Abortion

[NxNW]

God by nature is good and cannot be immoral. I don't think it is a case that he made morals but that he is morally good by nature.

So God chooses to obey the morals that exist separately from him?

God acts outside our reality of time and space

This implies that he's unable to exist or act within our reality.

 

[SPF]

So God chooses to obey the morals that exist separately from him?

No, God, by definition is a Maximally Great Being. As an MGB, He acts at all times according to His own nature. The very reason we are able to claim that morality is objective is because it stems from the perfect, immutable character of God.

This implies that he's unable to exist or act within our reality.

I agree that the claim Christians often make about God's relationship to time is rather non-sensical.

If we understand time as simply a measurement of change and/or duration, and not a thing in itself, then the notion of God somehow existing "outside" can be discarded.

But this topic is supposed to be about abortion. And whether or not you agree with our view of the morality of abortion, the reason we hold to abortion being immoral isn't difficult to understand.

1. God created all human beings with inherent moral worth and value.

2. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

3. Killing an innocent human being for convenience sake is immoral and wrong.

4. Unborn human children are innocent.

5. 98.5% of abortions are committed for non-medical emergencies. Or put another way, 98.5% of abortions are committed for convenience sake.

6. Therefore, at the very least 98.5% of abortions are immoral and wrong.

Now, whether or not you disagree with all the premises, the view that Christians hold with regard to the morality of abortion is consistent and understandable.

 

[JackRT]

I think it somewhat futile for mankind to even attempt to define the attributes of our completely transcendent God. What results are guesses heaped on speculations.

 

[Skreeper]

But this topic is supposed to be about abortion. And whether or not you agree with our view of the morality of abortion, the reason we hold to abortion being immoral isn't difficult to understand.

1. God created all human beings with inherent moral worth and value.

2. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

3. Killing an innocent human being for convenience sake is immoral and wrong.

4. Unborn human children are innocent.

5. 98.5% of abortions are committed for non-medical emergencies. Or put another way, 98.5% of abortions are committed for convenience sake.

6. Therefore, at the very least 98.5% of abortions are immoral and wrong.

Now, whether or not you disagree with all the premises, the view that Christians hold with regard to the morality of abortion is consistent and understandable.

Can I offer a slight change of these premises to show that this line of reasoning can be used to justify some bad actions?

1. God created all human beings with inherent moral worth and value.
2. Killing an innocent human (or letting a human die) for convenience sake is immoral and wrong.
3. Sick people who need organ or blood donations are innocent
4. Not donating organs or blood to these people will lead to their death
5. Therefore, I you are a compatible donor it is immoral and wrong not to donate.
6. In addition, the state should have legal authority to force unwilling donors to donate blood or organs because the right to life trumps the inconvenience a blood or organ donation causes.

Thoughts?

 

[SPF]

I think it somewhat futile for mankind to even attempt to define the attributes of our completely transcendent God. What results are guesses heaped on speculations.

In Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology book he discusses the attributes of God and puts them into two categories - Communicable and Incommunicable. I tend to think that's the best we can do.

Meaning, God, by definition, if He exists is necessarily an eternal being. I can't comprehend that, nobody can. My experience (and everyone else's) is with finite, contingently existing objects and beings. The eternality of God is certainly to a large extent one of His incommunicable attributes.

But anyway, this is supposed to be an abortion topic~

 

[SPF]

Can I offer a slight change of these premises to show that this line of reasoning can be used to justify some bad actions?

1. God created all human beings with inherent moral worth and value.
2. Killing an innocent human (or letting a human die) for convenience sake is immoral and wrong.
3. Sick people who need organ or blood donations are innocent
4. Not donating organs or blood to these people will lead to their death
5. Therefore, I you are a compatible donor it is immoral and wrong not to donate.
6. In addition, the state should have legal authority to force unwilling donors to donate blood or organs because the right to life trumps the inconvenience a blood or organ donation causes.

Thoughts?

Sure, this is just a rewording of the violinist argument, which I think fails. Lots of apologists have addressed this line of reasoning:

Unstringing the Violinist | Stand to Reason

Sample Q&A: The Violinist Argument | Pro-Life Theory and Discussion Tactics

I think the Stanford article does a good job of noting the primary reason why your argument fails. That being that "the 'Right to Life' is a right not to be killed. It is not a right not to die."

In other words, in an abortion someone is intentionally and purposefully killing a human being. This is different than a person choosing not to donate one of their organs to save another's life.

