hell of a can of worms you've opened, Spartan. This is one of those issues that people feel quite passionately about. Rather than taking a great deal of time that I likely don't have to structure a massive, intricate argument on the issue, I will be posting here a term paper I wrote last year on precisely the topic which is being discussed. It essentially sums up my opinion on the matter. So, without further ado...... Abortion: A Gray Issue One of the key aspects of philosophical discussions is that they often center around rather controversial topics, many of which may never be resolved. Abortion is one such hot-button issue, and the perspectives and ideas regarding its permissibility are as varied as the participants in the abortion debate. The rather unfortunate aspect of the abortion debate is that many of its participants present the solution as a dichotomy-that is, either abortion is right or it is wrong. It is either moral and permissible, or completely impermissible. Unfortunately, with something so complex, things are almost never simply black-and-white. It is my purpose in this article to argue for the subjectivity of abortion-that is, the idea that abortion is a context sensitive issue. Making reference to several philosophical articles, I shall attempt to put forward the idea that there is no definite answer to the question of abortion’s morality, but instead, the morality of aborting an unborn fetus should be determined by the situation in which the abortion might take place. Before delving in-depth into specific instances related to abortion, it would be prudent to develop further the reasoning behind this stance which I have taken, so as to seal up any possible logical fallacies in my argument. It should already be clear that the intricacy of the issue of abortion is one of the primary deciding factors in this argument. This complexity will be examined in further depth later, when we examine the wide range of differing situations and instances in which abortion is either moral or immoral. The truth behind it is, there are few things in the world which are dichotomous, with a simple ‘yes or no’, ‘right or wrong’ answer. If it were the case that abortion were a dichotomy, philosophers would have reached a conclusion on its morality long ago, would they not? Consider this example: a man insists that the world is only black and white. There are no shades, no colors. Someone shows him an apple which is red, and he insists that, because it is dark, it must be black. Someone shows him a pink article of clothing, and he assumes that it is white. A rather bizarre example, but it does have a purpose: It demonstrates the absurdity of making the abortion debate a dichotomous issue. Human experience is even more varied than the spectrum of colors, and as such, it would thereby follow that an issue involving humanity would have a number of differing ‘shades’, and it would follow that the solution to the question would most definitely be something not black, not white, but closer to gray: in other words, the admission that whether abortion in itself is right or wrong depends on the situation-the admission that abortion’s morality is subjective. One of the chief difficulties of the abortion debate is the ‘personhood’ of the fetus, and where this places the fetus as a moral agent. The general stance which will be taken here is that, although the fetus IS a potential person, and is entitled to certain rights; it is not to be treated as a full person- in the same sense that you would not treat a potential writer as an award-winning author. Due to the risk of moving off into a tangent which has nothing to do with the initial purpose of this work, the personhood of the fetus shall not be discussed any further, except in passing. All in all, the debate on the personhood to the fetus, a sub-debate in abortion, is essentially irrelevant to the task at hand. With this established, it is now time to move on to consider just what circumstances abortion would be acceptable in, as well as considering exactly why it is acceptable-this will in turn strengthen my argument about the ‘grayness’ of morality present here. In each situation, we will consider several key aspects: the accountability of the mother, the potential discomfort or damage to the mother’s well-being, and the potential quality of life which the fetus might have. In Thomson’s article, one of the most notable-and repeated- analogies she uses is that of the violinist. In her first reference, she simply asks one to imagine that they have been strapped in bed to an unconscious violinist-and for nine months, they must stay by his side, so that he can recover from his ailment. She concludes here that one would not be morally obligated to completely re plan nine months of their life in order to save the violinist. Granted, this example is slightly absurd-though not the most absurd one given- but it gets the point across. A fetus is much like the violinist. Even if one assumes that it is a person, does that make one morally accountable to carry it to term if it was unplanned in the first