Why Abortion is Immoral

[ChurchStumblingBlock]

This is the best video I have watched so far to explain why abortion is immoral — an excellent five-minute summary of a handful of arguments:

TPB, from the first few seconds, when he decides what the question to be addressed is, he goes off the rails by saying "Is ending the LIFE of a human fetus moral?". This is a flawed premise right from the start. A fetus is not "a baby", "a child" or anything other than a fetus until it is presented to the world as a separate entity from its mother, able to survive apart from the factory it had inside the mother. It does not yet have a life to end. It has scientific life, but not HUMAN life. The only true answer lies in Exodus 21:22-25. Anything else is just garbage.

 

[SteveB28]

Since the IUD makes it possible for an "abortive" form of birth control to occur I would say that the very use of it is immoral. Someone who cares about protecting the life of a fertilized egg would never use one. But it would be hard to say for certain that the use of an IUD resulted in the death of a fertilized egg. What are you getting at?

Exactly! It is not possible for her, or you, to know in advance, which conception has been avoided (in the case of spermicides, condoms, contraceptive pills), or interrupted ( in the case of the IUD). You cannot name which foetus it is that is being destroyed. This is something that could only be determined after the event, if anyone wanted to be so insensitive as to examine her discharge.

So, you would condemn her for her potential to have prevented a foetus from growing, not for the specific act.

Now, go back to your comments (and the fool that you were quoting) about the justification for killing sperm cells and ova. Your (and his) argument was that this was kosher, because it is not possible to indicate beforehand which of those cells would be responsible for producing a foetus, so an attitude of 'kill 'em all' would be quite permissible!

Hoist by your own petard.

 

[fhansen]

TPB, from the first few seconds, when he decides what the question to be addressed is, he goes off the rails by saying "Is ending the LIFE of a human fetus moral?". This is a flawed premise right from the start. A fetus is not "a baby", "a child" or anything other than a fetus until it is presented to the world as a separate entity from its mother, able to survive apart from the factory it had inside the mother. It does not yet have a life to end. It has scientific life, but not HUMAN life. The only true answer lies in Exodus 21:22-25. Anything else is just garbage.

So would you submit that an unborn child, er, fetus, is not human until delivery, and therefore unworthy of protection under the law-no right to life IOW?

 

[Tree of Life]

Exactly! It is not possible for her, or you, to know in advance, which conception has been avoided (in the case of spermicides, condoms, contraceptive pills), or interrupted ( in the case of the IUD). You cannot name which foetus it is that is being destroyed. This is something that could only be determined after the event, if anyone wanted to be so insensitive as to examine her discharge.

So, you would condemn her for her potential to have prevented a foetus from growing, not for the specific act.

Now, go back to your comments (and the fool that you were quoting) about the justification for killing sperm cells and ova. Your (and his) argument was that this was kosher, because it is not possible to indicate beforehand which of those cells would be responsible for producing a foetus, so an attitude of 'kill 'em all' would be quite permissible!

Hoist by your own petard.

Hah. Hardly. It's ok to kill sperm cells and ova because no harm can possibly be assigned. None of these things has a human future. In the case of a fertilized egg, however, great harm can be assigned to the zygote.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Because, for the umpteenth time, "immoral" means "you must not do this!". As soon as you then find exceptions wherein you permit "this", it ceases to be "immoral" in those cases!

Look, the best thing that I can say is that at least you are coming to the view that morality is not a concrete, black-white, yes-no metric. It's a continuum, and your comments reflect this reality. We can never say that something is "always wrong", because we always seem to find exceptions to that very blanket statement. The best that we can say is that some decisions cause more/less harm to people under varying circumstances.

Well... That's your opinion! For me, morality is something absolute — and it is the definition of ‘morality’ that opens up an exception when all possible choices are immoral.

In other words, this is what is going on: if I only have two options, and both of these options would, under normal circumstances, be regarded as immoral: 1) I would still call both options ‘immoral’, but I would still allow for one of them, solely because the only alternative is equally bad or even worse; meanwhile, 2) you would cease to call one of them ‘immoral’.

In my opinion, the problem with this second view is that it makes morality something relative, which is something I disagree with, since I regard actions as inherently good or bad, without being subjected to circumstances. Occasionally, rare and exceptional circumstances may require that something immoral still be done, for want of a better option — however, these circumstances are generally relatively rare, and should not be taken as a general rule.

If you disagree with me, I have little more to say. I suppose that we may now simply agree to disagree.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

TPB, from the first few seconds, when he decides what the question to be addressed is, he goes off the rails by saying "Is ending the LIFE of a human fetus moral?". This is a flawed premise right from the start. A fetus is not "a baby", "a child" or anything other than a fetus until it is presented to the world as a separate entity from its mother, able to survive apart from the factory it had inside the mother. It does not yet have a life to end. It has scientific life, but not HUMAN life. The only true answer lies in Exodus 21:22-25. Anything else is just garbage.

Hmm... How do you prove that a foetus has no life? And what is ‘scientific life’? Why do you say that a foetus has ‘scientific life’, yet say that claiming that a foetus has life is a flawed premise? Also, how do you use Exodus 21:22-25 to make your point? Have you forgotten that we no longer live under the Old Testament law?

 

[AnonymousRain]

I'll say this from a male personal perspective. If I had a womb I'd have a choice. If not I have an opinion.

I don't think forcing women to remain pregnant against their will shows respect for the life of that woman. Especially when in certain countries that made news not that many years ago, when the pregnancy carried to term can take that first life that arrived on earth.

