The real threat to abortion in Florida isn't an all-out ban

[haele]

36. No, ethical qualms not acted on other than by the person who has them are morals.

I have personal ethical qualms about a lot of actions, also. And I have a right to make choices based on my personal ethics. They are my moral compass, and if I do something against my personal ethics, or force my personal ethics onto someone else, that is a moral hazard. The latter, forcing my personal ethics onto someone else, is an ethical situation, because I am impacting someone else's situation.

Morals do not equal ethics - they are a subjective condition within ethics, and they do not have binding legal status, according to the four ethics classes I've taken over the past couple years.

But if I were to use my personal moral compass, used my personal ethical qualms to legislate the standard and access to a procedure rather than using (in this case) science and secular law, then I am actually being anti-ethical in a legal sense.

There are two issues here: Fighting the legality of having a choice to have an abortion, and fighting the procedure of abortion to limit the ability for someone to have one if they want or need one.

In the case of Abortion, by supporting social opinion based legal (but medically un-necessary) restrictions either to the procedure or to how/when a woman can access an abortion, I've limited someone else's legal choices to access a legal medical procedure due to my personal judgments or opinion of their lifestyle without understanding the basis or the reasons of their choice.
By putting up specious roadblocks to force them into actions that I approve of, I've suborned their experiences and legal status to my own.
Abortion is a tool to deal with the symptom of an untenable pregnancy. Note that the pregnancy is untenable, not non-viable. The woman is not ready or capable of continuing with the pregnancy, whether it is due to an environmental situation (finances, emotional, or otherwise), or a medical situation. Just because 2- 5% of women in that situation casually choose abortion because they were not careful and just want to get rid of the situation rather than dealing with their personal morals doesn't give society a right to limit access to the final tool to all other women because "it's too easy to have one". Yeah, right - birth control and abstinence are much cheaper than abortion.
Ethically, can one argue against abortion without putting one's personal religion or opinions above the religion, opinion, or situational condition of the person who desires both the choice and the access?
It is of the best interest of society for a parent or parents to bear and raise children when they are ready, not just because a pregnancy occurs.

In three different social ethics models I've run, the actual ethical consideration for children only comes into effect in that model once that child is born and able to function or affect the world around him or her.
Prior to that, no matter how we want to feel about the situation, an unborn "child" is basically an ethical remora, with no standing of its own, living off the host mother until s/he is able to become viable leave the uterus.
If one puts a value on the fetus above that of the host, then one basically is indicating that all women who find themselves pregnant automatically loses all rights.
If one says "okay, - Safe, Legal, and Rare, it is...we'll let the procedure be legally available in certain limited circumstances, but you have to prove you really need it, that you really thought about it, and that you can afford it...", is it because one believes the procedure is not really ever a medical necessity, or that the woman's personal choice is negligible?

It's not a "F-you" to people who have personal ethical qualms. Y'know, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.
But growing up, I had a neighbor who died due to pregnancy complications, leaving a husband and two young children because even if she had the choice, she was denied access to one. I also know a woman who had three abortions before she had her first child, and two more in between that one and her second.
Do I have the right to judge in which situation, abortion should have been allowed? Do I agree to limitations to access to abortion that are based on my feelings over medical necessity?
Are either of these positions I am making that affect others ethically based, or based on my personal morals?

People who claim ethical qualms need to think beyond their personal feelings for their qualms to actually be ethical.

Haele