place? One key interest here is the kidnapping aspect-one could assume that this is equivalent, to perhaps, the failure of a contraceptive device. In no way did the mother agree to carry the fetus. Pro-life advocates will argue that, by consenting to have sex, she consented to pregnancy. I would like to argue that this is not the case. In consenting to sex, she consented under the assumption that, though there would be risks, they would be small ones, and as such, the pleasure far outweighed the potential consequence. She consented to sex under the pretense that the contraceptive device would work. It is the same as someone consenting to buy a lawnmower: They are not to be blamed if the lawnmower does not work, just as a woman is not to be blamed should a contraceptive not work. Are they to be blamed if it fails and must be replaced? In most cases, it may be useful to consider the mother’s accountability on a scale, of sorts. The potential mother in the failed contraceptive case is less accountable than someone who consented to sex without any of the necessary precautions to prevent pregnancy, but she is certainly more accountable than the rape victim-only an idiot or a heartless chauvinist would argue that a rape victim should be responsible if she gets pregnant. Still, one could argue that the mother should have the fetus in the above case. Simply the fact that the contraceptive device failed is not enough information to condone or condemn abortion. Other factors must be taken into account here, as the simple fact of accountability is often not enough information to allow or disallow the abortion except in the most extreme of cases. Assuming that the pregnancy would proceed without any undue consequences, and there would be no strain on the mother’s physical health, we must take still other aspects of the situation into consideration. Is the mother a working-class woman? Would she be able to survive on maternity leave? Would it put undue strain on her to work during the pregnancy? What of her friends and family? And ultimately, what of the fetus-would the mother be able to put the baby up for adoption after going through the pain of childbirth? Trudy Govier states in her article “New and Future People” that a mother would not only have to consider her own well being, but that “She will have to base the decision on...the interests of those already alive whose lives would be affected if the child were born…she ought, then, to consider the interests of this child-that-is-to-be…If there seems to be every chance that [the child] will lead an acceptable happy life, no special problem arises…Things are otherwise, though, if it seems likely that the child she wants to bear would lead a miserable life if born. She will have produced a miserably unhappy person” (Govier, 142) So, in any situation, when deciding whether abortion is justified or not, we must consider a number of factors, which include the well-being of and potential threat to the health and security of the mother, and the potential well being of the fetus. Not only that, we also must consider everything about the situation, from the life the fetus will lead if born as a person, to the potential effects the pregnancy and the childbirth which follows will have on the mother and everyone she associates with. The fact that so many in the abortion debate fail to consider this wide range of circumstances is perhaps one of the reasons the debate is currently so irreconcilable. Moving forward, I would like to propose a situation which no doubt has been utilized countless times as a weapon by the pro-choice advocates- the fourteen year old rape victim. I challenge anyone to argue that the poor girl should be forced to carry the fetus to term: Not only would she have to deal with the stresses and immeasurable pain involving having been violated in such a way, but she will be forced-through no fault of her own- to be put through an uncomfortable nine month pregnancy, at which point she will suffer through a painful childbirth, then be reminded of her horrific experience every time she looks at the child-who will know that it was the product of a rape by the time it reaches ten. So, in this case, abortion is most definitely permitted- regardless of any other circumstances. Thus far, I have demonstrated that abortion is justified in the case of rape, if the fetus will cause any undue harm or stress to the mother or any of her peers through the pregnancy and if the fetus would most definitely be unhappy or otherwise suffer a terrible quality of life- that is, if the fetus would be so severely handicapped that they would live in severe and constant pain with no chance of rehabilitation. Though I touched on it with the first scenario described, I have not decisively demonstrated that abortion is a gray area issue. To do this, I shall provide several situations in which abortion is completely and utterly immoral, situations which even all but the most adamant of the pro-choice advocates would laud. Imagine if you will, a woman who is eight months through her pregnancy. The fetus could be born and be