Babies per the religious go to be with god when they pass.How is it evil to send them to paradise when this world for so many of them can be a living hell?

 

[redleghunter]

TPB, from the first few seconds, when he decides what the question to be addressed is, he goes off the rails by saying "Is ending the LIFE of a human fetus moral?". This is a flawed premise right from the start. A fetus is not "a baby", "a child" or anything other than a fetus until it is presented to the world as a separate entity from its mother, able to survive apart from the factory it had inside the mother. It does not yet have a life to end. It has scientific life, but not HUMAN life. The only true answer lies in Exodus 21:22-25. Anything else is just garbage.

What is your understanding and exegesis of Exodus 21:22-25?

 

[SteveB28]

Hah. Hardly. It's ok to kill sperm cells and ova because no harm can possibly be assigned. None of these things has a human future. In the case of a fertilized egg, however, great harm can be assigned to the zygote.

No harm? The possibility of an egg and sperm combining is 'harmed' irretrievably. Now, the fool Marquis upon whom you base your weak argument, offers that this is not immoral, since we cannot know beforehand which sperm and egg will combine and therefore we cannot assign the harm specifically.

And this is exactly the same principle at work in the scenario I provided you! When a woman uses a combination of birth control measures such as the IUD and spermicide, she cannot know beforehand which foetus was destroyed. In fact, she cannot know IF a foetus was destroyed. Yet, in examining these two identical cases, you decide that one cannot be immoral, while the other must be.

You have been defeated by your own double standard.

You see, these are the problems you strike when you choose arbitrarily a marker in the cycle of human reproduction and call it a gateway for morality. That arbitrary choice invariably comes back to bite you.

 

[redleghunter]

TPB, from the first few seconds, when he decides what the question to be addressed is, he goes off the rails by saying "Is ending the LIFE of a human fetus moral?". This is a flawed premise right from the start. A fetus is not "a baby", "a child" or anything other than a fetus until it is presented to the world as a separate entity from its mother, able to survive apart from the factory it had inside the mother. It does not yet have a life to end. It has scientific life, but not HUMAN life. The only true answer lies in Exodus 21:22-25. Anything else is just garbage.

Biologically, at conception the embryo has distinct human DNA. So by definition what is there is alive and human.

 

[SteveB28]

Biologically, at conception the embryo has distinct human DNA. So by definition what is there is alive and human.

And, biologically, so are ova and sperm cells. So what?

 

[Beechwell]

Biologically, at conception the embryo has distinct human DNA. So by definition what is there is alive and human.

Human DNA is not the same as a human being. At most you can see it as a recipe to create a human. It doesn't even contain all information required to create a human, a lot of that comes from the environment in the womb.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

I'll say this from a male personal perspective. If I had a womb I'd have a choice. If not I have an opinion.

I don't think forcing women to remain pregnant against their will shows respect for the life of that woman. Especially when in certain countries that made news not that many years ago, when the pregnancy carried to term can take that first life that arrived on earth.

That's your opinion.

Babies per the religious go to be with god when they pass.How is it evil to send them to paradise when this world for so many of them can be a living hell?

The Bible never encourages such thinking. We can't kill babies in order to spare them from suffering in this world and, probably, in Hell. By that mindset, we would kill everyone, and Mankind would cease to exist.

 

[Tree of Life]

No harm? The possibility of an egg and sperm combining is 'harmed' irretrievably. Now, the fool Marquis upon whom you base your weak argument, offers that this is not immoral, since we cannot know beforehand which sperm and egg will combine and therefore we cannot assign the harm specifically.

I think you misunderstand him. And why call him a fool? Show a little humility. He's a recognized, world class philosopher with a PhD. His point is that harming a possibility is not really harming anything at all. In cases of abortion, however, an actual fertilized egg is harmed.

And this is exactly the same principle at work in the scenario I provided you! When a woman uses a combination of birth control measures such as the IUD and spermicide, she cannot know beforehand which foetus was destroyed. In fact, she cannot know IF a foetus was destroyed. Yet, in examining these two identical cases, you decide that one cannot be immoral, while the other must be.

You have been defeated by your own double standard.

You see, these are the problems you strike when you choose arbitrarily a marker in the cycle of human reproduction and call it a gateway for morality. That arbitrary choice invariably comes back to bite you.

/sigh

 

[Belk]

I think you misunderstand him. And why call him a fool? Show a little humility. He's a recognized, world class philosopher with a PhD. His point is that harming a possibility is not really harming anything at all. In cases of abortion, however, an actual fertilized egg is harmed.



/sigh

He is recognized as a "world class" philosopher by whom?

 

[redleghunter]

And, biologically, so are ova and sperm cells. So what?

Ova and sperm are not a distinct life in itself. They are the precursors.

 

[redleghunter]

Human DNA is not the same as a human being.

Human DNA is a characteristic of a human being. Can't separate the two.

 

[AnonymousRain]

That's your opinion.

Yes, it is. As is that of everyone here and especially the men who opine as to what they believe a woman is entitled to do with her body and/or carry in her womb.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The unborn child is a third party-harmed by the actions of other parties in the case of abortion.
. . . . .

But that's the point. A fetus so young as to not even have a brain yet . . . is NOT a person.

And a very small brain, to small to sustain personhood, is still not a person, yet.

In order to say abortion is the killing of a person, you have to establish the presence of a person, and that is not possible in the case of a fetus. It can only be arbitrarily assumed.

 

[Tree of Life]

He is recognized as a "world class" philosopher by whom?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Marquis_(philosopher)