Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

It's a pretty simple question; Mostly, I'm directing it at other pro-choice people. Would aborting a baby because it's going to be female, be an immoral thing to do?

Note: I am absolutely not asking you if the mentality is immoral, I'm asking you if the action is immoral. If you think it is, how do you reconcile this with being pro-choice?

[Immanuel Can]

It's a pretty simple question; Mostly, I'm directing it at other pro-choice people. Would aborting a baby because it's going to be female, be an immoral thing to do?

Note: I am absolutely not asking you if the mentality is immoral, I'm asking you if the action is immoral. If you think it is, how do you reconcile this with being pro-choice?

I'm not an abortion-adbocate ("pro-choice" is propaganda term, a total red herring, and I'm pro the choice of not using propaganda terms, so I don't use it), but I think your question is a good one. After all, most of the abortions in world history have been deliberately targeted at eliminating girls, not boys.

Think China and India, and there alone you've got most of them.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I'm not an abortion-adbocate ("pro-choice" is propaganda term, a total red herring, and I'm pro the choice of not using propaganda terms, so I don't use it)

Well, I mean I don't want to come off as a total hack, right out of the gate. I always thought it was stupid when pro-lifers are just billed as 'anti-abortionists' by the media, so I try to avoid this sort of emblematic nonsense of being hyper-focused with the literal use of words, and just use the terms that have historically been used.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not an abortion-adbocate ("pro-choice" is propaganda term, a total red herring, and I'm pro the choice of not using propaganda terms, so I don't use it)

Well, I mean I don't want to come off as a total hack, right out of the gate. I always thought it was stupid when pro-lifers are just billed as 'anti-abortionists' by the media, so I try to avoid this sort of emblematic nonsense of being hyper-focused with the literal use of words, and just use the terms that have historically been used.

I'm okay with "anti-abortionist," just as I would happily accept a term like "anti-racist." It's a good thing.

[Gary Childress]

It's a pretty simple question; Mostly, I'm directing it at other pro-choice people. Would aborting a baby because it's going to be female, be an immoral thing to do?

Note: I am absolutely not asking you if the mentality is immoral, I'm asking you if the action is immoral. If you think it is, how do you reconcile this with being pro-choice?

I assume the answer from someone who is "pro-choice" is that "pro-choice" doesn't necessarily mean the "choice" to do anything and everything with respect to abortion. For example, a person can be "pro-choice" and still be against late term abortions. A person can still have a threshold as to what they consider an acceptable versus unacceptable circumstance for a person to "choose" to have an abortion and still be called "pro-choice".

So for example, a "pro-choice" person could believe that abortion is not something to be taken lightly and should only be practiced as a near last resort, and not simply out of fiat of choosing the gender of your children or something.

Speaking for myself, I don't have a very firm position on abortion, other than the belief that it is better not to abort if it can be reasonably avoided. However, I think I would still maybe qualify as pro-choice in so far as I don't believe in outlawing the practice of abortion, so long as people stick to some fairly reasonable boundaries--no late term abortions except in cases of existential threat to the woman's life, for one example. Also I don't think taxes should be used in any way to fund abortions. It should be entirely self funded or else, if people want to donate to such a thing, funded for low income people through independent non-governmental organizations which people who want to can voluntarily donate to.

[Walker]

Unlicensed Thread Inspector report:

If such a question actually falls within the purview of philosophy, then the parent of science has indeed sunk to a new low of bias.

The only reason for pro-choice is that the alternative to letting nature take its course, is seen as a problem.

From the objective philosophical view of life in which only situations and not problems can exist, this view of pro-choice is indeed a delusion. What is known through wisdom is proven by time.

[Gary Childress]

Unlicensed Thread Inspector report:

If such a question actually falls within the purview of philosophy, then the parent of science has indeed sunk to a new low of bias.

The only reason for pro-choice is that the alternative to letting nature take its course, is seen as a problem.

From the objective philosophical view of life in which only situations and not problems can exist, this view of pro-choice is indeed a delusion. What is known through wisdom is proven by time.

Well the word "immoral" was in there, so I guess that puts it into the realm of philosophy, more precisely "applied ethics".

[Belinda]

Elective abortion is always horrible and immoral . Some elective abortions are the least worst choice of evils. Elective abortion on the basis of the sex of the foetus is particularly bad and I cannot think of any possible moral justification for it

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I assume the answer from someone who is "pro-choice" is that "pro-choice" doesn't necessarily mean the "choice" to do anything and everything with respect to abortion. For example, a person can be "pro-choice" and still be against late term abortions. A person can still have a threshold as to what they consider an acceptable versus unacceptable circumstance for a person to "choose" to have an abortion and still be called "pro-choice".

So for example, a "pro-choice" person could believe that abortion is not something to be taken lightly and should only be practiced as a near last resort, and not simply out of fiat of choosing the gender of your children or something.

I recognize this.

Speaking for myself, I don't have a very firm position on abortion, other than the belief that it is better not to abort if it can be reasonably avoided. However, I think I would still maybe qualify as pro-choice in so far as I don't believe in outlawing the practice of abortion, so long as people stick to some fairly reasonable boundaries--no late term abortions except in cases of existential threat to the woman's life, for one example. Also I don't think taxes should be used in any way to fund abortions. It should be entirely self funded or else, if people want to donate to such a thing, funded for low income people through independent non-governmental organizations which people who want to can voluntarily donate to.

This is roughly my position as well.

If such a question actually falls within the purview of philosophy, then the parent of science has indeed sunk to a new low of bias.

