PEx Alert: Welcome to the new PinoyExchange. For access issues, bug reports and technical concerns, please email us at [email protected] Thank you!

Aside from the "morality" argument, is there any reason to not to legalize abortion?

tsikoskitsikoski your puppet & clown PExer
Aside from the "morality" argument, is there any reason to not to legalize abortion?

basically, there are a few parameters for this thread:

a) no "morality" arguments (or religion-based arguments)., : i.e., god said so in the bible or stuff like that. that just doesn't apply to everybody as much as you'd want it to. please keep your arguments on the practical, or at least legal level.

b) abortions refer to voluntary abortions done in situations which are nonthreatening to the mother. the converse IS allowed under the status quo, except for some rabid conservatives.

that's it, i guess. hehehe. :naughty:
«13

Comments

  • FerdinandFerdinand Member PExer
    Yes, there is another reason. Medical. There has been studies that abortion has negative effects on the mothers body. I read it but I can't remmeber where, but as soon as I find the article I will post it.
  • perkinsperkins Member PExer
    yes, easily.

    1. legal argument - it is still illegal under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. pass the law first and more importantly, the specific regulation that will control the practice. remember, some countries who allow abortion still cannot control/regulate the untoward practices that abounds.

    2. ethical argument - it is unethical under the Hippocratic Oath sworn to by doctors. not all doctors are ethical in the name of money anywhere on Earth.

    3. pervasive medical argument - once abortion is allowed, we will be certain it could be applied over and over to any particular mother. and the female body/reproductive organ is capable only of certain number of abortion.

    again, not all doctors are knowlegeable or ethical or at least concerned to their patients in the name of money.

    and some persons forget themselves and their safety in the name of honor, choice, vanity, you-name-it.

    4. social argument - cheapening life too low as a matter of choice could possibly cheapen the same in another fronts, among others:
    a. perverted science - please research on the NAZI Germany's third reich plans for full info. note that such so-called perverted science practice now slowly creeping up the US medical scene.
    b. uncontrolled harvest/trafficking of infant brain tissues and human organ - good if done only/always to willing donor. but then, infants cannot give any for of consent. and giving the right of consensus to the parents in this case would be absurd, given that the baby is normal and healthy.
    c. uncontrolled abortion - not good for we may kill out even the gifted ones.
    d. uncontrolled death penalty to criminal offenders - good if no innocent will be applied of it.

    i am sure there are more reasons against abortion other than those with God's color. question is, why do we have to separate faith from secular reasoning in issues that are both religious and secular.

    religion exists as abortion is done right now somewhere in the planet, let us not be out of sync with the world just to stress or prove a point.
  • FerdinandFerdinand Member PExer
    perkins wrote:
    yes, easily.

    1. legal argument - it is still illegal under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. pass the law first and more importantly, the specific regulation that will control the practice. remember, some countries who allow abortion still cannot control/regulate the untoward practices that abounds.

    2. ethical argument - it is unethical under the Hippocratic Oath sworn to by doctors. not all doctors are ethical in the name of money anywhere on Earth.

    3. pervasive medical argument - once abortion is allowed, we will be certain it could be applied over and over to any particular mother. and the female body/reproductive organ is capable only of certain number of abortion.

    again, not all doctors are knowlegeable or ethical or at least concerned to their patients in the name of money.

    and some persons forget themselves and their safety in the name of honor, choice, vanity, you-name-it.

    4. social argument - cheapening life too low as a matter of choice could possibly cheapen the same in another fronts, among others:
    a. perverted science - please research on the NAZI Germany's third reich plans for full info. note that such so-called perverted science practice now slowly creeping up the US medical scene.
    b. uncontrolled harvest/trafficking of infant brain tissues and human organ - good if done only/always to willing donor. but then, infants cannot give any for of consent. and giving the right of consensus to the parents in this case would be absurd, given that the baby is normal and healthy.
    c. uncontrolled abortion - not good for we may kill out even the gifted ones.
    d. uncontrolled death penalty to criminal offenders - good if no innocent will be applied of it.

    i am sure there are more reasons against abortion other than those with God's color. question is, why do we have to separate faith from secular reasoning in issues that are both religious and secular.

    religion exists as abortion is done right now somewhere in the planet, let us not be out of sync with the world just to stress or prove a point.

    Well said!
  • LITHIUM478LITHIUM478 Super Sawsaw PExer
    Assuming we agree to remove our moral obligations, but unborn child have rights too. Even if mothers have the right to abort, unborn children have the right to live.
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie Moderator PExer
    perkins wrote:
    yes, easily.

    1. legal argument - it is still illegal under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. pass the law first and more importantly, the specific regulation that will control the practice. remember, some countries who allow abortion still cannot control/regulate the untoward practices that abounds.

    2. ethical argument - it is unethical under the Hippocratic Oath sworn to by doctors. not all doctors are ethical in the name of money anywhere on Earth.

    3. pervasive medical argument - once abortion is allowed, we will be certain it could be applied over and over to any particular mother. and the female body/reproductive organ is capable only of certain number of abortion.

    again, not all doctors are knowlegeable or ethical or at least concerned to their patients in the name of money.

    and some persons forget themselves and their safety in the name of honor, choice, vanity, you-name-it.