A more apt analogy would be the "Cabin in the Blizzard" analogy:

A New Response to the Violinist Argument | Stand to Reason

 

[Skreeper]

Sure, this is just a rewording of the violinist argument, which I think fails. Lots of apologists have addressed this line of reasoning:

Unstringing the Violinist | Stand to Reason

Sample Q&A: The Violinist Argument | Pro-Life Theory and Discussion Tactics

I think the Stanford article does a good job of noting the primary reason why your argument fails. That being that "the 'Right to Life' is a right not to be killed. It is not a right not to die."

In other words, in an abortion someone is intentionally and purposefully killing a human being. This is different than a person choosing not to donate one of their organs to save another's life.

A more apt analogy would be the "Cabin in the Blizzard" analogy:

A New Response to the Violinist Argument | Stand to Reason

Well technically abortion isn't really about killing the fetus. First and foremost, abortion is about seperating the fetus from the mother. Unfortunately it usually results in the death of the fetus.

I'm all for finding new and better solutions of removing the fetus without killing it as long as it means that abortion stays legal as it should be.

 

[SPF]

Well technically abortion isn't really about killing the fetus.

You're obviously wrong, and playing the semantics game won't help. The 98.5% of abortions that are committed for non medical reasons are about the intentional and purposeful killing of the unborn child so that the mother can end her responsibility to care for the unborn child.

Given the fact that the majority of abortions involve killing the unborn child prior to even removing it from the womb make your statement that abortion isn't "really about killing the fetus" look as ridiculous as it sounds.

 

[Skreeper]

You're obviously wrong, and playing the semantics game won't help. The 98.5% of abortions that are committed for non medical reasons are about the intentional and purposeful killing of the unborn child so that the mother can end her responsibility to care for the unborn child.

Given the fact that the majority of abortions involve killing the unborn child prior to even removing it from the womb make your statement that abortion isn't "really about killing the fetus" look as ridiculous as it sounds.

I never looked at abortion that way and the couple of women I know that had an abortion didn't either.

The definition after all is: The ending of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus.

There is nothing there that the killing of the fetus is mandatory.

And I highly doubt that most women that have an abortion actually desire for the fetus to die. Most just want to terminate the pregnancy. If the fetus survives then both sides won, and it can be given up to adoption.

 

[SPF]

I never looked at abortion that way and the couple of women I know that had an abortion didn't either.

The definition after all is: The ending of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus.

There is nothing there that the killing of the fetus is mandatory.

And I highly doubt that most women that have an abortion actually desire for the fetus to die. Most just want to terminate the pregnancy. If the fetus survives then both sides won, and it can be given up to adoption.

Honestly, and I don't mean this unkindly, but you're fooling yourself.

As far as I know, 100% of women who go to an abortion clinic to end their pregnancy have their pregnancy ended by a doctor intentionally and purposefully killing the unborn child.

If there is an abortion clinic out there that performs an abortion in such a way so as to aim for the survival of the unborn child, can you let me know where this abortion clinic is?

100% of women who go in for an abortion know that the way an abortion is performed is by a doctor intentionally killing the fetus, and then removing it. Otherwise, they would wait until viability, deliver the baby, and put it up for adoption.

 

[Skreeper]

If there is an abortion clinic out there that performs an abortion in such a way so as to aim for the survival of the unborn child, can you let me know where this abortion clinic is?

Every clinic in Germany aims for the survival of the fetus if it is deemed possible.
Of course you can't save a fetus that is 3 weeks old even with the best equipment and care.

100% of women who go in for an abortion know that the way an abortion is performed is by a doctor intentionally killing the fetus, and then removing it. Otherwise, they would wait until viability, deliver the baby, and put it up for adoption.

The point of being pro-choice is that women should have the legal right to end their pregnancy at any point. Note that I said "ending the pregnancy" and not "killing the baby".

As I already stated the women I have talked to didn't want an abortion because they wanted to see the baby dead, they simply wanted to end the pregnancy early.

 

[SPF]

The point of being pro-choice is that women should have the legal right to end their pregnancy at any point. Note that I said "ending the pregnancy" and not "killing the baby".

It would be more accurate to say, "ending the pregnancy by killing the baby", because that is how it actually works.

As I already stated the women I have talked to didn't want an abortion because they wanted to see the baby dead, they simply wanted to end the pregnancy early.

And I didn't doubt you when you said that. But the point is the mother is still going to the doctor knowing that the way her pregnancy is going to end is by the intentional and purposeful killing of her innocent unborn child.

