Why Abortion is Immoral

[Tree of Life]

Lol. Oh I get the argument all right. I'm starting to think that you don't though...

Even your "square one" has issues. "Normal" isn't demonstrable or quantifiable either. Your exceptions are just special pleading.

But I'll give a particular circumstance just to keep things moving. I think it would be wrong of me to kill my neighbor because he's playing music loud. I think this for various reasons. The one you're most interested in is because as an existent person, killing him denies him something that he already has.

Your turn...

Ok so it's wrong to "kill us", as Marquis puts it. Why is it wrong? Many reasons could be advanced. Killing brutalizes the murderer. Killing harms those who survive the deceased. Killing harms society. But wouldn't you say that there's a more obvious reason? The most fundamental reason that killing like this is wrong is because it harms the person being killed. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[SteveB28]

I don't think so. A fertilized zygote will almost certainly become a person if not tampered with. A singular sperm or egg will not.

Did he mention "singular" structures? No, he spoke of the egg and sperm cell "forming together" and how contraception prevents this formation. Therefore, contraception intercedes to prevent this "formation" from taking place. It therefore prevents the creation of a foetus and therefore potential human being. If you are going to cry 'foul' over the lost 'future' of a foetus, then you must logically cry just as loudly about measures which actively prevent that foetus from forming.

Just as the Catholics do.

 

[Armoured]

yes we know you dont consider human beings as people who have a right to live unless they have a certain degree of intelligence , very dangerous thinking indeed , and a direct result of legalized abortion on our culture . next will be the argument that mentally disabled people are not really people with rights in fact some like yourself have already determined that they are not people because of their lack of intelligence a dangerous road we travel on here.

Enough with the strawmanning. If you want a discussion, great. If you want to rant, well, Free republic is that way.

 

[blackribbon]

Why does wedlock make a difference? Why should the options open to a single woman differ from a married one?

And, you almost 'got it'. The father is not required to honour any responsibility in the carrying of the foetus. None. The responsibility lies completely with the woman.

So, therefore, should all the decision-making opportunity.

The woman pregnant out of wedlock IS treated differently than one who is married. I didn't say we shouldn't care for the married woman who is pregnant, I simply said that we should not be shaming the unmarried one. I don't think EITHER one should be getting an abortion. The baby is a real person and just because they are unable to communicate their needs does not need that their personhood should be discounted.

The choices come before the sperm and egg became a living being.

 

[Armoured]

Ok so it's wrong to "kill us", as Marquis puts it. Why is it wrong? Many reasons could be advanced. Killing brutalizes the murderer. Killing harms those who survive the deceased. Killing harms society. But wouldn't you say that there's a more obvious reason? The most fundamental reason that killing like this is wrong is because it harms the person being killed. Wouldn't you agree?

Pretty much. But foetuses aren't people, so it's not the same.

 

[Tree of Life]

Did he mention "singular" structures? No, he spoke of the egg and sperm cell "forming together" and how contraception prevents this formation. Therefore, contraception intercedes to prevent this "formation" from taking place. It therefore prevents the creation of a foetus and therefore potential human being. If you are going to cry 'foul' over the lost 'future' of a foetus, then you must logically cry just as loudly about measures which actively prevent that foetus from forming.

Just as the Catholics do.

I don't think so. Killing a zygote deprives the zygote of future, human experiences. Stopping a sperm from fertilizing an egg does not deprive the sperm from future, human experiences because the sperm has no future human experiences coming its way. Even if it fertilizes the egg the sperm ceases to exist.

 

[Tree of Life]

Pretty much. But foetuses aren't people, so it's not the same.

We're not quite there yet.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Ok so it's wrong to "kill us", as Marquis puts it. Why is it wrong? Many reasons could be advanced. Killing brutalizes the murderer. Killing harms those who survive the deceased. Killing harms society. But wouldn't you say that there's a more obvious reason? The most fundamental reason that killing like this is wrong is because it harms the person being killed. Wouldn't you agree?

No, I don't believe that's always the most "fundamental reason". But continue...

 

[Armoured]

We're not quite there yet.

It's the fundamental flaw in your thesis of comparing killing one to the other.

 

[blackribbon]

Your anecdote is an extreme outlier. Abortions performed under western medical circumstances are extremely safe and I think it highly irresponsible for a medical professional to be attempting to mount an argument which portrays otherwise. You should be ashamed.

And, fortunately, the bulk of our communities disagree with your draconian position that a woman should be denied her rights to choose after she finds herself pregnant.

And can you please back this argument up? I cared for a very sick young woman. She met all the parameters for a legal medical abortion and she almost died because it is done as an outpatient procedure. An abortion is NOT an easy medical procedure. It is still birth...just before the baby can live outside of the mother. After reading about what this particular abortive medication does to the body, I am shocked that we consider this an "outpatient" procedure. It is very hard on the woman.

