Forums → WEPR → Justify Abortion
| 136 | 55568 |
I am a staunch opponent of abortion, it being the murder of an unborn baby; so I challenge whoever supports it, to debate with me how it can possibly be right.
-A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body, even when in her mother's womb.
-Abortion is discrimation in the worst form, because it murders a child who came "at an inconvenient time."
-Women regret abortions.
- 136 Replies
1 Inaction does not impart guilt.
If by 'guilt', you meant moral responsibility, then sure it does. Failing to meet a moral obligation that I have would bring moral consequences (e.g. blameworthiness, responsibility, or guilt).
To borrow from Peter Singer, if you're able to prevent to something bad from happening, then you ought to do it. If I see a child drowning in a shallow pond, I should wade in and save it. Failing to do so (i.e. inaction) would confer moral responsibility to me.
This ties into what Boofus is saying. There is something we could do to prevent the death of an innocent (in the relevant sense) woman. Boofuss's point (I take it) is that there are some people who would actively argue against the woman's decision to have an abortion in this case. But his point stands even if we grant that these individuals are passive.
As an aside, I think you're committed to Boofuss's point. The fact that this view is even out there implies that there is some sort of active component. And from a Christian perspective, thought itself would be an active... uh... activity?
A fetus' good is its object, which is to be born.So, its "will" is its "good" and its "good" is its "object" and its "object" is its birth. Rebuttal: Pathetic fallacy. A fetus does not have any "will", "good", or "object".
You did not explain.Murder is the intentional and malicious killing of a legal person. Abortion is the legal destruction of an undeveloped cluster of cells. You are trying to argue that any instance of killing a thing that can develop into a human is murder, which is false. Fetuses, like tumors, are not legal persons and aborting them is not an act of malice.
A tumor's object is not consciousness, a fetus' is.1 Pathetic fallacy. A fetus does not have any "object".
2 If consciousness is an objective for which a fetus can strive, it stands to reason that that fetus does not already have consciousness.
That does not make them creatures of instinct.That's right. The human dependency on instinct is what makes them creatures of instinct. Being primates is only what makes them animals.
Instinct implies acting upon pre-defined scenarios alone, [...]No it doesn't. Instinct is simply having an innate, rather than learned, behaviour. Take laughing and crying, for example: No one needs to be taught to laugh when amused or cry when upset because those are instinctual behaviours based on our emotions.
[...] whereas sentience impliese the ability to think in the abstract.No it doesn't. I gave you the definition. You're conflating sentience with sapience, but even sapience is arguable.
And a fetus does not posess all that?Correct.
They are not a reliable source, [...]Correct.
[...] besides, they cite reliable sources.They quotemined reliable sources, apparently just so they can say either "hay, he doesn't think evolution is proven, so it must be wrong" (inflation of conflict) or "look, he thinks evolution is proven, that means its a religion" (tu quoque). Also, as near as I recall, the official Catholic stance on the origin of species is theistic evolution; basically, regular evolution but with God at the wheel.
No, I can prove it.Then do so.
No, that is not my point.Then you failed to demonstrate your point.
I am not argueing that, but that evil does not justify another evil. Suffering does not justify murder.So? Getting back to the topic (which is abortion, not murder): What happens to the soul of an aborted fetus? Is it destroyed? Is it judged unworthy?
1 Inaction does not impart guilt.But coercion through deceit and force certainly does. If anti-abortionist senators have shut down the only accessible abortion centres, they are forcing women to either carry to term, which can easily have fatal complications, or do it without medical assistance, which can easily have fatal complications. If roving bands of anti-abortionists set up fake abortion clinics or waylay people on their way to real ones (yes, that does actually happen) and fill them with misinformation, including lies about the legal deadline for aborting a fetus, in order to con women into putting off the decision until it's too late, they are forcing women to either carry to term or do it without medical assistance. If anti-abortionists threaten, sabotage, assault, or outright murder abortion providers out of misguided religious zeal, they are forcing women to either carry to term or do it without medical assistance.
2 Because abortionists might have to go to hell for what they did, and I can't stand that.If they aren't following the doctrine of your religion in that regard, it's probably safe to say that they aren't going to be heeding that doctrine in other regards, so unless you're planning to also convert all of these people, it really shouldn't make a difference.
So, its "will" is its "good" and its "good" is its "object" and its "object" is its birth. Rebuttal: Pathetic fallacy. A fetus does not have any "will", "good", or "object".
A fetus exists to be born, does it not? Then to be born is its object. The object of something is its good for the good is what something was made for.
Murder is the intentional and malicious killing of a legal person.
So then murder of illegal immigrants is justified and morally acceptable?
No it doesn't. Instinct is simply having an innate, rather than learned, behaviour.
Exactly. Pre-defined scenarios: if this then that.
So? Getting back to the topic (which is abortion, not murder): What happens to the soul of an aborted fetus? Is it destroyed? Is it judged unworthy?
It goes to heaven, for it did nothing to displease God, and the fault of its death was not its own but that of its mother.
Also, as near as I recall, the official Catholic stance on the origin of species is theistic evolution; basically, regular evolution but with God at the wheel.
But they do not imbue the Big Bang with the title of First Mover.
But coercion through deceit and force certainly does.
So in England where guns are outlawed through force, the murder of someone is the fault of the state because the state prevented him from having a gun and being able to defend himself?
If they aren't following the doctrine of your religion in that regard, it's probably safe to say that they aren't going to be heeding that doctrine in other regards, so unless you're planning to also convert all of these people, it really shouldn't make a difference.
I care about everyone and nobody should go to hell.
I care about everyone and nobody should go to hell.
