Over one million cases of rape or incest in a year?

[Philly]

Checkmate

[curlymatt]

Live and let live only goes as far as another person is not harmed and the decision to murder the baby is a corporate one. From the doctor who kills the baby, to the mother who approves it, to the taxpayer who funds the process we are all complicit (some of us more than others).

While I can appreciate the desire not to interfere with anyone's private business, what most of your arguments say is essentially "don't tell me what to do!". Assuming that society has relied on scientific research to pass abortion laws assumes that society has a neutral motive, but that belies the facts. Over 1 million in the United States are killed every year by this practice behind closed doors where we don't have to think about it. We make up reasons to make ourselves feel better about it (the babies weren't wanted anyway, they probably would have grown up to be problems, they aren't really human, etc...) but the reality is that as a society we do not value human life. Instead we value our own pursuit of our pleasures even at the ultimate expense of the most vulnerable.

[Philly]

I think we should be encouraging more abortion. Considering the alternatives, I think making abortion casual and even encouraged is the most humane way to deal with overpopulation.

[The Dharma Bum]

[Dobby]

[The Dharma Bum]

[curlymatt]

[Dobby]

I didn't once fully explain my position on abortion apart from the fact that I am not entirely against it, so why you think that I believe most people support my decision I have no idea. I was showing you how I come to my decision to show you that it is not a morally apprehensible viewpoint. Do I believe most people come to their opinion by analysing the research that is available to them, then yes I do. I'm sure you came to your own opinion through a similar process. Your final conclusion is simply different. My point is your standpoint is no more morally superior than my own.

[exploited]

Yeah, the morality of allowing abortion is pretty well established. Most people have come to terms with the idea that requiring a woman to carry a child against her will is a far greater moral wrong than allowing her to terminate a non-sentient being that makes fundamental changes to her body, her long-term health and her economic future.

We aren't objectively correct, because there is no such thing as an objective moral value. All morality is entirely subjective and depends totally on context. That is what makes morality so tricky - what is okay in one situation may be reprehensible in another situation, even if the contextual differences are extremely small.

In any case, I think the really important point to be made is that these types of moral decisions should be made by those who would carry the child, and any attempt to limit abortion should be based on dialogue, education and the viability of sound alternatives. But to simply ban the practice is backwards and immoral, as it represents the imposition of moral values by a party that has no right to involve itself. Of ANY organization or person to have a say, the government should be the last.

[Philly]

I think you can go whatever way you want on which is more "moral" but when it comes to public policy, it's obvious that allowing abortions is better policy than outlawing them. Forcing women to have babies they don't want isn't a good policy, especially when overpopulation is already a problem. You can be morally opposed to all sorts of things but when it comes to public policy we need to go with the practical and beneficial choice rather than cater to one groups morals.