Abortion

[TF.]

Though at the same time, it is wrong to attempt to use abortion as a form of contraceptive. THAT is what I object to.

Ethically wrong or pragmatically wrong?
Surely abortion in lieu of other birth control is a bad idea, it's dangerous and expensive, and for most people emotionally traumatic. But is it somehow morally worse than abortion in the case of, say, broken condom?

By Utilitarianism it is no more wrong but, by Kant's philosophy, it's much worse because the person intends to use the living child as a means rather than an end in itself.

[Current]

I'm not entirely certain on the utilitarian perspective, really. Once the person's pregnant, then the decision to abort has the same consequences regardless of the circumstances leading to it, but, before the pregnancy happens, at the "planning stages", so to speak, is where I see a possible distinction.

Assuming you assign a disutility to ending the life of the foetus greater than the one you assign to preventing it from existing, then it is morally preferable to use other methods of birth control before resorting to abortion. Or, and this gets a tad complicated, if you assign a probability P1 to the proposition described above, and you assign a probability P2 to the opposite proposition that there is greater disutility to preventing from existing than to killing, then as long as P1>P2 then minimization of expected disutility points towards other birth control before abortion. I think. Which just so happens to be the situation describing my current knowledge of my utility function.

[Tachi]

Though at the same time, it is wrong to attempt to use abortion as a form of contraceptive. THAT is what I object to.

Ethically wrong or pragmatically wrong?
Surely abortion in lieu of other birth control is a bad idea, it's dangerous and expensive, and for most people emotionally traumatic. But is it somehow morally worse than abortion in the case of, say, broken condom?

I'm just saying, use the condom first. Or whatever other method you're partial to. If it fails in some way and a woman still does not want the child, they should be able to opt to use abortion at their discretion. But people going around with zero contraceptives and then resorting to an abortion is absurd to me. Abortions are in no way healthy to say the least. It should be the LAST resort. I don't think I have any popular ethical stance to base that off of. No cookie cutter template. Just more of a (what I see as) logical thought to it. Why would anybody choose to go in for a painful surgical procedure to prevent something that a simple little bit of plastic could have prevented? Assuming that it isn't a case of rape or any other "special" case. Basically I would expect most people to have common sense and prevent a situation from occurring to the best of their ability if they are unable to deal with the consequences. Though of course this is expecting common sense. A cheap box of condoms versus a few hundred dollar and painful procedure should be an easy choice. No ethics committee or anyone else should NEED to tell anybody which is the logical course of action to make first. Abortion should only be last resort, but still an option if need be.

[TF.]

I'm not entirely certain on the utilitarian perspective, really. Once the person's pregnant, then the decision to abort has the same consequences regardless of the circumstances leading to it, but, before the pregnancy happens, at the "planning stages", so to speak, is where I see a possible distinction.

Assuming you assign a disutility to ending the life of the foetus greater than the one you assign to preventing it from existing, then it is morally preferable to use other methods of birth control before resorting to abortion. Or, and this gets a tad complicated, if you assign a probability P1 to the proposition described above, and you assign a probability P2 to the opposite proposition that there is greater disutility to preventing from existing than to killing, then as long as P1>P2 then minimization of expected disutility points towards other birth control before abortion. I think. Which just so happens to be the situation describing my current knowledge of my utility function.

It's moreso that the two losses of life are basically equivalent. As a form of consequentialism, it's the overall consequences that determine how 'right' or 'wrong' it is rather than the intentions. It's silly but, once the two different women are pregnant, the action of their abortions are equivalent- unless there were some unrelated consequences that followed on afterwards. Then again, this is another reason why utilitarianism isn't a perfect ethical system.

A cheap box of condoms versus a few hundred dollar and painful procedure should be an easy choice. No ethics committee or anyone else should NEED to tell anybody which is the logical course of action to make first. Abortion should only be last resort, but still an option if need be.

Yeah, it's pragmatically wrong as well as ethically wrong.

[Current]

I'm not entirely certain on the utilitarian perspective, really. Once the person's pregnant, then the decision to abort has the same consequences regardless of the circumstances leading to it, but, before the pregnancy happens, at the "planning stages", so to speak, is where I see a possible distinction.

Assuming you assign a disutility to ending the life of the foetus greater than the one you assign to preventing it from existing, then it is morally preferable to use other methods of birth control before resorting to abortion. Or, and this gets a tad complicated, if you assign a probability P1 to the proposition described above, and you assign a probability P2 to the opposite proposition that there is greater disutility to preventing from existing than to killing, then as long as P1>P2 then minimization of expected disutility points towards other birth control before abortion. I think. Which just so happens to be the situation describing my current knowledge of my utility function.

It's moreso that the two losses of life are basically equivalent. As a form of consequentialism, it's the overall consequences that determine how 'right' or 'wrong' it is rather than the intentions. It's silly but, once the two different women are pregnant, the action of their abortions are equivalent- unless there were some unrelated consequences that followed on afterwards. Then again, this is another reason why utilitarianism isn't a perfect ethical system.

It's not about intentions. My point was about whether killing a foetus is (utility-wise) worse than not creating the foetus in the first place. It would seem to me that any consistent utilitiarian needs a distinction between "killing" and "preventing from existing in the first place", otherwise you'd wonder why they aren't denouncing condoms as murder. This distinction may or may not apply to foetuses in addition to persons, I'm inclined to think it doesn't, but the probability is non-zero.

[Current]

Though at the same time, it is wrong to attempt to use abortion as a form of contraceptive. THAT is what I object to.

Ethically wrong or pragmatically wrong?
Surely abortion in lieu of other birth control is a bad idea, it's dangerous and expensive, and for most people emotionally traumatic. But is it somehow morally worse than abortion in the case of, say, broken condom?

I'm just saying, use the condom first. Or whatever other method you're partial to. If it fails in some way and a woman still does not want the child, they should be able to opt to use abortion at their discretion. But people going around with zero contraceptives and then resorting to an abortion is absurd to me. Abortions are in no way healthy to say the least. It should be the LAST resort. I don't think I have any popular ethical stance to base that off of. No cookie cutter template. Just more of a (what I see as) logical thought to it. Why would anybody choose to go in for a painful surgical procedure to prevent something that a simple little bit of plastic could have prevented? Assuming that it isn't a case of rape or any other "special" case. Basically I would expect most people to have common sense and prevent a situation from occurring to the best of their ability if they are unable to deal with the consequences. Though of course this is expecting common sense. A cheap box of condoms versus a few hundred dollar and painful procedure should be an easy choice. No ethics committee or anyone else should NEED to tell anybody which is the logical course of action to make first. Abortion should only be last resort, but still an option if need be.

I agree, the correct decision seems quite obvious. I was just wondering if, besides the clear pragmatic angle, there was an ethical reason.

[TF.]

I agree, the correct decision seems quite obvious. I was just wondering if, besides the clear pragmatic angle, there was an ethical reason.

From a personal perspective, the fact that it's an accidental necessity rather than a negligent and malevolent act make it better. Also, from a Kantian perspective, the intentions make up a large part of whether an act is right or wrong- though the murder of a foetus would probably be ruled out regardless, which doesn't suit my opinions.

[JMRCTA]

Hell?! WTF?! What is this toopic! Abortion. Obviously, abortion.
Hey, when I was maybe 10, I watched an abortion video. Which not really for meh.
I chose: "Its murder no matter which way you look at it." Cuz it's true! What if they do that to them...

[TF.]

So are 47% of AFF users silly Christians or is something else at play?

[JMRCTA]

*shrugs* Maybe...
Hey. it's 49 already!