I think my issue with that kind of "care" is that forcing someone to suffer something horrendous in the name of "good", such as forcing someone to live with the physical product of rape, means that that good action is negated. It's not like physiotherapy where undergoing some pain is ultimately for a beneficial result, that's just causing untold mental damage to a person for no reason other than that a clump of cells may have happened.
If God can see a person's "worth" upon their death, and that God can then pardon sins, why is it that it's necessary to have a middle stage where people, who aren't God, such as yourself, need to get involved to such an extent in the affairs of others? This goes for abortion, sexual orientation, any "sin" really.
If God can see the "worth" of someone who sins, then upon their death, why is it that that God can't then grant forgiveness?
There is something we could do to prevent the death of an innocent (in the relevant sense) woman. Boofuss's point (I take it) is that there are some people who would actively argue against the woman's decision to have an abortion in this case. But his point stands even if we grant that these individuals are passive
Exactly it. If you're making it "wrong" to do something for people, even if it's just verbal judgement, you're not inactive.
A fetus exists to be born, does it not? Then to be born is its object. The object of something is its good for the good is what something was made for.Oh, I see. So an EVA's object is to facilitate the abortion of fetuses, because that's what it was made for. Therefore, by your reasoning, we can conclude that it has its own will and a desire to perform its intended function. That's a pathetic fallacy.
So then murder of illegal immigrants is justified and morally acceptable?1 Obviously not what legal personhood means.
2 Murder is never morally acceptable because anything morally acceptable cannot be murder.
Exactly. Pre-defined scenarios: if this then that.A trivialization which extednds directly to every action you've ever made.
It goes to heaven, for it did nothing to displease God, and the fault of its death was not its own but that of its mother.Then what's the problem? If your concern is for "the baby", why would you object to its soul being assured entry to heaven?
But they do not imbue the Big Bang with the title of First Mover.Yeah, so?
So in England where guns are outlawed through force, the murder of someone is the fault of the state because the state prevented him from having a gun and being able to defend himself?No, because a) having a gun is not the ability to defend oneself and b) the murderer is at fault for the murder.
I think my issue with that kind of "care" is that forcing someone to suffer something horrendous in the name of "good", such as forcing someone to live with the physical product of rape, means that that good action is negated.
Would you rather have an abortion and look forward to eternal sufferent beyond comprehension, or die and go to heaven where you will live in eternal bliss?
If God can see a person's "worth" upon their death, and that God can then pardon sins, why is it that it's necessary to have a middle stage where people, who aren't God, such as yourself, need to get involved to such an extent in the affairs of others?
It's a chance to prove ourselves for what we are.
This goes for abortion, sexual orientation, any "sin" really.
There is no such thing as sexual orientation. If you're born with male genetic organs, then you're a male. If you're born with female genetic organs, then you're a female. You cannot "reorient" yourself.
Would you rather have an abortion and look forward to eternal sufferent beyond comprehension, or die and go to heaven where you will live in eternal bliss?
You are always free to share your opinion of course, but as has been said before, what people do in the end are their decision. As incredible as it may sound, other people can have beliefs that do not agree with yours. As I said before, if there is a God, then He will judge us all as He sees fit. I'm pretty sure that wanting to do so in His stead is pretty bad by Christian standards.
There is no such thing as sexual orientation. If you're born with male genetic organs, then you're a male. If you're born with female genetic organs, then you're a female. You cannot "reorient" yourself.
The only thing you got right there is the last part about not reorienting oneself. Apart from that, hooo boy, things are that much more complicated. But this is a topic that would deserve its own thread, so maybe let's stay away from this here.
I was just getting into his points regarding sexual orientation, which by the way isn't what gender you identify as (that's gender identity), it's which gender/s you're attracted to, but then saw HahiHa's "let's stay away from this here" so ok I'm waiting for the thread about that to pop up
So for now, I'll settle with his other point.
Would you rather have an abortion and look forward to eternal sufferent beyond
comprehension, or die and go to heaven where you will live in eternal bliss?
Honestly? I'd take the here and now over the promise of something which may not even be.
If I can limit the suffering of people around me, I'll do that.
I don't adhere to things for the promise of a reward, I don't try and do the right thing because I think it'll get my soul into heaven.
I try and do the right thing because it's the right thing.
I try my best to just be nice, no matter what, it's not always easy, I don't always manage it, but I try my best to help in the world wherever I can and I think that's all that can be asked of anyone.
Would you rather have an abortion and look forward to eternal sufferent beyond comprehension, or die and go to heaven where you will live in eternal bliss?
Nice false dilemma
It's a chance to prove ourselves for what we are.
Even in the case your God exists, we are all proving ourselves to him, not to you.
There is no such thing as sexual orientation. If you're born with male genetic organs, then you're a male. If you're born with female genetic organs, then you're a female. You cannot "reorient" yoursel
As it has been discussed in the other thread, things are a little more complex than that
@Ntech Just out of curiosity, do you know how many zygotes (fertilized eggs) ever develop into a baby/infant (are born) if left alone, and if not what do you estimate?
Nice false dilemma
Would you please expound on the alternative option you claimed to exist?
Even in the case your God exists, we are all proving ourselves to him, not to you.
I never claimed otherwise.
Even in the case your God exists, we are all proving ourselves to him, not to you.
I never claimed otherwise.
Then what does it matter what people choose to do, if at the end people are proving themselves to God anyway?
@Ntech Just out of curiosity, do you know how many zygotes (fertilized eggs) ever develop into a baby/infant (are born) if left alone, and if not what do you estimate?
It's less than a third, in case you were wondering. Less than 70% of all fertilized eggs even implant in the womb to begin with. Of those, more than half are naturally aborted before the pregnancy is even detected. In total, approx. 31% of all fertilized eggs will ever be born alive, the rest are naturally aborted by the organism.
A reasonable (in the context) question could thus be, "Is God a mass murderer?"
You must be logged in to post a reply!