Abortion viewed from the pro-life perspective

[gaara4158]

you mean upwards of 90% of human beings don't survive long enough to be born. Scientifically and medically, we are unique, individual human beings from the moment of conception.

It sounds like you're still subtly attempting your non sequitur of arguing that a high morality rate indicates that they must therefore not be human beings. There is no logical consistency there.

And yet, per the video cited by the OP, the distinction between "potential human" and "human" is immaterial. We can debate where human life begins all day, but from a human rights perspective it actually doesn't matter whether a developing unborn baby is a human yet or not. If the rights of the mother are to be at all considered, we should ask whether humans have the right to remove themselves from biologically and financially parasitic relationships with other humans. Should the government have the power to force people to stay in such relationships?

 

[SPF]

And yet, per the video cited by the OP, the distinction between "potential human" and "human" is immaterial. We can debate where human life begins all day, but from a human rights perspective it actually doesn't matter whether a developing unborn baby is a human yet or not. If the rights of the mother are to be at all considered, we should ask whether humans have the right to remove themselves from biologically and financially parasitic relationships with other humans. Should the government have the power to force people to stay in such relationships?

From a purely moral perspective, I believe that the 98.5% of abortions committed for convenience reasons are without question immoral. Scientifically we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, and I personally believe that all human beings are morally valuable and possess the same inherent moral worth and value.

We all take about 25 years to fully develop, yet at no point during our development are we not a human being or less inherently morally valuable.

But I agree that the law isn't really in the business of regulating morality. Alcohol I think is a good example. As a Christian, I believe that alcoholism, and getting drunk is immoral and wrong. However, I don't think it should be illegal to get drunk.

I do agree with laws such as no drinking and driving. Why? Well, the purpose of no drinking and driving is to protect innocent people. On the one hand, it protects the drunkard who is too intoxicated to think rationally not to drive. It also protects the people he may encounter on the street.

Our laws really should be focused on protecting people. That's why there are speed limits, they are meant to protect people from other people who would drive wrecklessly (see what I did there?!).

As a good American, I'm all about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, we all agree that all of those "rights" may be temporarily suspended, or permanently revoked. It just depends on the situation. If I'm a kleptomaniac and my pursuit of happiness involves indiscriminately stealing from stores, well then I'm out of luck because I don't have the right to pursue that type of happiness because it harms others.

Every single person in jail has had their right to liberty temporarily suspended. Every single person on death row, or in prison for life has essentially had their right to life removed.

We all agree that there are times in which our rights are suspended.

Applying that to abortion - I would argue that the unborn are the most innocent and vulnerable of us all. They have done no wrong, and they should be protected. I believe this because I believe that all human beings are inherently morally valuable. Therefore, I do think the law should protect the unborn, because the unborn are just as morally valuable as I am.

Now, if I didn't think the unborn were as morally valuable as I was, I probably wouldn't have a problem with abortion. Thus, at the end of the day, I think the abortion debate really centers upon how we consider the nature of the life of the unborn. Are they human beings that are inherently morally valuable? Are any of us inherently morally valuable? If not, then abortion is fine. But my foundation of inherent moral worth and value to all human beings logically and necessarily results in the conclusion that at the very least aborting health growing babies is morally wrong, and would therefore be a form of murder - which the government should protect against.

 

[gaara4158]

From a purely moral perspective, I believe that the 98.5% of abortions committed for convenience reasons are without question immoral. Scientifically we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, and I personally believe that all human beings are morally valuable and possess the same inherent moral worth and value.

We all take about 25 years to fully develop, yet at no point during our development are we not a human being or less inherently morally valuable.

But I agree that the law isn't really in the business of regulating morality. Alcohol I think is a good example. As a Christian, I believe that alcoholism, and getting drunk is immoral and wrong. However, I don't think it should be illegal to get drunk.

I do agree with laws such as no drinking and driving. Why? Well, the purpose of no drinking and driving is to protect innocent people. On the one hand, it protects the drunkard who is too intoxicated to think rationally not to drive. It also protects the people he may encounter on the street.

Our laws really should be focused on protecting people. That's why there are speed limits, they are meant to protect people from other people who would drive wrecklessly (see what I did there?!).

As a good American, I'm all about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, we all agree that all of those "rights" may be temporarily suspended, or permanently revoked. It just depends on the situation. If I'm a kleptomaniac and my pursuit of happiness involves indiscriminately stealing from stores, well then I'm out of luck because I don't have the right to pursue that type of happiness because it harms others.