You can spin it any way you want, but the reality of what's happening won't actually change.

 

[Skreeper]

It would be more accurate to say, "ending the pregnancy by killing the baby", because that is how it actually works.

And I didn't doubt you when you said that. But the point is the mother is still going to the doctor knowing that the way her pregnancy is going to end is by the intentional and purposeful killing of her innocent unborn child.

You can spin it any way you want, but the reality of what's happening won't actually change.

I don't need to spin anything. I am very content with how abortion works.

And it's not really a huge issue for me anyway. Abortion is legal where I live and we don't have an extremist religious right wing that pushes to make it illegal.

Good luck to your endeavour for the unborn though I am afraid you are fighting a battle when your side has already lost the war.

 

[SPF]

I don't need to spin anything. I am very content with how abortion works.

And it's not really a huge issue for me anyway. Abortion is legal where I live and we don't have an extremist religious right wing that pushes to make it illegal.

Good luck to your endeavour for the unborn though I am afraid you are fighting a battle when your side has already lost the war.

Interesting final thoughts. I haven't discussed at all my position on the legality of abortion. I've only discussed the subject from a moral perspective.

Morally, abortion is tragic in that it's the intentional and purposeful killing of innocent unborn human beings.

 

[JackRT]

My experience (and everyone else's) is with finite, contingently existing objects and beings.

I do not agree that the universe is contingently existing.

 

[NxNW]

I don't think it is a case that he made morals but that he is morally good by nature.

The very reason we are able to claim that morality is objective is because it stems from the perfect, immutable character of God.

Your first statement above conflicts with the second about the origin of morality.

2. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Disagree. See my prior posts about identical twins and triplets coming into existence after fertilization, not at. Human beings are be definition distinct and quantifiable. Because you cannot quantify the number of so-called human beings at conception, the zygote cannot be a human being or beings.

4. Unborn human children are innocent.

They are? At what exact moment do they become guilty of sinning and deserving of hell?

Now, whether or not you disagree with all the premises, the view that Christians hold with regard to the morality of abortion is consistent and understandable.

It has certainly not been consistent. The view that you just explained has only been in place since the early 80s, when the Moral Majority came along and politicized the topic. Before the 80s, Christianity Today, with the blessing of Billy Graham, was publishing pro-choice articles. See this reference here:

The 'biblical view' that's younger than the Happy Meal

...one article by a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary criticized the Roman Catholic position on abortion as unbiblical. Jonathan Dudley quotes from the article in his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics. Keep in mind that this is from a conservative evangelical seminary professor, writing in Billy Graham’s magazine for editor Harold Lindsell:

God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.

[other examples follow...]

[...] They all now believe that the Bible teaches that life begins at conception. They believe this absolutely, unambiguously, firmly, resolutely and loudly. That’s what they believed 10 years ago, and that’s what they believed 20 years ago. But it wasn’t what they believed 30 years ago [article written in 2012]. Thirty years ago they all believed quite the opposite.

So when you tell me about the Christian view, I can remember the 70s and early 80s when this was not the case. Isn't it interesting that so many prominent Christians changed their minds about what the Bible teaches regarding abortion during the 1980s?

 

[SPF]

Your first statement above conflicts with the second about the origin of morality.

No it doesn’t.

Disagree. See my prior posts about identical twins and triplets coming into existence after fertilization, not at. Human beings are be definition distinct and quantifiable. Because you cannot quantify the number of so-called human beings at conception, the zygote cannot be a human being or beings.

For the majority of human beings, their existence begins at fertilization. For some, such as identical twins, one of them begins their existence at fertilization and the other shortly thereafter.

The fact remains that whether a human’s beginning is at fertilization or shortly thereafter, they’re still a human being.

They are? At what exact moment do they become guilty of sinning and deserving of hell?

I’m not sure what relevance that has on anything I’ve said. Especially with someone like you who doesn’t even believe in God, that subject would be a rabbit trail and not applicable.

If you reject what I said that unborn humans are innocent, you’re welcome to explain why.

But anyway, I believe that at the very least the 98.5% of abortions performed for non medical emergency reasons are immoral.

I don’t expect you as an atheist to agree that killing unborn innocent humans is immoral.

 

[NxNW]

For the majority of human beings, their existence begins at fertilization. For some, such as identical twins, one of them begins their existence at fertilization and the other shortly thereafter.

