Abortion is not acceptable for any reasons at all

[SPF]

I said, The focus of your position is upon the mother and her freedom of choice. The reality however is that the how in which a new human life came into existence bares 100% no impact upon the value of its life.

You went on to actually confirm this by saying, "the focus of my position is that no woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term when she had no choice in participation in the sexual act that produced that fetus." As well as, "But in cases of rape the choice rests with the rape victim." As well as, "In cases of rape the choice must rest with the pregnant woman. "

This is what I mean when I say that abortion discussions often result in people talking across each other. The intent of my entire post was to demonstrate that the how in which a human life was conceived has no impact upon the moral worth of the human life that now exists. The problem with your responses is that instead of addressing what I said, you talked across me and simply restated your belief that the choice rests with the mother, and entirely ignored the discussion over whether or not the unborn child possesses the same moral worth as the baby born 30 seconds earlier.

Simply put, if a human does not possess moral worth while it is inside the womb, then abortions conducted for any reason X, where X is a non-life threatening emergency, are perfectly acceptable. My entire post brings this into question. You did not address it in the least.

Also, 50% of your responses demonstrate exactly why earlier I went to such lengths to point out that there is a moral difference between abortions conducted for X, where X is a non-life threatening emergency, and abortions committed for Y, where Y is a life threatening event in which it is almost a certainty that either the fetus, the mother, or both will die. Simply put, intent matters.

For example, murder is always wrong, but not all killing is murder. Distinctions are made with regards to one person taking the life of another. There is first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter. There is also vehicular homicide. The major distinction between all of these is intent. Intent matters.

Essentially, every single response you gave in which you attempted to use abortions committed for medical life saving emergencies as analogous to abortions committed for non medical life saving emergencies again, is fallacious. Intent matters. This is why for moral discussions, distinctions are important.

So again, going back to the heart of the issue. The answer to whether abortions committed for any reason X, where X is a non-life threatening medical emergency where either the mother, the fetus, or both lives will almost certainly be lost, is based entirely upon whether or not the human growing inside the mother's womb is just as much a human with moral worth as humans that reside outside the womb.

It should be clear that the how in which a woman becomes pregnant does not impact the moral worth of the life inside her. The question, and the only question that needs to be answered is in regards to the moral worth of the life inside her.

And as I said, the scientific evidence is indisputable that human life begins at conception. The Biblical evidence, I think, supports the notion that from conception we possess a sinful nature, and that all humans are equally created in the image of God, equally possessing the Imago Dei, and being of equal moral worth. You don't grow into moral worth the longer you live. You simply have it by nature of being human.

If that is true, then abortions committed for any reason X, where X is a non-life threatening medical emergency where either the mother, the fetus, or both lives will almost certainly be lost would be immoral, and a form of murder.

We can all agree that the human growing inside a mother's womb is essentially an innocent human, who has broken no law and done no wrong. The only reason at the moment that abortions committed for any reason X, where X is a non-life threatening medical emergency where either the mother, the fetus, or both lives will almost certainly be lost is permissible is because of the arbitrary and subjective distinction that is being made between a human being and a human person.

And again, the only reason that we would ever create such a distinction would be for the sole reason that it grants us moral permission to do something to the "less than human person" that we would otherwise consider immoral.

 

[Archivist]

I said, The focus of your position is upon the mother and her freedom of choice. The reality however is that the how in which a new human life came into existence bares 100% no impact upon the value of its life.

You went on to actually confirm this by saying, "the focus of my position is that no woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term when she had no choice in participation in the sexual act that produced that fetus." As well as, "But in cases of rape the choice rests with the rape victim." As well as, "In cases of rape the choice must rest with the pregnant woman. "

This is what I mean when I say that abortion discussions often result in people talking across each other. The intent of my entire post was to demonstrate that the how in which a human life was conceived has no impact upon the moral worth of the human life that now exists. The problem with your responses is that instead of addressing what I said, you talked across me and simply restated your belief that the choice rests with the mother, and entirely ignored the discussion over whether or not the unborn child possesses the same moral worth as the baby born 30 seconds earlier.

Simply put, if a human does not possess moral worth while it is inside the womb, then abortions conducted for any reason X, where X is a non-life threatening emergency, are perfectly acceptable. My entire post brings this into question. You did not address it in the least.