Every single person in jail has had their right to liberty temporarily suspended. Every single person on death row, or in prison for life has essentially had their right to life removed.

We all agree that there are times in which our rights are suspended.

Applying that to abortion - I would argue that the unborn are the most innocent and vulnerable of us all. They have done no wrong, and they should be protected. I believe this because I believe that all human beings are inherently morally valuable. Therefore, I do think the law should protect the unborn, because the unborn are just as morally valuable as I am.

Now, if I didn't think the unborn were as morally valuable as I was, I probably wouldn't have a problem with abortion. Thus, at the end of the day, I think the abortion debate really centers upon how we consider the nature of the life of the unborn. Are they human beings that are inherently morally valuable? Are any of us inherently morally valuable? If not, then abortion is fine. But my foundation of inherent moral worth and value to all human beings logically and necessarily results in the conclusion that at the very least aborting health growing babies is morally wrong, and would therefore be a form of murder - which the government should protect against.

Yes, we all agree that abortion is bad and should never happen unless it's the only alternative to ending two lives. No sane person thinks killing babies - or scooping the guts out of a live, unborn fetus - is a good thing. The question is not "is abortion good," it's "is abortion a human right?" And I haven't seen you engage that question yet. Another way to state it is "Do humans have the right to be kept alive by siphoning the biological resources of another human being?" I think you'd feel your rights were violated if you were passing by a traffic accident and the police forced you to give blood to save the victims, regardless of how you felt about those victims' moral value.

 

[jayem]

From a purely moral perspective, I believe that the 98.5% of abortions committed for convenience reasons are without question immoral. Scientifically we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, and I personally believe that all human beings are morally valuable and possess the same inherent moral worth and value.

Morality and legality are 2 different things. Not everything immoral must be illegal. Example: Most every rational person would agree that protesting military funeral with signs saying "Thank God for dead soldiers" is morally reprehensible. But that crackpot "church" has a legal right to do just that (within some boundaries.) Because it's excessively authoritarian for government to criminalize speech--even if it's offensive.

I see abortion as similar. I agree that terminating a pregnancy for less than medical reasons can be morally suspect. A fetus is a separate individual and not part of its mother. But it's living in her uterus and using her heart, lungs, kidneys, GI tract, and other organ systems. And legally, the unborn are not persons. Nothing in the Constitution states, or even implies that. Using the police power of government to negate a woman's autonomy over her uterus and other organ systems for a full 9 month pregnancy is just too authoritarian. It gives too much power to the state. To me, it's a worse evil. There has to be a compromise. The average gestation period is 40 weeks. Split it down the middle. Up to 20 weeks, abortion is left as a private medical decision between a pregnant woman and her doctor. After 20 weeks, the states can restrict abortion to life threatening medical conditions (maternal and fetal) only. This is reasonable, fair, and workable. What's wrong with that?

 

[SPF]

"is abortion a human right?"

I don't think so. I have addressed this in the past. The most common argument for suggesting that the woman's right to liberty outweighs the baby's right to life is the violinist argument. But that argument fails, and here's a good essay on why. Unstringing the Violinist | Stand to Reason

Morality and legality are 2 different things. Not everything immoral must be illegal.

I completely agree, which is why I specifically said: the law isn't really in the business of regulating morality. Alcohol I think is a good example. As a Christian, I believe that alcoholism, and getting drunk is immoral and wrong. However, I don't think it should be illegal to get drunk.

I do agree with laws such as no drinking and driving. Why? Well, the purpose of no drinking and driving is to protect innocent people. On the one hand, it protects the drunkard who is too intoxicated to think rationally not to drive. It also protects the people he may encounter on the street.

Our laws really should be focused on protecting people. That's why there are speed limits, they are meant to protect people from other people who would drive wrecklessly (see what I did there?!).

As a good American, I'm all about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, we all agree that all of those "rights" may be temporarily suspended, or permanently revoked. It just depends on the situation. If I'm a kleptomaniac and my pursuit of happiness involves indiscriminately stealing from stores, well then I'm out of luck because I don't have the right to pursue that type of happiness because it harms others.

Every single person in jail has had their right to liberty temporarily suspended. Every single person on death row, or in prison for life has essentially had their right to life removed.

We all agree that there are times in which our rights are suspended.

