In your Opinion, is Abortion a Moral, Social, Medical, or Scientific issue?

Question

If you believe it to be all four, rank them in the order of their importance for understanding its legality/relevance to society.

Answer 1

Moral.

Sicentific isn't an issue because it's legal. Society is divided but in the end it doesnt matter what other people think it's a persons choice.,  

Answer 2

none, its a personal issue.(its about feasibility)

Answer 3

1.Moral-A lot of people are against it for moral reasons.

2.Social-It has to do with the people.

3.Scientific-Does life begin at conception?

4.Medical-It also has to do with the body.

Answer 4

Moral

Scientific

Medical

Social

It can't be a private issue. There are two independent beings involved (mother and fetus) and one of them can't defend themselves.  

Answer 5

Personally, I think it's a medical issue first and foremost, and therefore a private matter between a woman and her physician of choice.

People think differently, and of course they are entitled to do so and to behave accordingly, but their views should not limit the choices of others.

Cheers :-)

Answer 6

Scientific  

Answer 7

All of the above.

Moral, medical, scientific,social.

Answer 8

It is a moral issue first, then social, then medical, then scientific.

Answer 9

All of the above.

I have thought about this quite a bit over the years. The wide spread of opinions is incredible, matched only by the passion of the activists on all sides. This is an issue that few people are even able to have a civilized discussion about. Complicating it further is that there are few that hold a black-and-white view of the issue. The majority of people in the US see abortion as a giant grey area with varying degrees of abortion considered acceptable. Very few people hold the position of unlimited abortion access or no abortion under any circumstances. Below is the process I went through to come up with my position on the matter.

First, I asked myself the question at what point does a human being obtain "personhood" and as such gain all the legal and moral protections that status entitles them to? There are some who say that the point of personhood is 28 days AFTER birth, at which point you still should be allowed to abort. In fact, there is a professor of ethics at Princeton University that actively advocates this position. This is the position that spurred “Born Alive” legislation that says if a woman has an abortion and the baby survives, that doctors cannot withhold care and let the baby die on the operating table. Others say up to the point of birth. These folks, such as Barak Obama, would hold that this type of infanticide as well as partial birth abortion is a reasonable procedure. Or perhaps just before while the mother is in labor. Or 6 months of gestation or 3 months or three weeks. I wrestled with this for a long time.

Then I looked at the issue a different way. Does human life have an imputed value or an intrinsic one? If we say that it is imputed, meaning the value is derived from something else, some outside criteria, then any one of the above positions would be equally valid. We as a society would decide what criteria to select. My problem with this is what criteria do you use? On what basis is a baby at 6 weeks more valuable than a baby at 5 weeks? Is a baby that has not yet developed a heart still a baby? This hit really hard on my wife and I when we lost one of our children. Lynne had a miscarriage a few years ago. When people with strong pro-choice sentiments gave us their condolences, they referred to the fetus as a child, even though she (we named her Grace, even though we do not know for sure if she was a she or a he. It made it easier to explain to the children what happened and easier for Lynne and I to grieve our loss) was at the same gestational point, 9 weeks, that they believed abortion was merely removing some unwanted tissue of the mother. So, the criteria used is whether or not a child is wanted. If that is so, then why? The characteristics of an object of any sort are not contingent on another persons belief for perception.

By similar logic, if the value of human life is imputed, it can also be taken away, depending on what some person or group of persons believe that life is worth. So if you happen to be mentally retarded or black or Jewish, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be killed off for the good of the community if they believe it. I have a friend who is paralyzed from the neck down and constantly in pain. There are some in the world who would look at her and say that she has no quality of life or that the money and effort to support her would be better used on others. They would have her die due to her handicap. But knowing her the way I do I find the notion that she is without a quality of life to be ridiculous on its face. She is a writer, a painter, a social worker, and heads up an international charity. I’d call that a pretty good quality of life. So would her husband who married her years after her accident put her in the wheelchair. Thus, the imputed value logic is shown to me to be completely arbitrary. Following any of the “prior to this point it is not human but at this one on it is” positions is likewise arbitrary and does not answer the question of personhood.

But consider the proposition that human life has an intrinsic value. That it is valuable simply because it is human life and no other reason. No measure or quantification of the value of it, it is and that is enough. It is sort of like gold. Gold is valuable because it is gold, not because we as a society stood up one day and said, “we are going to make gold valuable”. Gold has an intrinsic value as opposed to an imputed value, such as paper currency. Paper currency is worthless in and of itself. It has value only because we say it has a certain value.

This position then would support a clear line between human life and not human life. With this position, you are a human at the point that you have a unique genetic code. In other words, at conception. Prior to that, there was no “you”. The male and female reproductive components in and of themselves are not a unique genetic code, but merely parts of the donors. It is only when they combine to create new li

Answer 10

Personally for me- Moral, medical, social, scientific.

Relevance is society- Scientific, medical, social, moral.

Answer 11

Medical, to me it is no different than removing an unwanted wart from your person. I have never had one, but if I needed to have one I would like the choice to be there.  

Answer 12

Many people make it a moral/social issue despite the fact that most pro-life nut-jobs don't know the situation a particular woman's going through. Some women need to have an abortion or risk dying from a pregnancy.

Like the above person said, it should be kept between oneself and a doctor.  

Answer 13

All 4.

moral

social

medical

scientific...I believe this is the order, for me it is anyway.

Answer 14

It is all four really, and, still under debate because for many it is a moral issue.

Personally, I believe that abortion used as a method of birth control is morally repugnant, and, the mother instead should be encouraged to have her baby, and, give her baby up for adoption, at worst.

Answer 15

IMO, it's a social issue. Because society believes the majority or vocal minority can thrust their personal beliefs on someones personal choices,  and try to make it law, it's a social issue. The reality is it's a non-issue, as a woman should always have the power and right to decide what's best for themselves.