Why Abortion is Immoral

[The Cadet]

If abortion is seriously wrong (as his still-standing argument claims) then it's Thomson's argument that is irrelevant.



We do accept adoption. Adoption is when another person takes full responsibility for the child - so allowing the former parents to completely abdicate their responsibility. In that case the birth mother no longer has this responsibility. But when there is no adoption then the responsibility still rests with the parents. They cannot abdicate it without someone else stepping in and remain morally intact.



I will grant that there is indeed a spacial difference. But why is this difference morally significant?

You make good points, and I don't really have a good answer for them at the moment. If I don't come back to this in the next few days, assume I conceded them.

 

[patricius79]

Constant huh? Can't set that baby down for a second or it just dies does it? It is not possible to leave it in a crib for hours at a time while it is sleeping?

Yes, one can do that. But how long will a newborn survive if it is completely abandoned? Yet deliberately killing a newborn is objectively evil, as with killing a human being the womb.

 

[patricius79]

No, no they are not. .

Please show that. Obviously if there is something moving across my yard, and I'm not sure whether it is a human person or not, I am obliged--by moral science--to not shoot it.

 

[Tree of Life]

No, Newborns are dependent upon others fore care. They are alive without having to be connected to another human being for resources.

All this terminology you're using sounds quite convenient for your view. In reality the lines between "for life" and "for care" and "live independently" and "live unassisted" seem much more blurry. Even the idea that newborns don't have to be connected to other people for resources is very problematic. Newborns may not be connected to a mother via umbilical chord for resources, but they are inextricably connected to other people and dependant on them for resources in numerous other (and equivalent) ways.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Many pro-abortion people would say that, but there is no scientific or rational proof for such a claim. And if someone isn't sure when personhood begins, then they are morally obliged to avoid any killing.

Pigs have a high degree of intelligence and even have personalities. Shall we say it is immoral to harvest them for food? After all, we can point to some humans with diminished capacities that have less ability than the average pig and we would call it a crime to slay such a human.

 

[Belk]

Please show that. Obviously if there is something moving across my yard, and I'm not sure whether it is a human person or not, I am obliged--by moral science--to not shoot it.

What are you talking about? You are obliged by the laws to not shoot it. There is no thing as "Moral science" of which I am aware.

 

[Belk]

All this terminology you're using sounds quite convenient for your view. In reality the lines between "for life" and "for care" and "live independently" and "live unassisted" seem much more blurry.

Perhaps they seem blurry to you. The seem pretty cut and dried to me.

Even the idea that newborns don't have to be connected to other people for resources is very problematic. Newborns may not be connected to a mother via umbilical chord for resources, but they are inextricably connected to other people and dependant on them for resources in numerous other (and equivalent) ways.

Fetus = Physically connected to one specific human being from which it draws everything it needs to live.

Baby = Not physically connected to one specific person. Any human being can provide for it's needs.


Do you disagree with this?

 

[Tree of Life]

Fetus = Physically connected to one specific human being from which it draws everything it needs to live.

Baby = Not physically connected to one specific person. Any human being can provide for it's needs.

Do you disagree with this?

I suppose I understand the lines that you're drawing. They just seem rather arbitrary and subject to all kinds of difficulties. My youngest son was born in a birthing tub (also born in the cull). What was he after he exited the womb, before the chord was cut, and before he drew his first breath? A baby or a fetus? Seems more difficult to draw the line here. Furthermore any line between "fetus" and "baby" in this instance seems rather absurd, artificial, and useless.

I understand that you need to make such distinctions in order to maintain your view but I think the distinctions are rather forced.

 

[Belk]

Yes, one can do that. But how long will a newborn survive if it is completely abandoned?

How long would you survived if completely abandoned? How does that in any way negate the fact that a newborn does not require the use of another humans internal organs to live. It has it's own organs at that point and anyone can take care of it.

Yet deliberately killing a newborn is objectively evil, as with killing a human being the womb.

Cool. So me the math.

 

[patricius79]

Pigs have a high degree of intelligence and even have personalities. Shall we say it is immoral to harvest them for food? After all, we can point to some humans with diminished capacities that have less ability than the average pig and we would call it a crime to slay such a human.

I think that that would be an implication of the pro-abortion (functionalist) position, not the pro-life (being based, essentialist) position.

 

[patricius79]

What are you talking about? You are obliged by the laws to not shoot it. There is no thing as "Moral science" of which I am aware.

In claiming that you aren't aware of any moral science (objective morality), are you saying that killing an infant or other person could be justified if it were not illegal?

 

[patricius79]

Perhaps they seem blurry to you. The seem pretty cut and dried to me.



Fetus = Physically connected to one specific human being from which it draws everything it needs to live.

Baby = Not physically connected to one specific person. Any human being can provide for it's needs.


Do you disagree with this?

Even if anyone can provide for the newborn's needs, the newborn is still quite dependent for care on others. Otherwise he or she will die.

