Why Abortion is Immoral

[jenny1972]

What I believe is immoral is the trespass of individuals opinion on the issue as pertains to other than themselves. And in their hoping to breach the laws that state as a woman I own my body and can make my own choices about it.
Those individuals that believe my life is subject to their preference are deluded and not uncommonly also hypocritical and inconsistent in giving a life to the homeless and abandoned one's that are born already.
The argument that we must have more people born regardless of the will or desire of those in charge of the avenue by which more are born is selfish and indifferent to quality of the living.

Likewise a womans opinion should not determine the life of anyone else . A fetus has his or her own body that person is related to her but is not apart of her body . A persons choice should be respected unless that choice hurts or kills someone else.

 

[katerinah1947]

Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus.

Hi,

Think a little deeper please. I do not, nor does anyone else believe it is wrong to kill a human being in all circumstances, and neither does God.

Calling this normal, is wrong as,

Killing a human and a

Normal Adult Human being are not the same thing.

Nor is an itty bitty human, normally referred to as a human, who Biblically was a person even before being placed in a womb habitating now a few cells, is that human in a normal situation, when abortion is being contemplated.

Don Marquis stated a circular reasoning talk, as some of what he stated is false to begin with.

That is how books are made sometimes, what is false and unproven, is stated as true and proven, then discussed in great length, as though it is true.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

If an abortion by artificial means is immoral and God, aborts tons of babies naturally, who here is willing to say that God is wrong in allowing miscarriages, known by the parents or not?

Even as humans only, can we prove to ourselves that an abortion is always,,,,,,,immoral?

Yes, normally every woman knows later she has been hurt, in losing that child. It hurts. But, is it always immoral as stated above?

LOVE,

 

[Blondepudding]

Likewise a womans opinion should not determine the life of anyone else .

Interesting that you believe your opinion should determine the life of other women.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

This is the beginning of the post.

Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus.

We are asked her to take every position as though it were proven, even that this is the best, the best reason, let alone that Don Marquis is somehow the best and proven resource for this topic.

LOVE,

 

[Blondepudding]

Rationalizing is not a moral or ethical stance.

Are we not constantly demanded to show the science involved in every discussion. Why is it when science clearly defines human life beginning at conception, the usual science only advocates run for the philosophical security blanket of subjective ethics?

Imagine the repercussions if the laws prosecuted because life begins at conception. The woman who miscarries would be subject to investigation to see if she had self-terminated.
And then the movement could go further and reach to the aspect of potential life. Wherein we would regress back to the day when birth control was illegal because it precluded potential life.

And from a Christian biblical stance, the Adam did not become a living soul until its father breathed the breath of life into his nostrils.
This doesn't occur for the fetus, taking a breath, until they are born. Therefore if the argument is to be one of biblical proportions life doesn't begin until the child is born and takes that breath.

And of course there are no scriptures that forbid abortion that would be argued as a consistent with the first argument that god forbids it.

 

[fhansen]

Are you advocating human life does not begin at conception?

What do you take exception with in what I posted from a scientist?

Sorry, I quoted the wrong post. Oops!

 

[jenny1972]

Interesting that you believe your opinion should determine the life of other women.

I also do not believe it is right for a woman to choose to go to a shopping mall and massacre others . As long as her choice doesnt hurt others thats fine and trying to prevent a woman or man from hurting others isnt unfairly dictating her or his life .

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Likewise a womans opinion should not determine the life of anyone else . A fetus has his or her own body that person is related to her but is not apart of her body . A persons choice should be respected unless that choice hurts or kills someone else.

But, you see, it is merely your arbitrary assumption . . you might call it your faith . . that the fetus is such a person. From that assumption all your arguments against abortion flow.

People who don't make that assumption can also be consistent in their morality. You might not like their morality, you cannot call them inconsistent.

 

[jenny1972]

Interesting that you believe your opinion should determine the life of other women.

do you believe that child abuse should be prevented even though a woman might choose to abuse her child and that child is younger than her and related to her . Should we respect her choice to do that ?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Rationalizing is not a moral or ethical stance.

Are we not constantly demanded to show the science involved in every discussion. Why is it when science clearly defines human life beginning at conception, the usual science only advocates run for the philosophical security blanket of subjective ethics?

Science does not clearly define personhood as starting from conception.

Take a twin. When an indentical twin begins, it begins after the sperm has joined the egg. This is not when the second fetus - the twin - begins. It begins later, some time after the first division of the fertile egg. Therefore, it is not always true that life begins at conception. A life can begin AFTER conception.