viable outside of her. She decides that she does not like what the pregnancy has done to her figure. Furthermore, she does not want to go through the pain of childbirth. So, she calls for an abortion. It should be quite clear that any doctor who would perform an abortion for her at this point would be of questionable moral character. This is a rather extreme case, however. Generally, it can be accepted that abortion is impermissible in cases where the pregnancy is so far advanced that the fetus’s survival would be assured, and in cases where there is no good reason to get an abortion- it would cause no undue stress on the potential mother or her peers. Abortion is, and likely will remain a hot button issue. In spite of its complexity, many on both sides of the debate insist on presenting the answer to the question of its morality as a dichotomy- they insist on believing that there is a black and white solution. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that this will change anytime soon, for there are many on both sides who will not rest until they have won-in spite of the fact that it is unwinnable. Works Cited Thomson, Judith Jarvis. "A Defense of Abortion." Ethical Issues: Perspectives For Canadians. ed. Eldon Soifer. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press 1997. pp. 248-260 Govier, Trudy. "New and Future People" Ethical Issues: Perspectives For Canadians. ed. Eldon Soifer. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press 1997. pp. 134-144 =======================================================
I'm against it in normal circumstances. Someone said this but, if you get raped and are pregnant, then you have the right to get rid of it because it wasnt your CHOICE. But lets say you were careless and didn't use proper birth control, and you get pregnant. Well that was your fault so now you have to live with your choice. every action has a reaction Also it's totally unnecessary, lots of couples are sterile, but want a child. They want that motherhood feeling of "being there from the beggining." They will take the baby out of your hands, pay for the health support, and I'm pretty sure they pay you. when it's born, they raise him/her as there own child. Problem solved! Haven't you people ever seen Juno?
... okay i am Catholic... but believe in Pro-Choice... i know rite. on topic: it is the womans body in which this is being done to. Say that a woman is too small, and her back is in danger of breaking because of the baby, she should be able to have an abortion. or the rape thing, say a woman gets raped, and is pregnant, and can't have an abortion. Once the baby is born, it is a constant reminder to her of what the evil man did to her. i rest my case.
I believe abortion is wrong, and if I were a woman, I WOULD NEVER DO IT. However, I feel that the choice should be given to the woman. People sometimes get the two mixed up. If they say it's ok, then everyone says that's like saying they'd do it. That's not the debate. The debate is whether or not a woman should be allowed the decision.
I'll start by saying first of all, I am Pro-Choice. I just wanted to touch up on some things in the post below, and to basic issues in the debate... In the world today, every action doesn't need the consequential and possibly damaging reaction. Let's say you go out and try to beat a guy in a race. You trip and cut your leg. Now, going by your idea that every action has a reaction, you could say that, hell, I went and tried the race... now I have to suffer for that. Let it infect, lose blood... etc... OR, you could you simple but modern medical advancements and take some neosporin, and a bandage, and it'll heal up. As for with accidentally, or for whatever reason, not using proper or failed birth control, well again. You didn't do that, yes it is your fault. But now you have a baby on the way. You know you can't financially keep a baby, and plus, you don't want to go through the pains and hardships of being pregnant, going into labor and childbirth. Yes you made the mistake. You realize in getting an abortion that it was a complete mistake you completely regret. But if you have the ability to correct that mistake, should you not? If on a test you circle the wrong choice answer, but now you are done and have a few extra minutes left, should you accept your mistake and take the bad grade, or fix it while you still can? I'm more than positive you'd put that bandage on, or fix that answer. So why not be allowed to fix your mistake, a mistake you realize is wrong and could jeopardize your life, financially, physically and mentally? A point that is obviously very true and is obviously something a women that accidentally was impregnated can use. However, I go back to what I mentioned before, and that is that being pregnant isn't a rosy walk through the park the whole way through. Sure when the conception first occurs, and throughout the first trimester or so, nothing truly discomforting, but near the second half and third trimester into childbirth, I'd say, obviously not from experience, but just from knowledge of how a baby is born, that