Why Abortion is Immoral

[redleghunter]

Well, being it arrives due to a human sex act, it certainly isn't a platypus.

I will take that as a yes that at conception we have a human being. I am glad you do not ignore scientific fact.

 

[redleghunter]

Oh, I got that point. You failed to realize that there are those who hope to criminalize spontaneous abortion in the name of being anti-abortion.
And if there was respect for life you'd realize my womb is none of your business.

You have rights. Your organs do not in themselves. The purpose of the uterus is to propagate life not dispose of it.

You should at least see the ending of a human being in the womb is not the intended purpose.

 

[SteveB28]

She gave scientific fact. Try addressing the scientific facts.

Her FACTS are not in dispute, as I stated, by anyone in this discussion. But her statements about human BEINGS are an OPINION. One at which she arrives by begging the question. It is obvious that this woman has already decided what SHE considers to be a human being and then she arranges a host of scientific facts about fertilisation, implantation, etc as an attempt to lend weight to that OPINION.

Would it shock you greatly to know that there are other biological researchers who, in possession of the same facts as this woman, have an alternative view as to what constitutes a 'human being'?

 

[Blondepudding]

You have rights. Your organs do not in themselves. The purpose of the uterus is to propagate life not dispose of it.

My organs are in this body and I control how they're treated.
If I drink I put my liver at risk. If I smoke I put my lungs, trachea, mouth, and body overall at risk. If I have unprotected sex I put my entire self at risk. My organs only have the right to function at a state of health that is my responsibility in large part.
The last part of your observation about the uterus purpose is in error. The uterus expels life as we discussed.

You should at least see the ending of a human being in the womb is not the intended purpose.

It is a matter of responsibility. The womb is indifferent to its purpose. The health of the woman is relational to the function of the uterus.
Further, your observation fails to consider infertility.

 

[Blondepudding]

I will take that as a yes that at conception we have a human being. I am glad you do not ignore scientific fact.

If human beingness were the qualifier for life we'd have a very different world. Because life wouldn't be taken or suffer due to the respect in the utmost that would be accorded the living.
That isn't reality. It isn't even reality in your scriptures.

 

[SteveB28]

Of course not. A miscarriage is involuntary and unintended. Abortion is a premeditated action. There is intent.


Why do people continue this fallacious line of rationalizing?

Oh yes, let's gloss over this one as quickly as we can!

The moronic clowns who suggest that women who opt to terminate a pregnancy should be brought up on murder charges, overlook quite a few significant problems in their bigoted zeal.

How would such a cruel law be enforced, for one!?

The 'good Christian' neighbour of a pregnant woman hears that the woman is no longer pregnant. She reports this to the authorities. The woman states that she has miscarried.

Where do we go from here? Is the woman to be forcibly examined to determine her actions? If the remains of her miscarriage have been disposed of, will she be charged with destroying evidence? If the woman has performed the abortion herself ( which will once again become very common if it is made illegal) what mechanisms will the authorities put in place to 'weed out' the guilty from the innocent? Perhaps we return to a time centuries ago, when old crones kept a watchful eye on the young women in their village?

 

[patricius79]

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. It goes like this:

First premises:

1. One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
2. Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
3. Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).

This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:

1. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
2. Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
3. Therefore abortion is immoral.

It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments). Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:

"According to Marquis' principle birth control, masturbation, and menstruation would also be immoral because human sperm and eggs have a VHF just like a fetus does."

This objection fails for scientific reasons. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, genetically speaking the sperm and egg cease to exist and a brand new human zygote is formed. The zygote is genetically unique from both the sperm and the egg. There is great reason to consider a zygote a potential human being whereas there is very little reason to consider an independent sperm or egg a potential human being. Therefore, the zygote has a VHF in a way that a sperm or egg alone does not.

Furthermore it is possible to assign harm in cases of abortion whereas it is not possible to assign harm in cases of contraception. In cases of abortion a fetus or zygote is harmed because it is deprived of future, human experiences. But what is harmed in cases of contraception? It cannot be a singular sperm because there's no reason to assign harm to a sperm and not an ovum. It cannot be assigned to a singular ovum because there is no reason to assign harm to an ovum and not a sperm. It cannot be assigned to a sperm and ovum together because the possibilities during conception are so large that we can never know which sperm will fertilize which ovum. There is no actual agent to assign harm to that is not arbitrary in cases of contraception.

"According to this argument God would be the greatest mass murdered of all time. A good amount of fertilized eggs don't make it to full gestation. Many are naturally aborted by the body even before the woman knows she is pregnant."

This objection is something of a red herring. Whether or not God chooses to end a human life is not relevant to the discussion. It may be that God has rights over life that human beings do not. The question at hand is whether or not human beings have the right to abort a fetus. This objection is a smoke screen that fails to really deal with the argument.

"Marquis' argument doesn't explain why it's wrong to kill old people. Killing an old man deprives him of relatively little VHF. Yet we still feel that it is very wrong to kill him."

Killing a NAHB may be wrong for multiple reasons. It may be wrong to kill an old man for other reasons than depriving him of a VHF. This does no damage to the original principle. Taking away a VHF is still a great harm and great wrong whether it's suffered by a NAHB or by a fetus. The harm is the same.

Those are the best objections I'm aware of. Perhaps you can find others. Anyway... did Marquis have the last word?

I agree with the argument. Also, some say "well we don't know when human life begins". But if we don't know, then we definitely shouldn't do any killing.

Abortion is always wrong, even in the case of rape and incest, for the reasons you gave.

Every human life is unique and irreplaceable and extremely valuable.

Also, contraception and masturbation are immoral, since they intentionally separate sex or sexual pleasure from its specific purpose (not its only purpose, but its specific one), which is conception of human beings, thus making it an act of impurity and selfishness.