But, again, you are also making a judgment call--that the moral worth of the fetus doesn't matter if the life of the pregnant woman is at risk. At least those who would ban abortions in all cases are consistent in their position. You are not consistent.

Also, 50% of your responses demonstrate exactly why earlier I went to such lengths to point out that there is a moral difference between abortions conducted for X, where X is a non-life threatening emergency, and abortions committed for Y, where Y is a life threatening event in which it is almost a certainty that either the fetus, the mother, or both will die. Simply put, intent matters.

For example, murder is always wrong, but not all killing is murder. Distinctions are made with regards to one person taking the life of another. There is first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter. There is also vehicular homicide. The major distinction between all of these is intent. Intent matters.

Essentially, every single response you gave in which you attempted to use abortions committed for medical life saving emergencies as analogous to abortions committed for non medical life saving emergencies again, is fallacious. Intent matters. This is why for moral discussions, distinctions are important.

Earlier in this thread you stated "The term abortion is a morally charged and loaded term which is generally understood by people to mean the choice of a woman to terminate the child in her womb for reason X, where X is a non-medical emergency." That is incorrect, because an abortion is an abortion. Intent doesn't matter. I provide definitions for the word abortion. There is nothing in any one of those definitions that in any way mentions intent.

Now you are using the term murder to show that intent does matter. Again, we have to look at the definition. Murder is traditionally defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." Intent is part of the definition, so yes it does matter in the case of murder. Intent is not part of the definition of the word abortion. An abortion is an abortion regardless of the intent.

So again, going back to the heart of the issue. The answer to whether abortions committed for any reason X, where X is a non-life threatening medical emergency where either the mother, the fetus, or both lives will almost certainly be lost, is based entirely upon whether or not the human growing inside the mother's womb is just as much a human with moral worth as humans that reside outside the womb.

But you are creating such a distinction by saying that abortion is permissible if necessary if needed to save the life of the pregnant woman. You are valuing the life of the pregnant woman over that of the fetus.

It should be clear that the how in which a woman becomes pregnant does not impact the moral worth of the life inside her. The question, and the only question that needs to be answered is in regards to the moral worth of the life inside her.

The moral worth of the fetus is irrelevant in cases where the woman is a victim of rape. She had no say in the sexual act; she should not be forced to carry the fetus produced as a result of that act to term.

And as I said, the scientific evidence is indisputable that human life begins at conception. The Biblical evidence, I think, supports the notion that from conception we possess a sinful nature, and that all humans are equally created in the image of God, equally possessing the Imago Dei, and being of equal moral worth. You don't grow into moral worth the longer you live. You simply have it by nature of being human.

The US is a secular nation. We don't force "Biblical evidence" on people.

If that is true, then abortions committed for any reason X, where X is a non-life threatening medical emergency where either the mother, the fetus, or both lives will almost certainly be lost would be immoral, and a form of murder.

I have already provided the definition of the term murder. Abortion does not meet the definition.

We can all agree that the human growing inside a mother's womb is essentially an innocent human, who has broken no law and done no wrong. The only reason at the moment that abortions committed for any reason X, where X is a non-life threatening medical emergency where either the mother, the fetus, or both lives will almost certainly be lost is permissible is because of the arbitrary and subjective distinction that is being made between a human being and a human person.

And again, the only reason that we would ever create such a distinction would be for the sole reason that it grants us moral permission to do something to the "less than human person" that we would otherwise consider immoral.

Again, you are creating such a distinction by saying that abortion is permissible if necessary if needed to save the life of the pregnant woman. You are valuing the life of the pregnant woman over that of the fetus.

 

[SPF]

My position is most certainly consistent. I'll outline it again for you.

1. All abortions committed for any reason X, where X is a non-life threatening medical emergency where either the mother, the fetus, or both lives will almost certainly be lost is immoral.

The reason the above claim is true is because all human life, regardless of age, is of equal moral worth and value.

The how in which a human life comes into existence does not determine the moral value of that human life.

What society has done is create an arbitrary and subjective distinction between a human being and a human person. I demonstrated how we know this line is arbitrary. I also emphasized that the only reason a society would create this distinction would be so that some action could be taken against the human non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

Again, the determining factor in whether an abortion committed for any reason X, where X is a non-life threatening medical emergency where either the mother, the fetus, or both lives will almost certainly be lost is a moral act or not is based upon the moral worth of the fetus inside the mother, not the how in which it came to exist.