 

[ChurchStumblingBlock]

So would you submit that an unborn child, er, fetus, is not human until delivery, and therefore unworthy of protection under the law-no right to life IOW?

You say this as if it is my domain, when what I say has no value. It is God's decree that matters, and only His. He has made the declaration, not I.

 

[ChurchStumblingBlock]

Biologically, at conception the embryo has distinct human DNA. So by definition what is there is alive and human.

Again you fall back on the scientific definition of what is and is not "alive". A plant is scientifically alive. Does that make it human? No. It is the presence or absence of the spirit that defines human life. When God formed Adam's body, Adam's spirit was not in that clay and dust God used to form Adam's body. The spirit did not enter the body until the first breath, the "Breath of Life".
Even in the case of a human body, when the spirit is absent we call it a dead body, or in some cases declare it "brain dead" even while its functions are maintained artificially. The spirit has left the body, but the body continues as if there's still a pilot steering the craft.

 

[Belk]

In claiming that you aren't aware of any moral science (objective morality), are you saying that killing an infant or other person could be justified if it were not illegal?

Show me how this objective morality is measured and determined. What repeatable tests are performed against?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Pigs have a high degree of intelligence and even have personalities. Shall we say it is immoral to harvest them for food? After all, we can point to some humans with diminished capacities that have less ability than the average pig and we would call it a crime to slay such a human.

According to your criteria (live outside the womb, to understand language, to make moral choices, to have any kind of higher mental life at all) then depending upon who defines such (though moral choices may be a bit much) then a pig may be held to be a person and protected as such.

Unless of course you restrict this to human life, but thus my questions i am awaiting an answer to.

 

[ChurchStumblingBlock]

What is your understanding and exegesis of Exodus 21:22-25?

Two men are fighting, one of whom has a pregnant wife. The wife gets in the middle of the fight and the second man hits her, whether intentionally or not we do not know, but in any case, she either miscarries or experiences premature birth, depending on which translation you read. The Word goes on to say if there is no further harm, the man must pay a "fine" (compensation) to the woman's husband, subject to adjustment by the elders. If, however, there is further harm, the man must pay in kind: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc... This scene being described to Moses and Aaron, BY GOD, is occurring over 6,000 years ago, at a point in time when the practice of medicine was, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. To understand the importance of the context in which this fight occurs, you must abandon the idea of it taking place in today's technologically advanced society. Six thousand years ago, a prematurely born baby would only have a chance of survival if it was in the last 2 weeks of normal gestation, and even that is not guaranteed and if it managed to live, it would be beset by a myriad of ills due to insufficient maturity, especially brain and lung immaturity. So, the notion of further harm is a foregone conclusion if God had been talking about the fetus, and would be a waste of His time to discuss it. Therefore, He was not talking about the harm in reference to the fetus. He was talking about to the mother.
If the man must give his life for having taken a life (the life of the mother), and not have to give his life for having caused the fetus to miss its chance at life, then there is no other conclusion to be reached than that God does not consider an unborn fetus as being alive, in the sense of human life.
It has been suggested that since there are words in the Hebrew language that mean "stillborn" and "miscarriage" and that the word used in this passage in the old Hebrew meant "to come forth", making the passage read "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [comes forth], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." The argument asserts that "come forth" has no meaning attached to say the baby is dead when it arrives. However, such an argument ignores the full context of the situation, namely the state of medicine at the time, which did not yet exist. It is only in the past 50 years that a premature baby more than 3 weeks would have a decent chance of survival, and only in the past 15 years that it could survive as early as 7 weeks premature.

 

[ChurchStumblingBlock]

Hmm... How do you prove that a foetus has no life? And what is ‘scientific life’? Why do you say that a foetus has ‘scientific life’, yet say that claiming that a foetus has life is a flawed premise? Also, how do you use Exodus 21:22-25 to make your point? Have you forgotten that we no longer live under the Old Testament law?

There is no place other than Exodus 21:22-25 by which we can determine God's definition of HUMAN life and when it begins. You think the Old Testament is now no longer relevant simply because of Jesus' crucifixion?? So, under your version of reality, we can thrown out all the Ten Commandments, is that right? Wow! Good news, people: there is now no longer any sin because our Portuguese friend has declared the Ten Commandments null and void. Wooohooooo!!!

Science defines life as when cell division is taking place. Even by scientific terms, that definition is wrong. We know, for instance, that hair and fingernails are composed of cells and that they continue to grow for years after we die.

I will remind you of this: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."- Jesus the Christ, Matt.5:17.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Again you fall back on the scientific definition of what is and is not "alive". A plant is scientifically alive. Does that make it human? No. It is the presence or absence of the spirit that defines human life. When God formed Adam's body, Adam's spirit was not in that clay and dust God used to form Adam's body. The spirit did not enter the body until the first breath, the "Breath of Life".