The average gestation period is 40 weeks. Split it down the middle. Up to 20 weeks, abortion is left as a private medical decision between a pregnant woman and her doctor. After 20 weeks, the states can restrict abortion to life threatening medical conditions (maternal and fetal) only. This is reasonable, fair, and workable. What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with that I also addressed when I said this: "Applying that to abortion - I would argue that the unborn are the most innocent and vulnerable of us all. They have done no wrong, and they should be protected. I believe this because I believe that all human beings are inherently morally valuable. Therefore, I do think the law should protect the unborn, because the unborn are just as morally valuable as I am.

Now, if I didn't think the unborn were as morally valuable as I was, I probably wouldn't have a problem with abortion. Thus, at the end of the day, I think the abortion debate really centers upon how we consider the nature of the life of the unborn. Are they human beings that are inherently morally valuable? Are any of us inherently morally valuable? If not, then abortion is fine. But my foundation of inherent moral worth and value to all human beings logically and necessarily results in the conclusion that at the very least aborting health growing babies is morally wrong, and would therefore be a form of murder - which the government should protect against."

 

[jayem]

Our laws really should be focused on protecting people. That's why there are speed limits, they are meant to protect people from other people who would drive wrecklessly (see what I did there?!).

But are the unborn "people?" In the full sense of the word? An embryo is a potential person, but is that really the same as a newborn baby? An acorn is not an oak tree. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. A tadpole is not a frog. Potentiality is not the same as actuality.

As a good American, I'm all about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, we all agree that all of those "rights" may be temporarily suspended, or permanently revoked. It just depends on the situation. If I'm a kleptomaniac and my pursuit of happiness involves indiscriminately stealing from stores, well then I'm out of luck because I don't have the right to pursue that type of happiness because it harms others.

Every single person in jail has had their right to liberty temporarily suspended. Every single person on death row, or in prison for life has essentially had their right to life removed.

We all agree that there are times in which our rights are suspended.

Of course. But in all of those situations, liberty is restricted after due process of law. Which means being formally charged with, or convicted of a crime. I emphasized that because this is the key legal issue. Laws criminalizing abortion deprive a woman of her liberty to make a medical decision regarding her own body without due process. The 14th Amendment categorically forbids that:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

What's wrong with that I also addressed when I said this: "Applying that to abortion - I would argue that the unborn are the most innocent and vulnerable of us all. They have done no wrong, and they should be protected. I believe this because I believe that all human beings are inherently morally valuable. Therefore, I do think the law should protect the unborn, because the unborn are just as morally valuable as I am.

Now, if I didn't think the unborn were as morally valuable as I was, I probably wouldn't have a problem with abortion. Thus, at the end of the day, I think the abortion debate really centers upon how we consider the nature of the life of the unborn. Are they human beings that are inherently morally valuable? Are any of us inherently morally valuable? If not, then abortion is fine. But my foundation of inherent moral worth and value to all human beings logically and necessarily results in the conclusion that at the very least aborting health growing babies is morally wrong, and would therefore be a form of murder - which the government should protect against."

I agree that the potentiality of the unborn as persons shouldn't be ignored. But neither should a woman's autonomy over her own body. So why not a compromise? Up to 20 weeks, abortion is a private medical decision. After 20 weeks, abortion can be restricted. It may not be perfect. But if you're a religious believer, you should know that we don't live in a perfect world.

 

[SPF]

But are the unborn "people?" In the full sense of the word? An embryo is a potential person, but is that really the same as a newborn baby? An acorn is not an oak tree. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. A tadpole is not a frog. Potentiality is not the same as actuality.

A human beings development takes roughly 25 years, yet at no point are they not a human being. A healthy, growing human being looks exactly like a human being and is just as much a human being from one to another at any stage of development.

I agree that the potentiality of the unborn as persons shouldn't be ignored. But neither should a woman's autonomy over her own body. So why not a compromise? Up to 20 weeks, abortion is a private medical decision. After 20 weeks, abortion can be restricted. It may not be perfect. But if you're a religious believer, you should know that we don't live in a perfect world.

Because if you believe that all human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization, you cannot maintain intellectual integrity and compromise and be ok with intentionally killing them because they are inconvenient to their mother.

If I didn’t believe that then sure, a compromise would be fine.

 

[SPF]

Laws criminalizing abortion deprive a woman of her liberty to make a medical decision regarding her own body without due process.

98.5% of abortions are committed for non-medical emergencies. And it’s those abortions I argue are immoral.

 

[jayem]

A human beings development takes roughly 25 years, yet at no point are they not a human being. A healthy, growing human being looks exactly like a human being and is just as much a human being from one to another at any stage of development.