it is painful, sometimes risky, and can leave permanent effects on the body. As well as the whole experience. Throughout the pregnancy, this woman, who might not want the baby, has to go through a lot. Throughout the pregnancy and through childbirth... kicking and punching cause stress on the back Morning sickness and moodswings Parasitic relationship can cause trouble breathing as fetus grows and lungs struggle to take in more air possibility of fetus being too big to fit through pelvis, leads to C-Sections, which can leave lasting scars need for surgery in that case... which is never a good thing I'd think? Pain of childbirth and labor, contractions... Possibility of Death during childbirth (not as common nowadays, but still possible) Permanent extra body fat (not really that bad, but you know...women these days lol...) Those are just off the top of my head... Obviously, reproduction is a miraculous thing to behold. But I'd say only if the parents, especially the mother, is able to support, and willing to endure 38 weeks of this. All for one mistake that with modern science in medicine, we have the ability to correct. Also, there is the argument about when the fetus can be considered living... Imo, I support abortions as said. However, I think that they are only justified up until the end of the second trimester, at the latest. I'd say First trimester is prime time to have one. By the third trimester, I think it is too late, but if the Mom still wants one (which Imo she should have decided months earlier) then she should have some choice, but the final say should be turned over to a court... And imo, I think the fetus isn't considered living until it can fend for its ownself, without the need for it's mother, and that is right at childbirth, when it officially is not being kept alive solely by its mother's body. Once that umbillical cord is cut and the placenta falls out in afterbirth, that baby is alive. Anytime before that imo it is obvious living, but not a self-thinking, self-sustaining organism. I hope I got all I wanted to say in there lol...
I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment.....You're essentially arguing that you're pro-choice, but the only examples that you are giving are the extreme cases: cases in which the woman's life would be endangered by carrying/giving birth to the fetus, and cases in which the woman was raped. I fully agree that abortion is acceptable in these situations. But what about other, similar situations? What happens in the case that a contraceptive device fails? Pro-Life advocates would argue that one "took the risk, and must suffer the consequences. However, the failure of a contraceptive device isn't the case of one being 'careless'-it's one of those events that has the "it could never happen to me" mentality surounding it. In other words, most people who simply use condoms think they are completely safe, and women on birth control assume they can never get pregnant- in most cases, this is true. However, there are isolated instances of birth control and other related contraceptives suffering failure. I do agree that if someone goes out and wrecklessly has unprotected sex, they don't deserve the right to abortion. But in the case of the failure of contraceptives, or certain exceptional scenarios, abortion is perfectly acceptable. Ah, see, you've touched on a point that I myself brought up a few posts ago. Well said, sir (still not as long-winded as me though ). However, I've a few points of contest that I'd like to bring up with your argument-namely, the personhood of the fetus. I'm mostly just going to clarify this, and one of the most common counter-arguments Pro-life advocates make to it- the fetus is a potential person. I believe I already stated that "a potential rock star does not a rock star make"- in other words, simply because a fetus has the potential to become a human being, that does not mean it should be CONSIDERED a human being. I have aspirations to be a great writer. I wish to one day receive an award for my writing-I have the potential for this as well. Does that mean I should be considered an award-winning author? The answer is clear. For the first three months, it's been scientifically proven that a fetus is little more than a cluster of cells- it is alive in the same way that a plant is alive, but it is not 'living' in the way that an animal is. If one would argue that killing this cluster of cells is wrong, I could counter with the argument that pulling weeds must be wrong too (though this would be something of a fallacy as retorts go.). Ultimately, I am of the mind that it is perfectly acceptable in the first trimester of pregnancy to abort the fetus. However, once the fetus is viable (able to live on its own, as Pigglez stated), abortion can be considered tantamount to baby killing. You also beat me to the punch on one of the responses I made....but I decided to make it anyway
Which response was that? Oh and I just want to ask, because I am not completely sure, but are you pro-choice? I don't think you ever completely specified, but I think so miright?