But it says man became a living soul, not that it was not human before that, nor even that an embryo with a beating heart that would have breathed on its own is not alive, for we are dealing with the creation of the first man out of clay. But read on.

Even in the case of a human body, when the spirit is absent we call it a dead body, or in some cases declare it "brain dead" even while its functions are maintained artificially. The spirit has left the body, but the body continues as if there's still a pilot steering the craft.

And so an abortionist may kill the "content" of the womb a moment before the infant takes a breath.

And thus the Holy Spirit did not inhabit a human person (John the baptist) before birth, but simply a mass of warm tissue it seems, which could be killed or eaten for that matter.

For your criteria means that as long as one is not breathing then they is not alive and thus they are not human persons and thus may be killed, even if this absence of breath is momentary, and may resume. Do you really think such are not human during that period? Or if he/she receiving the equivalent of breathing thru the placenta or artificial means such as during certain operations. Thus during which a death certificate should be written up.

But not if you include proven potential human functionality to your criteria, but then you at least make the embryo a human person at long as it may breath on its own outside the womb, while being the product of human conception constituting human life solves all this.

 

[redleghunter]

Two men are fighting, one of whom has a pregnant wife. The wife gets in the middle of the fight and the second man hits her, whether intentionally or not we do not know, but in any case, she either miscarries or experiences premature birth, depending on which translation you read. The Word goes on to say if there is no further harm, the man must pay a "fine" (compensation) to the woman's husband, subject to adjustment by the elders. If, however, there is further harm, the man must pay in kind: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc... This scene being described to Moses and Aaron, BY GOD, is occurring over 6,000 years ago, at a point in time when the practice of medicine was, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. To understand the importance of the context in which this fight occurs, you must abandon the idea of it taking place in today's technologically advanced society. Six thousand years ago, a prematurely born baby would only have a chance of survival if it was in the last 2 weeks of normal gestation, and even that is not guaranteed and if it managed to live, it would be beset by a myriad of ills due to insufficient maturity, especially brain and lung immaturity. So, the notion of further harm is a foregone conclusion if God had been talking about the fetus, and would be a waste of His time to discuss it. Therefore, He was not talking about the harm in reference to the fetus. He was talking about to the mother.
If the man must give his life for having taken a life (the life of the mother), and not have to give his life for having caused the fetus to miss its chance at life, then there is no other conclusion to be reached than that God does not consider an unborn fetus as being alive, in the sense of human life.
It has been suggested that since there are words in the Hebrew language that mean "stillborn" and "miscarriage" and that the word used in this passage in the old Hebrew meant "to come forth", making the passage read "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [comes forth], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." The argument asserts that "come forth" has no meaning attached to say the baby is dead when it arrives. However, such an argument ignores the full context of the situation, namely the state of medicine at the time, which did not yet exist. It is only in the past 50 years that a premature baby more than 3 weeks would have a decent chance of survival, and only in the past 15 years that it could survive as early as 7 weeks premature.

Good afternoon brother in Christ. Thank you for your response.

You indicted we should not apply our modern understanding of a premature birth surviving in the ancient times of Moses. I agree.

Just as I would offer we should not apply the modern "worth" of a fetus and apply such to the time of Moses. The argument works both ways.

Let's examine the text:

Exodus 21: KJV

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.(KJV)

Bolded above is the point of discussion.

"so that her fruit depart from her,"

Hebrew: 'yeled'

יֶלֶדyeled, yeh'-led; from H3205; something born, i.e. a lad or offspring:—boy, child, fruit, son, young man (one).

Off the top we see this is not a miscarriage. We also see the referred to "fruit" of the womb is born. The language clearly deems this an offspring.

Is there a different word for miscarriage?

Yes.

Exodus 23: KJV

25 And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee.

26 There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.(KJV)

We see above "cast their young" and barren. Let's look at the Hebrew.

Hebrew: shakol

שָׁכֹלshâkôl, shaw-kole'; a primitive root; properly, to miscarry, i.e. suffer abortion; by analogy, to bereave (literally or figuratively):—bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless, deprive, destroy, × expect, lose children, miscarry, rob of children, spoil.

There's the clear comparison. It seems the translators of the KJV understood the difference between a premature birth and a miscarriage.

So now back to Exodus 21.

In 1995 during the periodic revision of the NASB, the translators went back to the traditional rendering of yaled as a premature birth of a child.

Exodus 21: NASB

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Exodus 21:22-25 NASB
http://bible.com/100/exo.21.22-25.NASB

Applying the above we see if the premature birth results in no injury a fine is imposed. But if there is injury the Law applies to mete out justice. Eye for eye...etc.

What we have in Exodus 21:22-25 is the first recorded fetal homicide law.

It makes perfect sense as the "fruit" of the womb is the subject of these verses and not the mother.

We established the difference between yaled Exodus 21 (child alive) to shakol (miscarriage) in Exodus 23.

Both put within proper context using exegesis lends us better understanding.