Abortion is Immoral: Change My Mind

SPF · May 8, 2019

I am very much aware that I do not hold the corner on all theological truth. Indeed, the only beliefs that I actually cling to with any sort of deep rooted conviction are the following:

1. God is Triune.
2. Divinity of Christ.
3. Real death and real resurrection of Christ.
4. Salvation through Christ alone.
5. Some day return of Christ to restore His creation.
6. Inspiration of Scripture.

I view those as the cornerstone of my faith, and of Christianity. Everything else, I would consider non-essential, and open for discussion.

I have strong beliefs across a myriad of topics, just like all Christians do. I try to base my beliefs upon first and foremost what Scripture teaches. All of us Christians ought to strive to have our worldview and belief system as consistent with the teachings of Scripture as possible. For me, I'm a Christian first, and an American second. I look to Scripture to guide me, not what secular culture tells me. Indeed, Scripture warns us that to be friends of Christ is to be enemies of the world.

Abortion is a very serious issue. I think it's important that as Christians we understand the reality of abortion. Abortion is a moral issue. I have simplified my position on abortion all the way down to two basic premises and a conclusion.

I want to welcome anyone and everyone who is pro-choice, or who disagrees with me to demonstrate to me where I'm wrong. If you can show me where I'm wrong, I'm open to shifting my position. But I'll be honest, you need to be logically consistent, avoiding fallacies.

So here's my position:

P1: All human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

P2: A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Conclusion: All human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization.

Therefore, if all human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization, then all the abortions that are performed for non-medical emergency reasons are immoral.

I welcome anyone to show me where my argument fails. Is one of my premises wrong? Does my conclusion not follow from the premises? Is my position (in italics) not properly based upon the premises and conclusion above?

PloverWing · May 8, 2019

Your argument is valid: Your conclusion follows from your premises. The premises themselves may or may not be correct.

A common alternative set of premises would replace P2 with the alternative P2': "I believe that a new human being comes into existence at birth." The alternative argument would then become:

P1: I believe that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

P2': I believe that a new human being comes into existence at birth.

Conclusion: All human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from birth.

Two notes:

1) P2 and P2' both serve as axioms: You assert one or the other (or some alternative) as your starting point, and then reason from there. I don't think it will be fruitful to try to argue for one vs the other here; such arguments tend to dissolve into "arguments" in the bad sense, with people just yelling their respective axioms at each other very loudly.

2) Axiom P2' doesn't mean "all abortion in all circumstances is perfectly okay". It just means that we have to think about abortion using other, more detailed arguments that take into account the stage of fetal development and other questions.

tranquil · May 8, 2019

SPF said:
I am very much aware that I do not hold the corner on all theological truth. Indeed, the only beliefs that I actually cling to with any sort of deep rooted conviction are the following:

1. God is Triune.
2. Divinity of Christ.
3. Real death and real resurrection of Christ.
4. Salvation through Christ alone.
5. Some day return of Christ to restore His creation.
6. Inspiration of Scripture.

I view those as the cornerstone of my faith, and of Christianity. Everything else, I would consider non-essential, and open for discussion.

I have strong beliefs across a myriad of topics, just like all Christians do. I try to base my beliefs upon first and foremost what Scripture teaches. All of us Christians ought to strive to have our worldview and belief system as consistent with the teachings of Scripture as possible. For me, I'm a Christian first, and an American second. I look to Scripture to guide me, not what secular culture tells me. Indeed, Scripture warns us that to be friends of Christ is to be enemies of the world.

Abortion is a very serious issue. I think it's important that as Christians we understand the reality of abortion. Abortion is a moral issue. I have simplified my position on abortion all the way down to two basic premises and a conclusion.

I want to welcome anyone and everyone who is pro-choice, or who disagrees with me to demonstrate to me where I'm wrong. If you can show me where I'm wrong, I'm open to shifting my position. But I'll be honest, you need to be logically consistent, avoiding fallacies.

So here's my position:

P1: I believe that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

P2: I believe that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Conclusion: All human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization.

Therefore, if all human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization, then all the abortions that are performed for non-medical emergency reasons are immoral.

I welcome anyone to show me where my argument fails. Is one of my premises wrong? Does my conclusion not follow from the premises? Is my position (in italics) not properly based upon the premises and conclusion above?

Have you not read Numbers 5?

Then google "wormwood & abortion"

It's a complicated topic.

section9+1 · May 8, 2019

P2 I agree.
It seems made in image of God is correct but it seems there could be biblical exceptions which I don't quite understand. I think it just means we are distinct from the rest of creation with potentials the rest of it doesn't have. It is our potential that gives us value and significance.
All I would change in P1 is to say potential instead of inherent.
And I agree with abortion being immoral.

SPF · May 8, 2019

PloverWing said:
Your argument is valid: Your conclusion follows from your premises. The premises themselves may or may not be correct.