I see that you are Presbyterian. Calvin and Luther both condemned contraception, as has always the Catholic Church.

But this is not in the least a condemnation of any human beings.

 

[jenny1972]

In fact living in a society where it is ok to be killed in a temporary coma would be a terribly frightening concept to anyone.

I agree it would be scary to enter into a state where you are no longer considered a person with a right to live and could legally be killed if someone wanted to kill you for any reason . I would be very much against that concept and i think so would the vast majority of people .

 

[jenny1972]

That's the meaning of freedom and Constitutional protection of the viable citizen adult. The 1st amendment, the 3rd, the 4th,the 9th amendment and the 14th amendment.

I believe the US Constitution says something about all humans having the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

 

[Blondepudding]

I believe the US Constitution says something about all humans having the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Indeed it does. And the right of liberty applies to women and their choice regarding reproduction.
The due process clause also protects women. This was decided in Roe V. Wade.

 

[Blondepudding]

I agree it would be scary to enter into a state where you are no longer considered a person with a right to live and could legally be killed if someone wanted to kill you for any reason . I would be very much against that concept and i think so would the vast majority of people .

What's your opinion of the death penalty?

 

[jenny1972]

What's your opinion of the death penalty?

I am against the death penalty .

 

[jenny1972]

Indeed it does. And the right of liberty applies to women and their choice regarding reproduction.

are you one of those people who use the term " reproductive right and justice " when referring to abortion . Is that a popular thing for people who are pro-choice to do portray themselves as struggling for 'reproductive rights' ? Do you use this terminology and its it common ?

 

[redleghunter]

Oh yes, let's gloss over this one as quickly as we can!

The moronic clowns who suggest that women who opt to terminate a pregnancy should be brought up on murder charges, overlook quite a few significant problems in their bigoted zeal.

How would such a cruel law be enforced, for one!?

The 'good Christian' neighbour of a pregnant woman hears that the woman is no longer pregnant. She reports this to the authorities. The woman states that she has miscarried.

Where do we go from here? Is the woman to be forcibly examined to determine her actions? If the remains of her miscarriage have been disposed of, will she be charged with destroying evidence? If the woman has performed the abortion herself ( which will once again become very common if it is made illegal) what mechanisms will the authorities put in place to 'weed out' the guilty from the innocent? Perhaps we return to a time centuries ago, when old crones kept a watchful eye on the young women in their village?

Paranoia will destroy ya.

 

[redleghunter]

Her FACTS are not in dispute, as I stated, by anyone in this discussion. But her statements about human BEINGS are an OPINION. One at which she arrives by begging the question. It is obvious that this woman has already decided what SHE considers to be a human being and then she arranges a host of scientific facts about fertilisation, implantation, etc as an attempt to lend weight to that OPINION.

Would it shock you greatly to know that there are other biological researchers who, in possession of the same facts as this woman, have an alternative view as to what constitutes a 'human being'?

Post up the positions of opposing embryologists who define a human at a later stage.

Not philosophers, geneticists or bioethicists. But scientists.

Put up the opposing views.

This has nothing to do with the arbitrary use of "person" as posters here are throwing around different terms as if they all mean the same thing.

 

[redleghunter]

My organs are in this body and I control how they're treated.
If I drink I put my liver at risk. If I smoke I put my lungs, trachea, mouth, and body overall at risk. If I have unprotected sex I put my entire self at risk. My organs only have the right to function at a state of health that is my responsibility in large part.
The last part of your observation about the uterus purpose is in error. The uterus expels life as we discussed.

It is a matter of responsibility. The womb is indifferent to its purpose. The health of the woman is relational to the function of the uterus.
Further, your observation fails to consider infertility.

Noted your opinion is you do not regard preborn life as human. Or worse you do but see it as subhuman to you. That is your subjective opinion based on convenience. Noted.

Please explain what this has to do with infertility?

 

[redleghunter]

If human beingness were the qualifier for life we'd have a very different world. Because life wouldn't be taken or suffer due to the respect in the utmost that would be accorded the living.
That isn't reality. It isn't even reality in your scriptures.

That did not make sense.

 

[Blondepudding]

Noted your opinion is you do not regard preborn life as human.

Note anything you like just don't attribute your misunderstanding to me. I never said that.

Or worse you do but see it as subhuman to you. That is your subjective opinion based on convenience. Noted.

No, never said that either.

Please explain what this has to do with infertility?

Would you understand that when you haven't understood what else I've said?

That did not make sense.

OK.

 

[Blondepudding]

are you one of those people who use the term " reproductive right and justice " when referring to abortion . Is that a popular thing for people who are pro-choice to do portray themselves as struggling for 'reproductive rights' ? Do you use this terminology and its it common ?

I'm one of those people who believe my womb is not your business and vice versa. I believe that it is a personal right to decide what one carries inside themselves and what they do not. And I believe when people argue women have no right to decide their reproductive rights for themselves while those same people argue they are pro-life, just not pro-quality of life that respects personal sovereignty of other people, that they've lost the argument entirely.

 

[Blondepudding]

I am against the death penalty .

As am I.
I wonder how many pro-life people are for the death penalty?
Or believe there are certain conditions wherein a woman can be permitted to abort?

When people argue adult women aren't entitled to choose for themselves and their reproductive future, insisting that all fetus' should be brought to term regardless of the woman's choice to otherwise opt not to allow that, they're arguing for the rights of the fetus only. And at the same time forewarning the female fetus that once they're born their choices will be subject to other peoples politics just like their mama's was.

That's an odd bit of life choice. We'll fight for you to be born against a woman's will but when you're a full grown woman we'll argue you have no right to exercise your free will because the fetus is more important than you are.

Fascism and sexism are immoral.