Amazon.com Widgets

Is the morality debate about abortion really founded on the rights of fetus (yes) or about moralizing about women who have been through a process of fornication and avoided punishment (no)?

Asked by: BEM1019
Is the morality debate about abortion really founded on the rights of fetus (yes) or about moralizing about women who have been through a process of fornication and avoided punishment (no)?
  • Are you serious?

    Of course the debate is founded on the rights of the fetus. I understand the option of abortion if raped or anything in that genre. If you take the chances of having sex you are fully responsible for your actions. It's not the fetus' fault you did what you did. Who knows who your baby could become in the future. Even if you aren't able to afford having the baby at home. Give him/her up for adoption, instead of murdering him/her.

  • It's not all that.

    I believe that there also could be some argument also there for the right of the fathers. The reason I am looking at this is because the fathers of the child or fetus has absolutely no rights to what is done with their own personal child or fetus they have helped to create. I believe that there should now be something be put in the laws to say that some not all should be able to have rights to what happens to their own creation.

  • For me it is about the baby.

    I am sure there are people out there who might think it's some kind of moralizing crusade, but the vast majority of us who are against abortion simply cannot accept the termination of human life for no reason. Many who support abortion have no problem understanding why animals and their unborn young should be protected but can't transfer that same idea to unborn humans. It is life. Any time life is destroyed there should be a reason. Convenience is not a good enough reason. Most abortions aren't due to rape or to save the mother's life. Those are the rare ones. Most are because the woman doesn't want a baby. Period. That isn't enough reason to snuff out a life.

    Posted by: Keln
  • It is the reason for the debate, yes

    It is possible to say that there would be no abortion debate at all if the rights of the unborn child, or "fetus" if one prefers, were not an issue. Having been involved with the issue myself for a number of years on the pro-life side, I can say with some confidence that most pro-lifers are not concerned with over 99% of the things a woman (or a man, for that matter) might wish to do with their body. It is the body inside a pregnant woman with whom we are concerned. It is important to recognize the natural rights of the unborn for the sake of natural rights in general. Personal liberty is important, but no one's personal liberty can be purchased through murder, i.E. The willful slaying of an innocent human being, especially when there are alternatives ranging from chastity to adoption. The right to life comes first. The right to personal freedom follows closely behind, but cannot trump the right to life. That still leaves a lot of room for personal freedom, however.

  • The religious overtones of this debate make that clear.

    While not all anti-choice proponents are religious, the VAST majority are. And the arguments for giving fetuses rights are extremely weak- the whole argument seems to be based on the irritation that women are *gasp* having sex they enjoy and not receiving a proper punishment for that sex- an attempt to push outdated sexual mores on all.

    After all, fetuses can't actually exercise rights- they aren't conscious or sentient until after viability (at which point abortion is already banned in the US unless the woman's life is threatened). Anti-choice proponents just mean "we get to decide for them" by "fetuses have rights", which isn't really "rights" at all. Rights under the law only pertain to those able to exercise them- when an adult is no longer capable of consciousness, sentience, or the ability to feel pain, his relatives or power of attorney get to choose whether or not that person lives or dies (aka "pulling the plug"). That is no different than giving a woman the right to choose whether to abort, since a fetus similarly lacks those qualities.

  • I suppose you can make an argument for both

    I chose this answer because, although all pro lifers would say that they have their views because they are concerned about the life of the fetus, you can see some contradictions when you discuss their opinions further.
    One of the things that bothers me is that the pro-life group does nothing to help prevent abortion. It is not in favour of comprehensive sex education , readily available birth control, paid maternity leave, or increasing welfare programs. A lack of all these things are reasons why women have to consider abortion in the first place, yet pro-lifers don't care.
    It gives the impression that their concern for fetuses is just misogyny disguised. They will be intentionally dense and apathetic to her legitimate concerns for not wanting to have a child/be pregnant. And despite the fact that she is already pregnant, their response is typically "well you shouldn't have had sex". A little too late don't you think? And does that make her concerns any less valid?
    I don't think that type of attitude is right, in fact it makes a clear contradiction in their argument. If they value the life of an unborn child, why is there a lack of concern when that baby becomes a child to a welfare mom?
    Also I consider it gut wrenching that anyone would consider parenthood as an acceptable form of "punishment". The punishment trickles down to the child, in the form of resentment, violence, and abuse. A child advocate should be concerned about that.

  • What about acceptations?

    Look I'm not an open supporter of Abortion but look this is Woman's rights coming hand. Sometimes the Father isn't around (To whoever wanted to put 'Right of the Fathers' Yeah if the father is a rapist what then?) What if their in an abusive household and do not wish to tell the father or bring the child into this house? What if they could DIE? Abortion should not be allowed to a woman more then once unless under certain circumstances. More then once is ridiculous. I've seen Women who willl have 5 abortions and ya know what? They never have children but they get pregnant more than the average woman. So yeah it might not be the best but Fetuses can't exercise rights as they are not LIVING Yet. So yeah sorry.

  • It all gets muddled up.

    There is a lot of opposition regarding abortion access. Some argue for the rights of the fetus. Some attack women's right to choose, but a lot of comments seem to reflect views that the woman had sex (not necessarily voluntary) an there fore if she evokes her rights of body to abort she has somehow cheated the system by avoiding her punishment for having sex, opening her legs, not controlling her sex drive, or not abstaining which are statements that have been used by many pro lifers posting on this site.
    This question is not asking if abortion is moral, it is investigating what founding morals and their context are used when debating the abortion issue?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.