A common alternative set of premises would replace P2 with the alternative P2': "I believe that a new human being comes into existence at birth." The alternative argument would then become:

P1: I believe that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

P2': I believe that a new human being comes into existence at birth.

Conclusion: All human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from birth.

Two notes:

1) P2 and P2' both serve as axioms: You assert one or the other (or some alternative) as your starting point, and then reason from there. I don't think it will be fruitful to try to argue for one vs the other here; such arguments tend to dissolve into "arguments" in the bad sense, with people just yelling their respective axioms at each other very loudly.

2) Axiom P2' doesn't mean "all abortion in all circumstances is perfectly okay". It just means that we have to think about abortion using other, more detailed arguments that take into account the stage of fetal development and other questions.

I'm not sure why you added "I believe" to the two premises, because people can believe anything they want, belief doesn't need to equate to reality or truthfulness. So as it stands now, I can't say that P2 is a false premise, because if that's what you believe, then the premise is true. However, if you remove the first three words of P2 so that it reads. "A new human being comes into existence at birth." Then I would say that the argument is built upon a false premise.

So honestly, I'm not sure what the point of your post is. Is it just to give a lesson that there are a whole slew of valid syllogism on this topic? If you would like to engage the specific argument that I put up, then I welcome that. As of now though, you haven't given me any content to actually respond to in relation to my position.

tranquil said:
Have you not read Numbers 5?

Then google "wormwood & abortion"

It's a complicated topic.

Feel free to engage in the argument I presented.

chevyontheriver · May 8, 2019

PloverWing said:
Your argument is valid: Your conclusion follows from your premises. The premises themselves may or may not be correct.

A common alternative set of premises would replace P2 with the alternative P2': "I believe that a new human being comes into existence at birth." The alternative argument would then become:

P1: I believe that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

P2': I believe that a new human being comes into existence at birth.

Conclusion: All human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from birth.

Two notes:

1) P2 and P2' both serve as axioms: You assert one or the other (or some alternative) as your starting point, and then reason from there. I don't think it will be fruitful to try to argue for one vs the other here; such arguments tend to dissolve into "arguments" in the bad sense, with people just yelling their respective axioms at each other very loudly.

2) Axiom P2' doesn't mean "all abortion in all circumstances is perfectly okay". It just means that we have to think about abortion using other, more detailed arguments that take into account the stage of fetal development and other questions.

Axiom P2' seems to neglect embryology, but it is a premise.

Zetetica · May 8, 2019

SPF said:
I am very much aware that I do not hold the corner on all theological truth. Indeed, the only beliefs that I actually cling to with any sort of deep rooted conviction are the following:

1. God is Triune.
2. Divinity of Christ.
3. Real death and real resurrection of Christ.
4. Salvation through Christ alone.
5. Some day return of Christ to restore His creation.
6. Inspiration of Scripture.

I view those as the cornerstone of my faith, and of Christianity. Everything else, I would consider non-essential, and open for discussion.

I have strong beliefs across a myriad of topics, just like all Christians do. I try to base my beliefs upon first and foremost what Scripture teaches. All of us Christians ought to strive to have our worldview and belief system as consistent with the teachings of Scripture as possible. For me, I'm a Christian first, and an American second. I look to Scripture to guide me, not what secular culture tells me. Indeed, Scripture warns us that to be friends of Christ is to be enemies of the world.

Abortion is a very serious issue. I think it's important that as Christians we understand the reality of abortion. Abortion is a moral issue. I have simplified my position on abortion all the way down to two basic premises and a conclusion.

I want to welcome anyone and everyone who is pro-choice, or who disagrees with me to demonstrate to me where I'm wrong. If you can show me where I'm wrong, I'm open to shifting my position. But I'll be honest, you need to be logically consistent, avoiding fallacies.

So here's my position:

P1: I believe that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

P2: I believe that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Conclusion: All human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization.

Therefore, if all human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization, then all the abortions that are performed for non-medical emergency reasons are immoral.

I welcome anyone to show me where my argument fails. Is one of my premises wrong? Does my conclusion not follow from the premises? Is my position (in italics) not properly based upon the premises and conclusion above?

Abortion in EVERY situation is wrong. This is my opinion.

SPF · May 8, 2019

Really? All the activity in the other threads and no takers? Suddenly everyone agrees with me?

GodLovesCats · May 8, 2019

Zetetica said:
Abortion in EVERY situation is wrong. This is my opinion.

Even if an abortion would save the mother's life? People need to ask themselves if they would want to die in a situation where the only way to survive is end the pregnancy early.

GodLovesCats · May 8, 2019

SPF said:
Really? All the activity in the other threads and no takers? Suddenly everyone agrees with me?

No, sometimes it takes a while for new threads to get busy. I will try to find something that supports my (mostly) pro-choice opinions.