Because if you believe that all human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization, you cannot maintain intellectual integrity and compromise and be ok with intentionally killing them because they are inconvenient to their mother.

If I didn’t believe that then sure, a compromise would be fine.

We're talking on different levels. You're concerned with the moral aspects. I'm concerned with the legal ones. Legality involves practical issues of jurisprudence, legislation, and political consensus. The claim that a fertilized egg should have same legal status as a newborn is just not a consensus opinion at the present time. Honestly, the idea of a one-celled person seems highly idiosyncratic to say the least. Be practical. Accept a compromise that restricts later term abortion as a starting point. Half a loaf is better than nothing. Then work on changing hearts and minds. If you can convince enough of the public that your view is correct, then the laws will change correspondingly.

 

[jayem]

98.5% of abortions are committed for non-medical emergencies. And it’s those abortions I argue are immoral.

And they may be. But we agreed that just because something is immoral, doesn't mean it has to be illegal.

 

[Pooja Sadhu]

Hi all,

I came across this very well made video that explores the topic of abortion by following the pro-life side of things. I kindly ask you to take the time to watch the entire video before commenting.

What are your thoughts? Do you think the maker of this video stayed logically consistent when it came to the pro-life position? Did the video make you reconsider your position or was nothing about it convincing to you?

The pro-life position states that an embryo on day 1 is just as “alive” as a living human being. Pro-lifers believe this because they think that human life begins at conception. But have you seen photographs of embryos on day 1? They don’t look human at all. Instead, they look like a scrambled mass of cells. Embryos don’t even have brains or brain waves. How can they be just as “alive” as humans?

Ask a pro-lifer this question: If you were in a position where you could either save a human life or save 100 embryos at an IVF clinic (one or the other would die), which would you choose to save? The obvious and most practical answer is to save the human being. But if a pro-lifer were consistent with his position, he would embarrassingly say he would save 100 embryos at the IVF clinic and let the human die—which doesn’t make sense in the least bit.

The pro-life position doesn’t make much sense, unless they are arguing against third-trimester abortions.

Embryos at various days of development:

https://www.utahfertility.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/grading-blog-table-1.jpg

 

[gaara4158]

I don't think so. I have addressed this in the past. The most common argument for suggesting that the woman's right to liberty outweighs the baby's right to life is the violinist argument. But that argument fails, and here's a good essay on why. Unstringing the Violinist | Stand to Reason

I don't think that it does. I hadn't seen that type of counter-argument to it before, but there is a good essay defending the violinist argument from that attack. The Violinist Re-Strung

 

[stevevw]

Hi all,

I came across this very well made video that explores the topic of abortion by following the pro-life side of things. I kindly ask you to take the time to watch the entire video before commenting.

What are your thoughts? Do you think the maker of this video stayed logically consistent when it came to the pro-life position? Did the video make you reconsider your position or was nothing about it convincing to you?

Very interesting and thought provoking video. I think this topic has no black and white answers. But I also think there is something disconcerting about the whole idea of the right to ones body above all else. How people are coming up with more and more reasons how they are inconvenienced in life which for me has tipped too far and overlooks the importance of others, the group and community. As the video mentions this could lead to all sorts of possible rights to kill yourself, your fetus even if it was fully formed, dependent people who may need others in various situations. There are many offshoots to this that can relate like being in a position of playing god in creating and destroying life and other ethical situations that may devalue life.

I think the rights campaign comes with unwanted repercussions that people are willing to tolerate but this also diminishes human value as a consequence and this can have further implications. I think true love for others as God has shown is sacrificial and a true quality of being fully human in a spiritual sense. I think that there is a certain strength in giving even if that means sacrificing ones life or time which is being overlooked and we are becoming too self centered. In an age where the individual is made to be god people put themselves first and I really think we are losing an important part of who we are.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, because no violinist would have been killed during an abortion.

We receive our gifts, talents and abilities at conception. We have our whole life to determine if we are going to use what we have to bring honor and glory to God or not. Everyone is special and everyone has their own gifts and abilities to develop.

The Bible says we are to choose life. We know that life is always the right choice to make. We are told that the wages of sin is death. There are times when sin will lead to abortion and this makes the whole discussion more complicated. Esp when we consider that often abortion effects very young girls that were carried away in a moment of passion and gave into the demands of their hormones. When animals give into their hormones to reproduce no one considers that to be a sin, but humans are expected to control their animal urges.