    4. social argument - cheapening life too low as a matter of choice could possibly cheapen the same in another fronts, among others:
    a. perverted science - please research on the NAZI Germany's third reich plans for full info. note that such so-called perverted science practice now slowly creeping up the US medical scene.
    b. uncontrolled harvest/trafficking of infant brain tissues and human organ - good if done only/always to willing donor. but then, infants cannot give any for of consent. and giving the right of consensus to the parents in this case would be absurd, given that the baby is normal and healthy.
    c. uncontrolled abortion - not good for we may kill out even the gifted ones.
    d. uncontrolled death penalty to criminal offenders - good if no innocent will be applied of it.

    i am sure there are more reasons against abortion other than those with God's color. question is, why do we have to separate faith from secular reasoning in issues that are both religious and secular.

    religion exists as abortion is done right now somewhere in the planet, let us not be out of sync with the world just to stress or prove a point.

    #1 invalid - you can't argue against changing the status quo by simply stating the status quo

    #2 invalid - the hippocratic oath is vague. the duty of a doctor is to promote life as well as the well-being of a patient. abortion entails a juggle between the two aims.
    #3 & #4 invalid - slippery slope argument & sensationalist claims.
  • gekokujogekokujo Original Fire PExer
    the old hippocratic oath - the same one which prohibits abortion - also contains an injuction against using knives or surgery: obviously "ethical" standards like social mores aren't things set in stone either.
  • faaip_de_oiadfaaip_de_oiad PEX GOD PExer
    ang jologs ng thread na to. sheesh. this is a shameless knock off of my thread. tsk tsk.

    During pregnancy, any manipulation of the uterus can lead to the perforation of womb itself.

    ---

    Just a side note: A psychiatrist-lecturer asked people in class to defend abortion in the Philippines through a debate. tsikoski and I were the ones who volunteered to debate on behalf of the pro-abortion side. Geez, that was hard. :glee:
  • blehbleh blahbitty blah PExer
    it's hard to argue something on the basis of social consequences because you have to establish that the outcome will always be the same. meaning people are as robots.

    times change and so do people. cheesy response but reasonable.

    so what is the truth? truth doesn't change. it just is. it is not confined to time. truth is beyond time. nyeeekkk...

    if abortion will not be legalized, then the state should acknowledge the right of the unborn considered as a citizen, why be half-a$$ed about it huh?
  • KrayonKrayon Banned by Admin PExer
    Aside from moral/ethical arguments? - I can't think of any.

    Abortion IS a moral/ethical issue and should be treated as such.
  • tsikoskitsikoski your puppet & clown PExer
    ang jologs ng thread na to. sheesh. this is a shameless knock off of my thread. tsk tsk.

    During pregnancy, any manipulation of the uterus can lead to the perforation of womb itself.

    ---

    Just a side note: A psychiatrist-lecturer asked people in class to defend abortion in the Philippines through a debate. tsikoski and I were the ones who volunteered to debate on behalf of the pro-abortion side. Geez, that was hard. :glee:

    dude, it's a related but a totally different question. don't give yourself too much credit. :sweatdrop:
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PExer
    it is not hard to defend abortion. However to answer the question, there is 1 main argument on not legalizing abortion, that is, the social impact it will create-- dividing the nation, and hence jeopardizing the unity or the proposed unity. This alone should be enough to discourage policy makers on changing the status of abortion-- they just dont have the mandate of the people.
  • bludwidbludwid U Want Somma Dis? PExer
    perkins wrote:
    yes, easily.

    1. legal argument - it is still illegal under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. pass the law first and more importantly, the specific regulation that will control the practice. remember, some countries who allow abortion still cannot control/regulate the untoward practices that abounds.

    2. ethical argument - it is unethical under the Hippocratic Oath sworn to by doctors. not all doctors are ethical in the name of money anywhere on Earth.

    3. pervasive medical argument - once abortion is allowed, we will be certain it could be applied over and over to any particular mother. and the female body/reproductive organ is capable only of certain number of abortion.

    again, not all doctors are knowlegeable or ethical or at least concerned to their patients in the name of money.

    and some persons forget themselves and their safety in the name of honor, choice, vanity, you-name-it.

    4. social argument - cheapening life too low as a matter of choice could possibly cheapen the same in another fronts, among others:
    a. perverted science - please research on the NAZI Germany's third reich plans for full info. note that such so-called perverted science practice now slowly creeping up the US medical scene.
    b. uncontrolled harvest/trafficking of infant brain tissues and human organ - good if done only/always to willing donor. but then, infants cannot give any for of consent. and giving the right of consensus to the parents in this case would be absurd, given that the baby is normal and healthy.
    c. uncontrolled abortion - not good for we may kill out even the gifted ones.
    d. uncontrolled death penalty to criminal offenders - good if no innocent will be applied of it.

    i am sure there are more reasons against abortion other than those with God's color. question is, why do we have to separate faith from secular reasoning in issues that are both religious and secular.

    religion exists as abortion is done right now somewhere in the planet, let us not be out of sync with the world just to stress or prove a point.


