Selective Abortion

Sangre

Wicknight wrote:

No it doesn't ... well maybe on Judging Amy, but in the current legal system the law is quite black and white. It is only deciding what law should be applied that it gets murky, ie was it murder or manslaughter, was it rape or consentual etc

But if it was murder the law if clear. If it was rape the law if clear etc

What the law doesn't do is go "well he clearly killed him in cold blood, he clearly knew what he was doing, but then the guy who was killed was suffering from depression and was missing his left arm from a car accident, so he probably didn't apprecate life that much so I think this murder is bad but it probably isn't that bad."

I think a whole branch of criminology called labelling would disagree. A crime is never just a crime. It depends on society and its views of it.

You've just given me a perfect example - rape. A few years ago you couldn't rape your wife even though it was clearly non consensual intercourse.
I've listed examples of when killing someone isn't murder above.

Edit: I think you misunderstood me.I was wrong to say 'case by case' basis. I meant killing someone on purpose isn't always just murder and case by case refers to what law should be applied even though the act is the same. If you got that then the above statements stands.

nesf

Wicknight wrote:

True, but the point I was making is the circumstances of the act of an abortion are always the same.

No they are not and you point it out yourself below. The mother's life could be at risk, or the foetus could be horribly malformed and will not live etc. The circumstances are not always the same.

Wicknight wrote:

You are always terminating a foetus. The foetus is always defenseless and innocent by definition.

Can a bunch of cells be considered innocent? Can a tree be considered innocent? Can a dog be considered innocent? You are assuming that a foetus is human in the same way you and I are. That is a big assumption to make.

Wicknight wrote:

If it is a crime it is always a crime, since the methods and situation rarely change, unlike something more general like killing a human which could happen in a huge amount of different fashions.

No. Not really. In practice you'll find you have to make distinctions between individual cases. You say killing a person is a crime, that is far too much of a generalisation to make. There are times when killing a person is the right thing to do, or at least not the wrong thing to do.

Wicknight wrote:

I fail to see how someone could say one abortion was ok and another was a crime.

Ahh. Ok here is where we come back to the Reverend's post.

We are talking about a hypothetical situation where abortion is ok or at least not wrong. Now most people, in fact nearly all, would totally disagree with you.

For instance back to the mother's life being at risk. That is an abortion that most people see as the right thing to do, and imho the morally correct standpoint also. Now a pro-lifer could say that all other abortions are criminal but not one's where the above is the case. It's a perfectly reasonable position imho.

The issue is. If we start hand picking abortions that are ok and abortions that are not, then where do we stop? Is there a line between acceptable and unacceptable grounds for an abortion that we can all agree on? Or at least most of us. Is aborting based on sex unacceptable while aborting because of a percieved unwelcome lifestyle change acceptable? Are the two really that different?

AngryBadger

Regarding the surprising reaction of your peers, I'd venture that while they may accept abortion at the embryonic stage, this doesn#t ean they agree with it.

When you're talking about aborting at this stage you don't really consider it abortion, sicne your reasons for doing are to contrl the gender of your next child. however, to your peers, and to others, it's still an abortion.

So while they may accept abortion under other conditions at the embryonic stage of development, I imagine they find it hard to condone it for, what they may consider to be, something as frivolous as selecting the gender of your next child.

Bear in mind that I'm not saying this is a frivolous objective as such. but, being perfectly blunt about it, with an issue as big as having children, the idea of just continuing to try for a boy, and aborting all those pregnancies that don't meet your criteria...it just seems a bit too cold, too calculating.

Rev Hellfire

AngryBadger wrote:

Regarding the surprising reaction of your peers, I'd venture that while they may accept abortion at the embryonic stage, this doesn't ean they agree with it.

When you're talking about aborting at this stage you don't really consider it abortion, sicne your reasons for doing are to contrl the gender of your next child. however, to your peers, and to others, it's still an abortion.

No at that stage its still an abortion, but as has been argued before at the early stages of development most pro-abortionists do not consider the foetus to be a human and as such have no problem with it. Neither they nor we have any issues with abortion on that score.

it just seems a bit too cold, too calculating.

Why? I'm assuming you accept that its not a person we are dealing with. Granted I can see how those who are less sure of their position may take that view, so I'll change the question slightly.

Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to abort based on gender?
Keeping in mind that having a female can be detrimental financial to a family in certain parts of the globe and why abortion for financial reasons (ie single mum here) is acceptable but that gender based abortion for financial reasons is not. Or is it never valid to abort for financial reasons.

AngryBadger

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Why? I'm assuming you accept that its not a person we are dealing with. Granted I can see how those who are less sure of their position may take that view, so I'll change the question slightly.

I guess I do think it's a person at that stage, which is perhaps contrary to the purpose of your initial post.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to abort based on gender?
Keeping in mind that having a female can be detrimental financial to a family in certain parts of the globe and why abortion for financial reasons (ie single mum here) is acceptable but that gender based abortion for financial reasons is not. Or is it never valid to abort for financial reasons.

I don't think it should ever be acceptable to abort based on gender. I understand the cultural/finacial implications in some countries, but I believe the need/attitude that prevails is more indicative of a certain moral decay than anything else.

In your specific case, to me it seems impossible to say we love all out children equally, but then decide to abort those that don't happen to fit your criteria. Apologies if I'm missing some fundamental point here.

What I am saying is that in some cases, the impact of having the child is too great. I think we should all know what kind of circumstances these are so I'm not getting into those. I'm not saying it's ok to abort based on financial reasons. If someone wanted to abort simply because they didn't want to be a single parent, then I would strongly suggest they carry the child to term, and at least consider adoption if they really can't aren't ready to raise a child.