Why Abortion is Immoral

[redleghunter]

Well then maybe the word "killed" wasn't being use correctly. And the word I used was viable, which does not mean becoming human. Finally, if the life is not one you are carrying in your womb, then no, you don't need to know exactly when that occurs.

The above would be consistent subjective morality for an atheist. It seems some professing Christians here agree with you.

I do not for obvious objective reasons.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

According to what is revealed of the Mind of God, no. There was always restitution for sin that was unintentional. The exceptions always included some harm from a violent act. That then became eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life.

Applying the matter to your chemical factory...If you continued on in producing the chemicals knowing you were causing harm, you would be liable for taking another life both before the civil court and the Throne of God.

I may have missed the root of your vignette of the chemical factory. So hope we are not talking past each other.

Ah. That can happen.

Well, this chemical factory of mine has all my money invested in it. . . and I employ hundreds of people . . . if i have to stop production, I lose my shirt . . . . people are out of work . . . are you so sure that a few dozen extra miscarriages a year matters all that much? After all, one can never pinpoint any single miscarriage and say my factory caused it, its only that miscarriages are more frequent around the factory . . . and I did pass all the inspections (although one inspector is notorious for never letting anybody pass unless he gets a thousand dollar bill passed under the table) . .

So surely that shouldn't matter. And nobody ever suspected my factory would do that until we found out after being in operation for ten years. . . . .

Maybe I should just move the operation over to China, after all, Chinese women who have increased miscarriages don't matter in the eyes of God like good old Americans, right? Aren't they all atheists over there anyway?

Note: The above is intended to promote thinking on the issue and is all fictional.

 

[fhansen]

Well then maybe the word "killed" wasn't being use correctly. And the word I used was viable, which does not mean becoming human. Finally, if the life is not one you are carrying in your womb, then no, you don't need to know exactly when that occurs.

So you'd maintain that at viability the child should be rewarded legal protection even though its not human? Or are you saying that, as long as the child is in the womb it should be a candidate for, er, termination?

 

[ranunculus]

What's the intent?

So my answer is no, abortion and miscarriages are not the same category. Intent or premeditated purpose is to be considered.

How will you find out the intent without a criminal investigation into every failed pregnancy?

 

[AirPo]

So you'd maintain that at viability the child should be rewarded legal protection even though its not human? Or are you saying that, as long as the child is in the womb it should be a candidate for, er, termination?

So's law. I said nothing about "being human." I said nothing about being a candidate for anything. I answered a question about when. Perhaps going back and reading the question and answer again will make thing clear.

 

[AirPo]

The above would be consistent subjective morality for an atheist. It seems some professing Christians here agree with you.

I do not for obvious objective reasons.

The about is obviously completely backwards.

 

[fhansen]

So if I run this chemical factory and miscarriages increase by a factor of 10 per cent all around that factory and that was never my intention then I can happily continue running my factory, and build another one to make even more money.

In moral teaching that I'm familiar with certain universal truths apply regarding the elements of any act 1) The moral object, the act, itself, that one plans to do. Is the act, by it's nature, morally right or wrong from the outset? In this case the question is, does abortion constitute the taking of innocent human life? 2) Intent or the end in view. What does the person intend to accomplish by the act? 3) Circumstances, which can change/mitigate the goodness or evil of, and therefore the culpability for, an act. Is the person under duress? Are others involved? What other considerations may exist? etc

Doing anything that causes harm to ourselves or others is morally wrong, whether we know about the harmful consequences or not. If we do know about them, and our intent is to continue anyway without regard to the results, then we become participants, we're culpable for the act.

Some cases of homicide are considered to be justifiable, some cases less so, some not at all depending on intent and circumstances. And the case of an induced "miscarriage", whether faked or not, would not change the moral goodness or evil of the act; it's either right or wrong to begin with. We don't do away with laws against murder simply because some murders are staged, to appear to be accidents.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In moral teaching that I'm familiar with certain universal truths apply regarding the elements of any act 1) The moral object, the act, itself, that one plans to do. Is the act, by it's nature, morally right or wrong from the outset? In this case the question is, does abortion constitute the taking of innocent human life? 2) Intent or the end in view. What does the person intend to accomplish by the act? 3) Circumstances, which can change/mitigate the goodness or evil of, and therefore the culpability for, an act. Is the person under duress? Are others involved? What other considerations may exist? etc

Doing anything that causes harm to ourselves or others is morally wrong, whether we know about the harmful consequences or not. If we do know about them, and our intent is to continue anyway without regard to the results, then we become participants, we're culpable for the act.

Some cases of homicide are considered to be justifiable, some cases less so, some not at all depending on intent and circumstances. And the case of an induced "miscarriage", whether faked or not, would not change the moral goodness or evil of the act; it's either right or wrong to begin with. We don't do away with laws against murder simply because some murders are staged, to appear to be accidents.

All right, lets look into this "circumstances" thing a little bit more. Suppose the local doctors suspect that the spontaneous abortion rate is going up, possibly due to my chemical factory, and they ask the local university to conduct a study. However, when they apply to the national science foundation for a grant to study this, I learn about it and petition my congressman to deny funding for further scientific research on such esoteric, unimportant studies, which the congressman, in an era of conservative funding cutbacks, is only too happy to oblige. Hence, the evidence for the increased miscarriage rate fails to come to light.

Am I still guilty? Is the congressman a participant in my guilt? What about the voters, who voted for him partly because of his bragging about cutting back on science funding?