 

[Archivist]

My position is most certainly consistent.

No, it isn't.

I'll outline it again for you.

OK

All abortions committed for any reason X, where X is a non-life threatening medical emergency where either the mother, the fetus, or both lives will almost certainly be lost is immoral.

But you are allowing an abortion in cases where the pregnant woman's life is in danger. If fetus and mother are of equal moral worth, why would you allow her to terminate the fetus? That is not consistent.

And remember, I say that as someone who would also allow abortion in cases where the life or health of the pregnant woman is at risk of rape and incest.

The reason the above claim is true is because all human life, regardless of age, is of equal moral worth and value.

Then why would you require a rape victim to carry a fetus to term against her will? Last I checked it is her body.

The how in which a human life comes into existence does not determine the moral value of that human life.

So indentured servitude is perfectly moral?

What society has done is create an arbitrary and subjective distinction between a human being and a human person. I demonstrated how we know this line is arbitrary. I also emphasized that the only reason a society would create this distinction would be so that some action could be taken against the human non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

Incorrect. I presume that you have read the Roe decision.

Again, the determining factor in whether an abortion committed for any reason X, where X is a non-life threatening medical emergency where either the mother, the fetus, or both lives will almost certainly be lost is a moral act or not is based upon the moral worth of the fetus inside the mother, not the how in which it came to exist.

No.

 

[SPF]

I have already explained why intent is important when discussing moral issues. As exampled, all murder is wrong, but not all killing is murder. The distinction lies in the intent. This is why we talk about how God judges the heart. Our motives are vital in determining the morality of an action.

In the event that there is a life threatening event during the pregnancy of a mother, the ethical approach that a doctor should take should be to look at both mother and unborn child as his patient. From an Imago Dei standpoint, both are equally morally valuable human lives. Each situation is going to be different, but from a standpoint of principle, both his patients possess the same inherent moral worth.

If you want to play this principle out (an exercise I encourage my graduate students to do) we can do that. But you need to look at a specific hypothetical and not make sweeping claims across the board as you've done in a number of responses.

For example then, let's consider an ectopic pregnancy specifically where there is a virtual certainty that if nothing is done both the fetus and the mother will die, but the fetus has been carried to the age of viability. In this example, the doctor, as looking at both mother and fetus as his patient should strive to make sure that he saves both mother and fetus, especially since the fetus has reached viability.

However, a much more likely example is that the fetus has not reached viability. This is unfortunate, and the doctor will more than likely only be able to save the mother. The doctor's aim is to save both his patients. If he does not act, then both his patients die. The doctor has the chance to save one patient, and so while this is certainly a difficult moral dilemma, I think he should act to save the mother.

Let's also for discussion sake consider example P, where a mother while delivering for whatever reason has to have an emergency C-Section (my wife had 2 of these). During the c-section, the doctor for whatever reason has been met with a complication where he is not sure if he can save the baby without costing the mother her life. In this instance, what if the mother sensing the danger demanded that no matter the cost to her life the doctor save the baby. What should the doctor do? Well I think he should honor the mother's wishes, don't you?

The bottom line to all of this is that the morality of abortion stands or falls based upon our understanding of the nature of the child growing inside the mother's womb.

Consider this. You go to sleep tonight, and wake up to find that a mad scientist has removed your head and surgically attached it to your neighbor's back, preserving your body in a cryogenic tube. You are fully conscious, but are dependent upon your neighbor's body to stay alive. The skill of the mad scientist that performed this surgery is so advanced that there is no way that any doctor can remove your head and reattach it to your body without killing you. However, the doctors do detect a mechanical timer that is set for 9 months. In 9 months it seems that this device will release your head from your neighbor's back.

In this case, would you be OK with your neighbor deciding that he didn't want you to stay there and was asking the doctors to just remove you, even though it would kill you? Should he have that right? Did you lose your right to life just because you temporarily became dependent upon someone else's body to survive?

The question that we need to answer is what is the moral value of the child inside womb? The question is simple - is the unborn child a human life with inherent moral worth? That is the first and most basic question that needs to be answered - and one you have yet to comment on. Do we possess inherent moral worth from the moment of conception due to the fact that we created in the Image of God? Or is moral worth something we earn by means of age or location?