At last I got you to admit that life can begin after conception. Now that we've established that much, it's just a matter of agreeing where to draw the line. Of course, procedures or contraception that take effect before that point don't involve the death of a human being. QED.

I don’t expect you as an atheist to agree that killing unborn innocent humans is immoral.

I'll ignore the insinuation and reiterate that I don't agree that abortion involves the joking of innocent human beings.

 

[coffee4u]

Disagree. See my prior posts about identical twins and triplets coming into existence after fertilization, not at. Human beings are be definition distinct and quantifiable. Because you cannot quantify the number of so-called human beings at conception, the zygote cannot be a human being or beings.

One life becomes 2 or more. It isn't no life becoming two.

They are? At what exact moment do they become guilty of sinning and deserving of hell?

At a point determined by God.

It has certainly not been consistent. The view that you just explained has only been in place since the early 80s, when the Moral Majority came along and politicized the topic. Before the 80s, Christianity Today, with the blessing of Billy Graham, was publishing pro-choice articles. See this reference here:

The 'biblical view' that's younger than the Happy Meal

...one article by a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary criticized the Roman Catholic position on abortion as unbiblical. Jonathan Dudley quotes from the article in his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics. Keep in mind that this is from a conservative evangelical seminary professor, writing in Billy Graham’s magazine for editor Harold Lindsell:

God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.

[other examples follow...]

[...] They all now believe that the Bible teaches that life begins at conception. They believe this absolutely, unambiguously, firmly, resolutely and loudly. That’s what they believed 10 years ago, and that’s what they believed 20 years ago. But it wasn’t what they believed 30 years ago [article written in 2012]. Thirty years ago they all believed quite the opposite.

So when you tell me about the Christian view, I can remember the 70s and early 80s when this was not the case. Isn't it interesting that so many prominent Christians changed their minds about what the Bible teaches regarding abortion during the 1980s?

You seem to assume we should agree with those heretical links? It doesn't matter what any other organization or church believes. This is what we believe as taught by the Bible. And no, I will always say life begins at conception.

the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offence

Really? That isn't what I read.
Exodus 21:22-24

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot

The Lord has already written down all the days in his book while the body is still unformed.
Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
He foresees how long each of us will have.

 

[muichimotsu]

Sure, this is just a rewording of the violinist argument, which I think fails. Lots of apologists have addressed this line of reasoning:

Unstringing the Violinist | Stand to Reason

Sample Q&A: The Violinist Argument | Pro-Life Theory and Discussion Tactics

I think the Stanford article does a good job of noting the primary reason why your argument fails. That being that "the 'Right to Life' is a right not to be killed. It is not a right not to die."

In other words, in an abortion someone is intentionally and purposefully killing a human being. This is different than a person choosing not to donate one of their organs to save another's life.

A more apt analogy would be the "Cabin in the Blizzard" analogy:

A New Response to the Violinist Argument | Stand to Reason

But you're assuming that a zygote or embryo is comparable to a fetus in viability and capacity to live and that it necessarily undermines a woman's agency over her body, neither of which is demonstrable or defensible without serious problems in your science or morality.

Taking a life/killing is not the same as murder when we consider one of the major factors of murder is malice aforethought, meaning you'd have to consider the thing alive in a meaningful sense and would have to be a person, rather than mere human being, which applies to any human cell and only gets focused on a zygote because of the particular context.

Knowing that abortion removes a zygote/embryo/fetus from the womb and causes its death is not murder, it's barely manslaughter because it's not an incidental situation like me driving drunk and killing someone in a car wreck, because I knew it was possible it could happen if I drank and drove, versus an abortion necessarily having that aspect in it, but isn't comparable because a unique human being genetically speaking is not equivalent to a human person in the experiential sense of sentience we'd attribute to an infant, to say nothing of remote independence, not the same as any unborn entity necessarily tied into its mother's metabolism.

If all you boil this down to is a unique genetic human, you grant them rights that become utterly absurd in the same vein as giving my cat right of attorney, when neither is meaningful to grant to the entity in question. A right not to be killed would be meaningful only if the entity in question can have the sense of wanting to survive and being able to do so without any dependence on a particular individual, as the unborn are (until such time as we have artificial womb technology that can transfer an unborn entity without hemorrhaging and such).

And my cat cannot be my attorney anymore than I can charge it with destruction of property, because it doesn't comprehend that, in a similar fashion to any pre born entity, particularly before fetal viability, could not meaningfully participate in a context where being killed would be something undesirable, because it wouldn't even have base desires.