abortion morally acceptable ?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » abortion morally acceptable ? » abortion morally acceptable ?

abortion morally acceptable ?

longdoer
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 09, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 10/11/09 - 11:36 AM: Subject: abortion morally acceptable ?	#1
Is abortion morally acceptable? For instance in my contry abortion is legal for the first 10 weeks of the fetus, the pros of their argument was that its the right way to do it, and the woman would do it anyway in some strange facility, paying more. My question is, if they do so is it right to legalize it, even knowing they would do it anyway ... and if in the first 10 weeks, they are not humans therefore the mother can decide whether to kill him or not, imagine if some person in the 10 weeks kills the baby, has he committed any crime ?

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

Posted 10/11/09 - 01:54 PM:	#2
longdoer wrote: Is abortion morally acceptable? Since this is roughly the ten millionth thread on the moral status of abortion, and since this isn't your main question, I'll try to boil down the essence of my position as much as I can: *Yes.* longdoer wrote: [I]n my country abortion is legal for the first 10 weeks of the fetus, the pros of their argument was that it's the right way to do it, and the woman would do it anyway in some strange facility, paying more. My question is, if they do so is it right to legalize it, even knowing they would do it anyway... While that might be part of a reasonable argument, it certainly couldn't be the whole thing. After all, it is quite likely that every law on the books gets broken from time to time, but it does not follow that we should decriminalize everything (or even just the things that are done all the time anyway). Drunk driving, for example, strikes me as something that it is worth keeping illegal despite its prevalence. Still, given that we care about the health and safety of women, and in light of the fact that an abortion performed by a professional is safer than actually carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth, it's something to consider when forming laws (which need not, and often do not, have anything to do with morality). longdoer wrote: ...and if in the first 10 weeks, they are not humans therefore the mother can decide whether to kill him or not, imagine if some person in the 10 weeks kills the baby, has he committed any crime ? In the United States, a fetus is not considered a person until it has been developing for 24 weeks. Prior to that, anyone who attacks a woman and causes a miscarriage is guilty of assault, but not homicide. After 24 weeks, however, the crime changes. And this seems logical: if the law doesn't recognize something as a person capable of being the victim of homicide, it wouldn't make sense to charge someone who destroyed such a thing with homicide. This is not to say that reasonable people cannot disagree over what the proper time to count a fetus as a person is, but only to say that the law is consistent and sensible in that regard.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 10/11/09 - 06:23 PM:	#3
By asking if something is "morally acceptable", you imply that there is some universal system of ethics which can determine the ethics of an act without reference to the circumstances. The answer is "we don't know until you tell us what system of ethics you are referring to and whether you believe everyone must necessarily subscribe to this system of ethics". There could be contingencies upon moral acts as well -- you start to describe circumstances which would be worse if it were not allowed, so you could be asking, "is abortion an act whose moral obligation outweighs all other moral obligations". Is anything morally obligatory? If you are asking whether it is legal -- that only depends on the laws of the country where the act is performed. It is a question for lawyers, not philosophers, (although some wear both hats). Abortion could be morally wrong, but if there is no law to prohibit it, no crime has been committed.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

mutemaler
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2006

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 664

Posted 10/11/09 - 11:19 PM:	#4
swstephe wrote: By asking if something is "morally acceptable", you imply that there is some universal system of ethics which can determine the ethics of an act without reference to the circumstances. The answer is "we don't know until you tell us what system of ethics you are referring to and whether you believe everyone must necessarily subscribe to this system of ethics". There could be contingencies upon moral acts as well -- you start to describe circumstances which would be worse if it were not allowed, so you could be asking, "is abortion an act whose moral obligation outweighs all other moral obligations". Is anything morally obligatory? If you are asking whether it is legal -- that only depends on the laws of the country where the act is performed. It is a question for lawyers, not philosophers, (although some wear both hats). Abortion could be morally wrong, but if there is no law to prohibit it, no crime has been committed. I would have just - and quite naturally - answered "from what morality?" (perspective+criteria). But this is much better. I think I have a lot to learn about speaking...

Heterotheist
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 79

Posted 10/11/09 - 11:28 PM:	#5
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: Since this is roughly the ten millionth thread on the moral status of abortion, and since this isn't your main question, I'll try to boil down the essence of my position as much as I can: *Yes.* ... This is not to say that reasonable people cannot disagree over what the proper time to count a fetus as a person is If you believe that reasonable people can disagree over what the proper time to count a fetus as a person is, then you cannot boil down your position to "yes".

Tired
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 12, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 31

Posted 10/12/09 - 01:12 AM:	#6
That is based on your moral standard, which is defined by something else. For Christians that is the Bible. For Atheists, it is Science and ones self and if Science dictates the acceptability of a certain action or behaviour, then it becomes morally acceptable if it is widly believed to be as such.

jakeUSMC
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 12, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 16

Posted 10/12/09 - 02:49 AM:	#7
Tired wrote: That is based on your moral standard, which is defined by something else. For Christians that is the Bible. For Atheists, it is Science and ones self and if Science dictates the acceptability of a certain action or behaviour, then it becomes morally acceptable if it is widly believed to be as such. I'm human, I have not a moral "standard."

Tired
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 12, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 31

Posted 10/12/09 - 02:51 AM:	#8
jakeUSMC wrote: I'm human, I have not a moral "standard." I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. I believe you are saying that as a human we don't have a moral standard. If we don't have a moral standard then how do we base our value or right, wrong and justice? That standard is what everything we do is compared to. And that standard can change base on our experiences, religion, knowledge etc. But a lot of people seem to believe that morality evolved to give order, to give rules, as there are math or scientific rules. So there is causation based on these rules. But these rules are dynamic, but there are basics such as Murder, Theft etc. These I believe were created to keep our emotions intact and to interact with other beings as we all want to exist and breaking these basic rules disrupts our existence. If you want me to clean up my arguments I can. Edited by Tired on 10/12/09 - 02:57 AM

jakeUSMC
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 12, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 16

Posted 10/12/09 - 02:56 AM:	#9
I'm saying humans are fickle; ever changing. Just because I have a rule doesn't mean it is always followed, I'm not a saint or computer. I'm a human who is moral, but I can never follow a standard, because I am not perfect. Someone who follows a standard perfectly is someone who hasn't been caught.

mutemaler
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2006

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 664

Posted 10/12/09 - 03:04 AM:	#10
jakeUSMC wrote: I'm saying humans are fickle; ever changing. Just because I have a rule doesn't mean it is always followed, I'm not a saint or computer. I'm a human who is moral, but I can never follow a standard, because I am not perfect. Someone who follows a standard perfectly is someone who hasn't been caught. There are many moral standards of which you are part, and which you have internalized to greater and lesser extents. They influence you and you also influence them, influence goes both ways in other ways, in a sense we are constantly re-programming our moral dispositions. Whether a particular is strictly followed doesn't really matter, and I think the best description of all moral systems, a "universal moral prescription" is this: To largely follow convention (in this case convention being the dominant cultural morality). I don't think it is moral to always follow the given morality. Just not how reality works. Its kind of dead, just like all so-called perfect or absolute things. No room for life in them.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.