 

[fhansen]

All right, lets look into this "circumstances" thing a little bit more. Suppose the local doctors suspect that the spontaneous abortion rate is going up, possibly due to my chemical factory, and they ask the local university to conduct a study. However, when they apply to the national science foundation for a grant to study this, I learn about it and petition my congressman to deny funding for further scientific research on such esoteric, unimportant studies, which the congressman, in an era of conservative funding cutbacks, is only too happy to oblige. Hence, the evidence for the increased miscarriage rate fails to come to light.

Am I still guilty? Is the congressman a participant in my guilt? What about the voters, who voted for him partly because of his bragging about cutting back on science funding?

You could ask the same thing about your chemical company poisoning the environment and causing higher cancer/death rate in children and adults. The same moral analysis would be called for. If we decide that inducing abortion/miscarriage is immoral, then we're responsible for doing whatever is in our own power to halt the immoral act. For your congressman to ignore to do his part for money or prestige or power or fear of losing his position would be just plain wrong, even if he struggles with his choices, and even if we can all relate to his struggle. But it happens-compromising our consciences- everyday in human affairs, in small ways and large. It can be very hard to do the right thing.

 

[redleghunter]

The about is obviously completely backwards.

What exactly is backwards?

Going from an absolute and discussing the particulars; or proclaiming the particulars are subjectively valid?

 

[jenny1972]

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.

A fetus absolutely is alive if it were not alive then the womans body would naturally expel it . A fetus is a fetus , just like a toddler is a toddler and a teenager is a teenager . All 3 are human beings but at different stages of human development . It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive and is a human being not something that those who are pro-abortion want to admit for obvious reasons .

 

[jenny1972]

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?

There are 2 human lives to be considerate of not just 1 . If 2 lives are the issue both people should be treated with respect and fairness , and for those who cannot speak for themselves we need to advocate for them as human beings .

 

[redleghunter]

A fetus absolutely is alive if it were not alive then the womans body would naturally expel it . A fetus is a fetus , just like a toddler is a toddler and a teenager is a teenager . All 3 are human beings but at different stages of human development . It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive and is a human being not something that those who are pro-abortion want to admit for obvious reasons .

Indeed.

And I have yet to hear the reasoning of Exodus 21 from the pro-choice Christians.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Are you speaking from a sterile secular subjective point of view or a Christian point of view?

 

[jenny1972]

Sure. There is nothing immoral with depriving a non person object of its possible future as a person though. That's one of the main reasons I consider it a catagory mistake. Not all things are equal.

What might be wrong when done to an actual person (terminating them) isn't necessarily wrong when performed on a lump of fetal tissue that isn't a person. It's possible future state as a person doesn't change the fact that it isn't one and thus has no claim on a future.

non-person , object , not all things are equal , lump of fetal tissue that isnt a person , has no claim on a human future all descriptions meant to dehumanize this group of people . That after all is what your entire belief system depends on after all keeping them dehumanized . I wonder though who you are trying to convince us or yourself ? By claiming they are non human things and nothing more than lumps of fetal tissue is turning your back on science and reason and reality but whatever mental hoops you have to jump through to justify your discrimination and killing of young people is something you have to do or admit to yourself you have supported crimes against humanity and noone wants to admit that . Remember no lie can last forever.

 

[jenny1972]

Now, as communities, we have determined that the space between "baby" and "sexually mature adult" is a 'human being'. This entity is endowed with certain rights, largely centring around the right to exist. People like you, however, seek to place another arbitrary marker at "embryo" and to endow it with similar rights. And this is fine, in respecting your own point of view. But the arbitrary nature of the placement of your marker carries no particular compulsion for others to agree with your view. As I have said repeatedly, if you view this whole thing as a cyclical process, there is no place in that cycle whereby the destruction of any element will not halt the cycle! 'Killing' sperm cells and ova breaks the cycle. Sterilising a sexually mature adult breaks the cycle. And yes, destroying an embryo breaks the cycle.

But, if you are going to argue from a secular viewpoint, as the initiator of this discussion attempts to do, there is no difference between any of those 'cycle breakers' mentioned above.

The only community that thinks that the time between "baby" and "sexually mature adult" one becomes a 'human being' is the so called pro-choice community all those outside the delusional pro-choice community disagree with that.

 

[AirPo]

What exactly is backwards?

Going from an absolute and discussing the particulars; or proclaiming the particulars are subjectively valid?

The completely backward use of the words subjective and objective.

 

[AirPo]

A fetus absolutely is alive if it were not alive then the womans body would naturally expel it . A fetus is a fetus , just like a toddler is a toddler and a teenager is a teenager . All 3 are human beings but at different stages of human development . It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive and is a human being not something that those who are pro-abortion want to admit for obvious reasons .

I guess that makes sense since "those who are pro-abortion" is a fantasy, which is something that those who are anti-abortion don't want to admit for obvious reasons

 

[redleghunter]

The completely backward use of the words subjective and objective.

I was pointing out your arguments deal with subjective presuppositions.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

A fetus absolutely is alive if it were not alive then the womans body would naturally expel it . A fetus is a fetus , just like a toddler is a toddler and a teenager is a teenager . All 3 are human beings but at different stages of human development . It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive and is a human being not something that those who are pro-abortion want to admit for obvious reasons .

Presence of life is not proof of presence of personhood.