 

[Tree of Life]

No, I don't believe that's always the most "fundamental reason". But continue...

Ok. Before continuing let me make sure we're on the same page. It may not be the most fundamental reason, but would you agree that it is an important reason that killing a normal adult human being is wrong?

 

[SteveB28]

I don't think so. Killing a zygote deprives the zygote of future, human experiences. Stopping a sperm from fertilizing an egg does not deprive the sperm from future, human experiences because the sperm has no future human experiences coming its way. Even if it fertilizes the egg the sperm ceases to exist.

And, again, you dishonestly frame the argument as one of a singular structure having a particular outcome. Mr Belk spoke of the egg AND sperm cell TOGETHER being prevented from arriving at a FORMATION. That formation is ultimately a foetus which you so loudly wail about. You have chosen an arbitrary point in time to commence your wailing. This is Special Pleading.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Ok. Before continuing let me make sure we're on the same page. It may not be the most fundamental reason, but would you agree that it is an important reason that killing a normal adult human being is wrong?

It's a reason. For the love of god hurry up and make your point...

 

[Tree of Life]

It's a reason. For the love of god hurry up and make your point...

Ok. In what way is the killed person harmed? Maybe it's pain they experience but the death could be painless and it would still harm them. It seems that the primary harm done is that the killed is deprived of valuable experiences - experiences like ours, human experiences. The killed person is deprived of these experiences that we all value. Experiences they would have otherwise had. Would you agree that this is the greatest harm done to the killed person?

 

[Belk]

I don't think so. A fertilized zygote will almost certainly become a person if not tampered with.

As many as 75% of all conceptions miscarry.

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm

A singular sperm or egg will not.

So the morality is predicated on percentage likelihood of achieving this possible future? At what percentage does the morality of this argument kick in?

Furthermore, the moment of conception is not arbitrary. The sperm and egg cease to exist and a new organism with unique DNA is formed. What's arbitrary about that?

Apparently it is not arbitrary. Apparently you are basing it on a percentage of likelihood so let us look at that.[/QUOTE]

 

[Tree of Life]

And, again, you dishonestly frame the argument as one of a singular structure having a particular outcome. Mr Belk spoke of the egg AND sperm cell TOGETHER being prevented from arriving at a FORMATION. That formation is ultimately a foetus which you so loudly wail about. You have chosen an arbitrary point in time to commence your wailing. This is Special Pleading.

I guess I'm confused as to what situation is being described here then. Could you elaborate as to what you mean by "an egg and sperm cell together"?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Ok. In what way is the killed person harmed? Maybe it's pain they experience but the death could be painless and it would still harm them. It seems that the primary harm done is that the killed is deprived of valuable experiences - experiences like ours, human experiences. The killed person is deprived of these experiences that we all value. Experiences they would have otherwise had. Would you agree that this is the greatest harm done to the killed person?

No, I wouldn't say that it's the "greatest harm" in all cases. But continue.

I'm beginning to think you don't actually have a point...

 

[Tree of Life]

No, I wouldn't say that it's the "greatest harm" in all cases. But continue.

I'm beginning to think you don't actually have a point...

Would you agree that being deprived of future, human experiences is a "great harm" that constitutes the action as immoral?

 

[Belk]

I don't think so. Killing a zygote deprives the zygote of future, human experiences. Stopping a sperm from fertilizing an egg does not deprive the sperm from future, human experiences because the sperm has no future human experiences coming its way. Even if it fertilizes the egg the sperm ceases to exist.

Biologists everywhere are going to be surprised to learn of this revelation.

 

[SteveB28]

And can you please back this argument up? I cared for a very sick young woman. She met all the parameters for a legal medical abortion and she almost died because it is done as an outpatient procedure. An abortion is NOT an easy medical procedure. It is still birth...just before the baby can live outside of the mother. After reading about what this particular abortive medication does to the body, I am shocked that we consider this an "outpatient" procedure. It is very hard on the woman.

Certainly I can:

"
(Reuters Health) - Less than one percent of women getting a medication-induced abortion at Planned Parenthood had a serious side effect or a failed abortion, according to a new study.

Researchers found the rate of abortion-related complications sending women to the emergency room or requiring a blood transfusion, for example, was one in 625 during 2009 and 2010.

"At Planned Parenthood, medical abortion is extremely safe," said reproductive health researcher James Trussell from Princeton University in New Jersey, who worked on the study.

"The most common adverse outcome is just continuing pregnancy," he added. "It doesn't work 100 percent of the time."


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-medical-abortions-are-safe-study-idUSBRE8BJ1CW20121220

This is a classic example of why serious researchers don't rely upon isolated anecdotal evidence to frame their conclusions.