Forums → WEPR → Justify Abortion

So you'd agree with all of the above being fine? For those women to go through with that, knowing death waits for them or the baby, or for victims of rape to be forced to carry a baby to term following that?

No, because abortion is wrong and no circumstances may make something that is wrong right.

So you do agree that women with severe medical needs should be forced to have a birth which can kill both them and the baby and that women who become pregnant through rape should be made to carry that baby to term?

Priests are able now to grant forgiveness for abortions btw.

@Boofuss

So you do agree that women with severe medical needs should be forced to have a birth which can kill both them and the baby and that women who become pregnant through rape should be made to carry that baby to term?

Yes. To do otherwise would be wrong. If they undertake a pregnancy knowing the risks, its their responsibility and they may nod kill the child.

Allowing a woman to die of a foreseen medical condition wouldn't be wrong though? Forcing a woman who was raped to carry the pregnancy to term wouldn't be wrong?

If they undertake a pregnancy knowing the risks, its their responsibility and they may nod kill the child.

@Boofuss

Allowing a woman to die of a foreseen medical condition wouldn't be wrong though? Forcing a woman who was raped to carry the pregnancy to term wouldn't be wrong?

Allowing a woman to die of a foreseen medical condition is wrong; if a woman will have health complications by getting pregnant, than she is wholly responsible for the outcome and should not get pregnant.

If a woman was raped, that is an evil, but one evil does not justify another evil, which is abortion.

victims of rape in your scenario you've created, don't get a choice BUT to undertake a pregnancy. In your scenario, no one has a choice but to follow through with a pregnancy. It's not their choice at that point, you've removed any choice they have by not allowing abortion/

One evil does not make another good. Murder does not justify murder; theft does not justify theft.

@Ntech
Since we're talking about wrong and evil... Arguably, banning abortion is the bigger evil of the two. You cause a lot of pain to both woman and child by forcing a pregnancy that has a high probability to lead to, including but not limited to: death, miscarriage, ruining the woman's career, poverty for the entire family and social injustice in general, illegal abortions which are frankly inhumane, children growing up unwanted, potentially hated for what they represent and mistreated, etc.

People clamoring against abortion usually don't think about, or don't care for, what happens with the child once it's born. All they care is their own morals.

On the other hand, organizations accompanying pregnant women through the process of decision and abortion can offer: an informed discussion that can prevent abortions otherwise caused by misinformation, lack of information or lack of support, and education about relationships and intercourse in general, which is the best ever way to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place.

@Hahiha

Even a greater evil will not justify an evil. People that don't want abortion care about the child. They are the same folks that support adoption.

An object's end is its good, as demonstrated by Aristotle. Since a fetus' object is to be born, its actions then are for that end. As such, its will is to be born since that is its good, the object for which it aims.

That depends on what your version of a human being is.

Nonetheless, what makes up a human is that which functions for its good, and thus a tumor cannot be considered part of a human nor can it be called an independent life-form for its object is not life.

No, I am pointing out that a fetus is as much a viable life-form as you or I, [...]

[...] since it is comprised of DNA like us, it is therefore part of our genus and deserves protection as such.

However the old matter remains and is now deemed a person.

1. Humans are not animals because they are reasoning beings whereas animals act upon instinct alone.

2. Consciousness is intrinsic to every human.

3. Consciousness is unique to humans for animals merely perceive reality and instinctively act upon that.

4. Humankind has superiority over each and every animal for humans were made in the image and likeness of God, furthermore, evolution is impossible (demonstrable and sourceable by me).

1. Because the Church has taught it, using the magesterium granted it by Christ, Who Is God.

2. The Church's teaching on religion is infallilble, and as such its judgement is not open to debate.

In addition, we are arguing on the secular view of abortion, not how Catholics perceive it.

No, @Moegreche is pointing out that by your standards of defining a person, many persons can be considered non-persons.

So the fetus magically fully matures at the moment of birth?

No evidence has been found to support this, or otherwise; in the absence of which, it is reasonable to conclude that qui tacet consentire videtur, or that babies' wills are to be born, for that is their object.

If something is wrong (as I am trying to prove abortion is wrong) then no circumstances may make it right.

Allowing a woman to die of a foreseen medical condition is wrong; if a woman will have health complications by getting pregnant, than she is wholly responsible for the outcome and should not get pregnant.

One evil does not make another good. Murder does not justify murder; theft does not justify theft.

Even a greater evil will not justify an evil. People that don't want abortion care about the child. They are the same folks that support adoption.