And we remember that "life" is not equal to "person".

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

do you believe that child abuse should be prevented even though a woman might choose to abuse her child and that child is younger than her and related to her . Should we respect her choice to do that ?

The child is a person. And we do not even allow abuse of animals that are not fully persons.

 

[Blondepudding]

do you believe that child abuse should be prevented even though a woman might choose to abuse her child and that child is younger than her and related to her . Should we respect her choice to do that ?

The topic is abortion.

 

[jenny1972]

But, you see, it is merely your arbitrary assumption . . you might call it your faith . . that the fetus is such a person. From that assumption all your arguments against abortion flow.

People who don't make that assumption can also be consistent in their morality. You might not like their morality, you cannot call them inconsistent.

Yes i recognize that those who do not respect human life are consistent in their opinion as are those who do respect human life . I cannot force anyone to have a conscience that is established long before one is able to communicate with others online .

 

[jenny1972]

The topic is abortion.

ok sorry if a woman chooses to KILL her offspring should her choice be respected or should others try to prevent her choice from harming another person ?

 

[Blondepudding]

I also do not believe it is right for a woman to choose to go to a shopping mall and massacre others . As long as her choice doesnt hurt others thats fine and trying to prevent a woman or man from hurting others isnt unfairly dictating her or his life .

Her choice pertains to her personal uterus. Being pro-choice isn't proactively promoting mandatory abortion. Rather, it is advocating that a woman has a right to choose her reproductive future.
An important distinction I think in that at one time birth control was illegal. And of course so too was abortion. Women were seen as no more than incubators without a choice but to procreate when impregnated.
The woman's life conceded to the right to prioritize a man's sperm over her choice to refuse to give birth to that which made contact with her egg in the month. She was property of her father as a dependent minor child. And she was property per the marriage license when she wed her spouse.
At one time in this country women couldn't even garner an inheritance that would allow her to be independent of a male in her life.

A woman does not lose her rights to her womb because others opinions believe they have a right to dictate its future by their standards.

Think of something you hold as your right. Let's say, giving birth. Let's say there's this opinion that the earth is overpopulated and as a solution and much like China at one time, a law was passed permitting one child only.

Let's say I believe in that. This is purely hypothetical. And I tell you that I am pro-life. That the lives that are now here are threatened by over population. And as a consequence pregnancy must be limited to one birth only.

Would you concede to that? For the sake of the many would you agree to have but one child?

 

[Blondepudding]

ok sorry if a woman chooses to KILL her offspring should her choice be respected or should others try to prevent her choice from harming another person ?

If you respect life how do you propose to rule over a woman's life and her personal uterus?

 

[Blondepudding]

The child is a person. And we do not even allow abuse of animals that are not fully persons.

Should a woman that miscarries, which is a spontaneous abortion, be tried for neglect and possible manslaughter?

 

[jenny1972]

Her choice pertains to her personal uterus. Being pro-choice isn't proactively promoting mandatory abortion. Rather, it is advocating that a woman has a right to choose her reproductive future.
An important distinction I think in that at one time birth control was illegal. And of course so too was abortion. Women were seen as no more than incubators without a choice but to procreate when impregnated.
The woman's life conceded to the right to prioritize a man's sperm over her choice to refuse to give birth to that which made contact with her egg in the month. She was property of her father as a dependent minor child. And she was property per the marriage license when she wed her spouse.
At one time in this country women couldn't even garner an inheritance that would allow her to be independent of a male in her life.

A woman does not lose her rights to her womb because others opinions believe they have a right to dictate its future by their standards.

Think of something you hold as your right. Let's say, giving birth. Let's say there's this opinion that the earth is overpopulated and as a solution and much like China at one time, a law was passed permitting one child only.

Let's say I believe in that. This is purely hypothetical. And I tell you that I am pro-life. That the lives that are now here are threatened by over population. And as a consequence pregnancy must be limited to one birth only.

Would you concede to that? For the sake of the many would you agree to have but one child?

A womans choice to determine her reproductive future involves her choosing which contraception to use or changing her sexual habits . A fetus also has a reproductive future a female fetus has her own uterus and own choices that she has a right to make regarding her reproductive future and noone has a right to take that away from her .

 

[jenny1972]

If you respect life how do you propose to rule over a woman's life and her personal uterus?

Preventing someone from killing others is not ruling over their lives is a police officer who stops someone from killing others unfairly ruling over the criminals life ?