Haha, I posted an article I wrote on this topic for a first year-philosophy course a little ways back-I'm fairly certain I mentioned the issue of 'personhood' in there, but it may be that I didn't. Oh, and the response that you beat me to the punch on was my statement on how the failure of a contraceptive device would affect the morality of an abortion. As for my stance....yep, I'm definitely pro-choice, except in a few extreme circumstances. Ultimately, I'm also of the mind that, in a debate like this, a woman's opinion would carry a lot more weight than my own- I'm not the one who has to carry the child, after all.
Sorry for not truly debating with others, but right now there are many pro-choice, and to little non-choice, so I'll just give me full prerogative on Abortion. Disclaimer: I'm Christian, but in no sense is this debate guided by religion. Also, I'm 13 (14 next week), and I'm probably not the most likely suspect to be debating this, or being taken seriously. As my age is also a dis-advantage for experience and knowledge of the subject, but assuming I do know most aspects of an Abortion debate, I shall continue. Here's a case. A woman is sleeping in the confines of her apartment. Unknowingly an armed man quietly and willingly breaks in the womens apartment, and travels through the house with the intention of rape on mind. Upon finding the victim, he does the act, while having the victim at point blank range, leaving no room for the victim to run/call for mercy or help. Now while all this is happening, the Perpetrator is masked, to keep himself anonymous and out of trouble. After succesfuly having sexual intercourse with the women (No condom), he ties her to her bed, and leaves the same way he entered. 9 months later, the women is pregant. Note, she is 22, single, and a low-class employee. She just departed college, and is happy to start her life. Now she has a baby. A baby she didn't want in the first place. Now a plausible action would be abortion, and I see nothign wrong with that. Now while that may seem like a common Abortion debate, I feel it explains the complexity of Abortion. See, many pro-arbotionists feel there should be limitations on Abortion, which I'm obviously against. Doing so will put a threshold over Abortion, and create cases where the women is stuck with a child. While it may be the womens choice to have sex, it should ultimately be the womens choice to endure having a child. Not only that, but limiting on an avid sexual partner seems ludicrous for a main integrity issue. Many issues will occur when one woman who is not permitted to have an abortion looks at another woman who is, and wonders 'Why not me?' While she may know the answer, it creates a sense of elitism. Furthermore, issues could spur deeming it on Ethnic backrounds, and financial backrounds, where the woman could possibly blame it on, and sue the hospital. Furthermore, the United States is a Free Country. Many non-abortionists are penetrating religion as the main factor not allow abortion. Well, any religion is allowed in this Country, meaning we shouldn't deem a law based on one religion. But now one could say "Abortion is killing, murder is illegal". Now here is where my facts could be biased, and misleaded. As far as I know, when the baby is in the womb, its obviously not aware of what it's going through. It basically blinded from reality. Now if it were aborted I barely think the baby would feel or be conscious enough to know it's life is in danger. Life hasn't sprouted from the ****** yet, so why should it be so evil if it were to be taken away? That's all for now, as I lost debate-fuel as I was rounding up my post.
Heh, no worries on not debating....I wouldn't want to sift through eleven massive walls of text myself. And anyone who discounts someone's arguments based simply on that person's background is a fool, plain and simple. I've got a concern with your argument here....mostly that you're advocating a "slippery slope" position, in a sense. You're saying that by putting limitations on abortion, we may eventually descend to the point that only a select few will be allowed the 'privilege' of abortions. Slippery Slope arguments are not good arguments to make, my friend. I would ask you to consider a case where a woman desires an abortion, for no other reason than she had unprotected sex. Now, this is not an ordinary case- this woman is seven months pregnant. That means that, were she to have the baby now, there is a very good chance that it would be perfectly viable, and able to survive on its own, outside of her womb- in other words, for all intents and purposes, it's no longer a fetus, but rather an infant. Would you argue that in a situation like that, abortion should still be allowable?
This is defniately an argument I can respect after going through the little prositution debate back a while ago. I can defniatley say that I pretty much agree with him ^^^ 100%