Murder/homicide is a very specific legal terminology that doesn't necessarily apply to a fetus. If we take this fetus-murder argument to its very extreme, then the act of ejaculation is itself murder because of the millions of unborn possibilities. It varies from nation to nation but jurisdictions may take the stance that the killing of an unborn child does not constitute homicide.

So abortion isn't strictly murder in the eyes of the law. Then it would be a question of whether the "killing" is morally right or not. In the clearer cut cases of rape it shouldn't be a matter of two wrongs making a right. Rape victims are not going via that logic. It was forced upon them, and they didn't ask for the child and to be given the heavy responsibility. The sex offenders are punished under the law with whatever punishment is legislated for and that is a completely separate matter. The two wrongs do not overlap.

@Fishpreferred
[/quote]
1 As claimed by Aristotle.
2 Pathetic fallacy. A fetus does not have any will.
[/quote]

A fetus' will is its good. Or why is it there?

No, it doesn't. Abortion itself is not discriminatory in any way.

If a fetus is indeed a human, than abortion is murder.

A fetus does not function for the good of the mother. Therefore, a fetus cannot be considered an independent life-form for its object is not life any more than a tumor's is.

A fetus' object is life for it grows into a adult.

1a Humans are animals by definition.
1b All sentient animals are reasoning beings.

1 No.
2 Animals are not sentient. They are instinctive.

Not if you're using any standard definition of consciousness.

What is a standard definition?

No to all of that.

Evolution is impossible. I prove it by this link proving that evolution is impossible, to say the least.

Please wait while we attempt to take your statement seriously. Estimated wait time: 36 years.

...

1 Argument from ignorance. It does not follow that a lack of evidence is evidence to the contrary.
2 There is plenty of evidence that there is at least one stage in development before which a fetus is not conscious (by any standard definition of the term). A blastula, for example, has no brain and no sensory system. It is not conscious.

1 Your position is one of ignorance too. There is no proof that a baby is not conscious at that period.
2 Did they talk to a fetus? If not, how can they be sure? Fallacious reasoning.

The problem is that you will never prove abortion to be wrong. Proof is an objective form of truth, not a moralistic one.

In that case, murder, and homicide can never be proven wrong either.

It's all well and good to say that a woman shouldn't get pregnant. That does not give a woman the choice to not get pregnant. Women who are raped do not get that choice. Women who are not educated about the reproductive process do not get that choice. Furthermore, not all medical complications of pregnancy can be identified before it happens.

They can restrict their activity and stay in places where they won't get raped. It's not that hard to avoid the slums.

1 If two evils are jointly exhaustive, the lesser evil is logically the better option.
2 People in favour of abortion generally also support adoption. There just isn't any child to adopt from an early stage of pregnancy.

1 But good remains the best!
2 When did Planned Parenthood run adoption clinics?

@nichodemus, keep this clean. You are talking about topics that are beyond PG-13. You know of what I mean.

So abortion isn't strictly murder in the eyes of the law.

Were a law unjust, that would not do anything to make it acceptible.

I think what I have referred to is within PG limits because it was used in a sterile manner, but if the other mods disagree with it they can edit my post. I take it too that most of us here are adults or healthy teens who won't feel awkward about the bodily act especially since abortion essentially concerns such matters.

I'm only pointing out that murder/homicide are legal term and hence their usage should matter in this context since abortion is a live political/legal issue. It has important consequences in many countries who are developing and adapting their laws with regard to abortion because murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder can make the world of difference. But if the discussion is more of a moral one then we might agree that the points would center on whether the act of abortion is considered killing, rather than murder. Perhaps it's me being a stickler, but as a law student this point always springs out at me.

So at the end of the day with regard to the more grey cases of rape and medical emergencies, the question of why the mother has to suffer still looms large. If a child was thrust upon her, it might remind her of her rapist. She has no obligation to love a child that she never wanted in the beginning and was in fact forced upon her. She is saddled with the painful burden for life because a man was evil enough to violate her. She is to my eye not committing a wrong or even being unreasonable in asking that the child be taken away before it has fully formed.

@nichodemus, I am trying to point out the philosophical and moral wrongness of abortion, not just its political errors.

the question of why the mother has to suffer still looms large.

It is better for a mother to suffer than for a baby to die.

Less than 2% of abortions occur from rape or incest, matter of factly.

Well yes only a small percentage occurs from rape. But does that mean they should be ignored? I'm not discussing abortion in general, but in those circumstances.

Why is it better for a woman who has been raped to suffer? She is wholly innocent as well in the entire process. And since she's going to be the one presumably who has to take care of the child, she should have the authority to decide whether she wants to go ahead with that burden or not. Just as people have the power to decide whether they should have a child, they should have the power to decide whether or not they want not to have a child in the situation of rape.