PloverWing · May 8, 2019

SPF said:
I'm not sure why you added "I believe" to the two premises, because people can believe anything they want, belief doesn't need to equate to reality or truthfulness.

I used the wording "I believe" because you did. I was trying to echo your words exactly, except that I replaced "fertilization" with "birth". Feel free to delete the words "I believe" from both arguments.

So honestly, I'm not sure what the point of your post is.

I didn't expect to persuade you (and thus, I suppose, I'm not addressing the "change my mind" challenge). I just wanted to state why you haven't persuaded me.

jacks · May 8, 2019

SPF said:
I'm not sure why you added "I believe" to the two premises, because people can believe anything they want, belief doesn't need to equate to reality or truthfulness. So as it stands now, I can't say that P2 is a false premise, because if that's what you believe, then the premise is true. However, if you remove the first three words of P2 so that it reads. "A new human being comes into existence at birth." Then I would say that the argument is built upon a false premise.

So honestly, I'm not sure what the point of your post is. Is it just to give a lesson that there are a whole slew of valid syllogism on this topic? If you would like to engage the specific argument that I put up, then I welcome that. As of now though, you haven't given me any content to actually respond to in relation to my position.

Excuse me for butting in, I'm just confused about your response to Plover Wing. What it did was mimic your posts on P1 & P2 exactly except changed the word "fertilization" to "birth". The point obviously being that some may consider life to begin at birth not when fertilization takes place. The words "I believe" was your original rhetoric not Plover Wings.

Forgive me if I'm just missing something obvious and BTW I also consider abortion a sinful thing to do.

GodLovesCats · May 9, 2019

The "I believe" is important. It is an admission you understand your statement may not be correct.

That said, I cannot accept every idea posed in this seciton of CF as just an opinion nobody should judge. I often demend logical reasons for everything in a way that make perfect sense to me from my perspective (Asperger's syndrome trait). So be prepared to show me evidence supporting your opinion if it is based at least partially on proven facts and contrary to mine.

Jonathan Walkerin · May 9, 2019

Natural abortion ie. miscarriage

Miscarriage is the most common complication of early pregnancy.[18] Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20%, while rates among all fertilisation is around 30% to 50%.[1][7]

So natural abortion rate is around 30% - 50% . If we count those as living persons it seems like a bit of cruel planning on part of God.

grasping the after wind · May 9, 2019

Jonathan Walkerin said:
Natural abortion ie. miscarriage

Miscarriage is the most common complication of early pregnancy.[18] Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20%, while rates among all fertilisation is around 30% to 50%.[1][7]

So natural abortion rate is around 30% - 50% . If we count those as living persons it seems like a bit of cruel planning on part of God.

100% of all humans die so if miscarriage is cruel planning on God's part then life itself is exactly the same cruel plan. I would hesitate to tell God just how poor a Creator He is. Miscarriage is unlike the abortion the OP is speaking of in that there are two very big factors that separates them from each other. The agent causing the death and the intention of the mother. Would it be reasonable to consider an unintentional bump by a passing stranger to be the equivalent of a passing stranger running into one on purpose as long as the result were the same amount of force in the bump?

GodLovesCats · May 9, 2019

This is a search result for "pregnancy complications that kill the fetus." Emphasis in mine.

Most women with preeclampsia will deliver healthy babies and fully recover. However, some women will experience complications, several of which may be life-threatening to mother and/or baby. A woman’s condition can progress to severe preeclampsia very quickly. The rate of preeclampsia in the US has increased 25% in the last two decades and is a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death.

Preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy can be devastating diseases, made worse by delays in diagnosis or management, seriously impacting or even killing both women and their babies before, during or after birth.

Frequently asked questions about preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome

SPF · May 9, 2019

My argument is specifically addressing abortions performed for non-medical reasons, which represents the vast majority of all abortions.

If someone would like to actually engage the argument and demonstrate how one of my premises or conclusions is false that would be great. But no takers as of now, just a lot of off topic comments

Jonathan Walkerin · May 9, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
100% of all humans die so if miscarriage is cruel planning on God's part then life itself is exactly the same cruel plan

That line of logic could be used for intentional abortion as well ; all part of God`s plan ......just makes a boring discussion.

grasping the after wind · May 9, 2019

Jonathan Walkerin said:
That line of logic could be used for intentional abortion as well ; all part of God`s plan ......just makes a boring discussion.

Then perhaps you would have been wiser not to have brought it up?

GodLovesCats · May 9, 2019

Actually medical reasons do apply to the question you asked. People often don't want the baby because it is known to have a disability which would drain their finances, stress them out in many ways, etc. These in my opinion are not the same as preeclampsia, in which the baby could either survive disabled or not even be born. So the question here is would you consider the baby's health a medical reason to kill it?

Abortion is Immoral: Change My Mind

Well-Known Member

Episcopalian

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Episcopalian

Er Victus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

That's grasping after the wind

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

That's grasping after the wind

Well-Known Member

Similar threads