The Morality of Elective Abortion: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on the morality of elective abortion. The question was:

Is elective abortion morally wrong? Some people support abortion in the cases of rape or incest, as well as in cases of serious medical problems with the fetus or the pregnancy. However, they regard the termination of a normal, healthy pregnancy as morally wrong, particularly as irresponsible. Are such abortions wrong? Does the judgment change if the couple used birth control or not?

My Answer, In Brief: Abortion is a moral choice whenever a pregnancy – let alone raising a child – would be a sacrifice of herself, her goals, and her happiness. For many unwanted pregnancies, an early-term abortion is a far better option than adoption or becoming a parent.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 25:07
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Adoption, Children, Duty, Ethics, Obligation, Parenting, Responsibility, Sacrifice, Self-Sacrifice, Sex

Links:

• The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
• Philosophy in Action: Adoption Versus Abortion

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the morality of elective abortion, liability for injuries on the job, guilt over self-sacrifice, and more – is available here: Episode of 5 January 2014.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

McCain on Adoption: Gay Couples Need Not Apply

Presidential candidate John McCain would prefer a child to remain in foster care than be adopted by a gay couple:

Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?

Mr. McCain: I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don't believe in gay adoption.

Q: Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents.

Mr. McCain: I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents.

Q: But your concern would be that the couple should a traditional couple?

Mr. McCain: Yes.

Homosexuality is a neutral trait: a person can be good or evil, worthy or unworthy, competent or incompetent, law-abiding or criminal -- whatever his sexual orientation. A proper government should never discriminate against homosexuals. To do so is a violation of a person's right, as an individual, to be treated equally before the law.

Government discrimination against homosexuals in the case of adoption is particularly egregious, as a gay couple may be a child's only chance to settle into a loving, stable home. Proper government policy on adoption should only concern the fitness of individual parents. Homosexuality is not a legitimate disqualifier: psychological studies show that kids do as well with homosexual parents as with heterosexual parents.

Lamentably, prejudice against homosexuals remains entrenched in American government at all levels, largely due to the persistent (and growing) influence of religion in government. Christian scripture condemns homosexuality. According to Leviticus 18:22, homosexuality is an "abomination" to God. Based on such judgments from on high, government officials -- heedless of the proper wall of separation between their private religious views and government policy -- think themselves justified in discrimination against homosexuals as a group. To that end, they're willing to deprive children of loving, stable homes.

That's wrong -- morally wrong. It should be opposed, not just by homosexuals wishing to adopt. It should be opposed by every advocate of the separation of church and state.

Read more...