    1. I think it's better to argue this while considering laws outside the Philippines also, where governments are less bound by religious edicts. In Britain and most of Europe, I think it's well-regulated, apart from a few isolated incidents. and it's still a better situation than having 8 kids and nothing to feed them with.

    2. But the Hippocratic Oath is still there for doctors to follow. Whether they actually follow it is not for you or me to judge. We have the objectivity of the law to do this for us.

    3. Whether this is true or not, me not being a doctor, I think this is an opinionated point. Reasons for abortion are not always due to vanity, or honor. Some do actually have a difficult choice at hand. Take for example having a baby with Down's Syndrome. It's not anybody's fault, and to subject a woman to a full-life's worth of responsibilities is taking away her human rights, too... It has to work both ways.

    4. Listen, abortion doesn't cheapen life any worse than kids watching violent films and growing up to be killers. There are a lot more goings on out there that cheapen life, and abortion doesn't even come into the top 10 list. Point 4, including a,b,c, and d, is again subjective. I mean, science fiction aside, I think morality and religion is the only valid argument there is.

    I am pro-choice, and do believe that there should be a balance between what a woman's rights are and what a child's rights are. Abortion should be allowed - to a certain point, and is practiced in most countries, under a regulatory body or watchdog, of course. Most of the points mentioned here are very subjective. I do also think that pro-life lobbyists have many valid points which pertain to moral issues, and I believe in some of them.

    I think, outside morality and human rights, there really is precious few to consider when debating choice or life. The law, doctor's oaths, Nazis, aliens from outer space, etc are really but petty issues which don't really bite into a solution...
  • KrayonKrayon Banned by Admin PExer
    tsikoski: I think you should change the title of this thread. Everyone is using MORAL ARGUMENTS, including the post above.


    1. legal - formalization of mores/values in society. Moral.
    2. ethical - synonym of moral.
    3. pervasive medical argument - concerns Human body. Moral
    4. Social - values of society. Moral

    May be you could change it to "aside from RELIGIOUS arguments, is there...". Everybody seems to be doing that anyway. I really want to participate, but I don't want to be off-topic making MORAL arguments.


    I hope this clarifies things (and I'm not nitpicking) :)
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PExer
    im not using moral argument but using political consequence, so dont include me with everyone else. hehe And ethical is not synonymous with morality. im sorry, but it is not.
  • KrayonKrayon Banned by Admin PExer
    Depends on your definition of both terms. I know in the dictionary they are synonymous. And using political implications is indeed a valid approach, sorry if I included you (albeit unintentionally :blush2: ).
  • bludwidbludwid U Want Somma Dis? PExer
    But that's exactly my point. What I'm trying to say is that outside the "morality" argument, there really is no other cause for debate.

    Abortion is a moral issue...period

    Everything else is just salad dressing...

    Whether you change the title of the thread or not doesn't really change that fact.
  • bludwidbludwid U Want Somma Dis? PExer
    im not using moral argument but using political consequence, so dont include me with everyone else. hehe And ethical is not synonymous with morality. im sorry, but it is not.

    Ethical is not synonymous with morality; rather ethics is really a part of the whole morality issue.

    Ethics is really about whether what a person is doing is right or wrong, isn't it? Morality is a system of ideas which defines what is right or wrong.

    It's impossible to mention ethics and not contemplate on what's right and wrong.

    Secondly, if you're concerned about social impact, then you're really thinking about not dividing people's definitions of what's right or wrong - and that, yet again, falls within the boundaries of morality.

    Just look at it this way. Abortion is, to put it bluntly, terminating a life, isn't it? If that ain't a moral issue fundamentally, then I don't really know what is.
  • KrayonKrayon Banned by Admin PExer
    In that case there is also the economic argument - in some countries, the proportion of the youth is too low to support the rest of the population (education for young, pension for old). Abortion can be then banned to reverse this trend (cause of trend - more and more educated people are becoming career-oriented and less family-oriented, especially European countries).
  • crazy legscrazy legs Member PExer
    What about the what if arguement?

    What if the child was not aborted. He/She could be the person who discovers the cure for cancer, or AIDS. Or the next Pope, or the next Bill Gates, or the next Einstein, if he/she were not aborted.

    I think this is similar to some conservationists arguement about not cutting down rainforests because a species of plant or living thing that might be discovered there that could be used to cure cancer and if the rainforest were to be chopped dwn then it would become extinct and there would never be a cure for cancer ever.

    But its too much back to the future stuff.
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PExer
    i am referring to the political impact that it might cause, and not the moral impact that it will cause. They are two different arguments and consequences.

    As for ethics and morality, although they maybe similar, but they are different-- in 1 deals with the practical issue, and the other deals with the theoretical issue-- and thus, one can be emotional while the other cannot; as i have shown the logical implication of the word person in the definition of pro-life (i think on another thread)

    And lastly, abortion is not about the termination of life-- it is about the status of the fetus. If you think the argument is about termination then you have misunderstood it completely. To terminate something is amoral, but to terminate a person is a moral dilemma.
«13

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file