The only reason for pro-choice is that the alternative to letting nature take its course, is seen as a problem.

From the objective philosophical view of life in which only situations and not problems can exist, this view of pro-choice is indeed a delusion. What is known through wisdom is proven by time.

I know there's been this attempt from pro-lifers of late to try and define being anti-abortion as a matter of science, but this is just a really stupid argument. I see where you're coming from, but you're missing a few crucial components; I think the discussion pretty obviously fits into the realm of philosophy, because we don't just need to figure out when life begins - we need to figure out what gives life value, why we value life, and whether the life of a fetus can reasonably fit into the parameter of our standards for the latter two things.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Elective abortion is always horrible and immoral . Some elective abortions are the least worst choice of evils. Elective abortion on the basis of the sex of the foetus is particularly bad and I cannot think of any possible moral justification for it

Why do you think it's 'particularly' bad, though? What differentiates the actual substance of it from any acceptable abortion? We can impute a different motive onto the person, but nothing changes about the action itself.

You could have a schizophrenic person who's genuinely convinced of a potent delusion that there are tiny, invisible men inside his toaster; That doesn't mean he's doing something immoral when he decides to pop it down, anyway.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, I think it is.

Comes down to: during pregnancy, does a woman carry a human being (in the full sense of being ensouled) or just 'life' (organic bioprocess)?

Make your selection: act accordingly.

[Immanuel Can]

Elective abortion is always horrible and immoral . Some elective abortions are the least worst choice of evils. Elective abortion on the basis of the sex of the foetus is particularly bad and I cannot think of any possible moral justification for it

Elective abortion is 99% of abortions. So essentially, you're saying abortion is always horrible and immoral. Right on.

There's only one question that matters at all: "Is he/she a human being?" The rest is nonsense. If what's inside the woman is a human being, male or female, then to butcher him/her and suck his/her bits into a sink is a horror on parallel with the worst atrocities in history, and maybe worse, since the victims are utterly helpless innocents. And that will remain true, regardless of any number of excuses.

If the child is not a human being, then it doesn't matter what gender she is. It will never matter. And that couldn't possibly make the slightest difference to the answer.

Of course, we all know exactly what we're doing, and exactly why it's wicked. But we don't care. We're just that selfish, and just that evil.

[Belinda]

I hope you see, Immanuel, that this reply illustrates how you defy relativism, probably on any topic whatsoever.
What you say, above, is right. However(and 'however' is a word you don't know the meaning of)abortion is sometimes the lesser evil.

I disapprove of abortion for social reasons but only if very good welfare conditions are in place to support the child and his mother until the child is twenty five years old.

The foetus is less a human being than the mother. You define ' human being' by immortal soul. I define 'human being' by ethical human rights, which are not fixed but depend upon culture of belief.

Unlike you, Immanuel, I don't try to rationalise my abhorrence for elective abortion.

[Immanuel Can]

I hope you see, Immanuel, that this reply illustrates how you defy relativism, probably on any topic whatsoever.

I sure do.

So does reality.

What you say, above, is right. However(and 'however' is a word you don't know the meaning of)abortion is sometimes the lesser evil.

When is murder of another human being "lesser"? When they were going to kill you? Maybe. Short of that, it's all excuses.

I disapprove of abortion for social reasons

And I, for moral ones.

...but only if very good welfare conditions are in place to support the child and his mother until the child is twenty five years old.

You've just said "Money makes murder okay." Not good enough as a reason.

The foetus is less a human being than the mother.

Prove it.

You define ' human being' by immortal soul. I define 'human being' by ethical human rights, which are not fixed but depend upon culture of belief.

Not logical. If what you were saying was true, then women in Washington, London or Toronto have rights, but women in Saudi do not. Homosexuals are right in Israel, but deserve to die in the adjacent "Palestinian" territories. People had a right not to be enslaved in the Northern States, but none whatsoever in the Southern States. And babies can be killed by anyone who can convince enough immoral others to agree that they can.

Unlike you, Immanuel, I don't try to rationalise my abhorrence for elective abortion.

You don't "abhor" it: you excuse it. That's quite different. And there are very good reasons you don't try to rationalize your position; it cannot be made rational. The only thing you can possibly do is to leave it in fuzzy focus, or you'd have to realize that.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

There's only one question that matters at all: "Is he/she a human being?" The rest is nonsense. If what's inside the woman is a human being, male or female, then to butcher him/her and suck his/her bits into a sink is a horror on parallel with the worst atrocities in history, and maybe worse, since the victims are utterly helpless innocents. And that will remain true, regardless of any number of excuses.

I actually don't think that's necessarily true; You could make a good case that abortion is okay even if an embryo is technically a human life.

What we have to do is look at why we value regular human beings, and see if the same relevant attributes are applicable. And already, I don't believe they all are, but I think we get closer to that shared humanity the further along a pregnancy gets. Now I don't want to sound like this is too much of a petty gripe, because I am actually much more warm to this morally cautious position, as you can probably take away. I don't like the idea of any abortion, I just think it's also clear that a late-term abortion is worse than an abortion that takes place in the first trimester, as much as it's clear to me that a kid's death is usually a significantly worse thing than a miscarriage.

I don't want this thread to derail into a general topic about abortion, as my incentive to making this thread was to see how pro-choice people rationalized thinking the same action is suddenly immoral if it has a different motivation behind it. But I''l leave it here that my overall position on abortion is that I pragmatically think it should remain legal until the later stages of pregnancy. I don't exactly know when that is, it's something I'm still doing research on, though at some point we do need to set a strict principle for ourselves.