Abortion: 10 years as an atheist and I still don't get it

[Nihilist Virus]

Hmm. Well I'd say it's closer to kidnapping, since you'd more or less have to do that to ensure she does not have the opportunity to destroy the fetus. But rape and kidnapping are closely related, at least legally speaking, as they both can carry a life sentence (but that is rarely enforced) and they both have varying degrees, including the least malicious kind (statutory rape, where it is "consensual" sex with, say, a 17 year old, and a parent "kidnapping" his/her child when the child does not even know a kidnap is occurring and is not in fear for his/her safety).


Of course the fetus is a human.  What else would it be? A chipmunk?  I assume you meant to say "person."

And you're right. As it happens a fetus more or less has no rights at all.  But rights are a legal concept, and I'm talking about morality. I illustrated how the law has nothing to do with morality. I hope that is not a point in dispute because in my life I've found this to be painfully obvious.


Uh... ok...?

1. You clearly don't get it forcing a women to carry it to term is equivalent to rape because you are forcing her to use her body against her will and no it's nothing like a kidnapping .


2. My point was it doesn't matter either way and no I'm talking of moral rights not legal ones so I was on point 

3. Not sure what you don't get . We allow parenthood to be choice I was  using this a preempt against the whole "but parenthood is using here body often against her will " and the other argument was to counter the common retort " it's wrong to kill an innocent life "

---

Nihilist Virus Wrote: [/url]

Or maybe you just don't like the brutally obvious and unavoidable fact that abortion is killing your baby and so you're lashing out

Nice argument from motivation

---

@[url=https://atheistforums.org/user-8327.html]Divinity The stigma and majority issues aside, shouldn't people struggle with the decision? It would be those that don't struggle (fetus are like a wart) with the decision I would be concerned with.

Nope the idea is pretty clear cut

---

I don't give half a shit about stigma. Meat and abortion are the same thing. It's the killing of a viable life form with a survival instinct and the capacity to suffer and feel pain so that others may benefit from it.

As opposed to letting another being use someone's body for their own benefit wither knowingly or not

I appreciate the effort you're making in trying to meet me in my language but this just isn't working. Perhaps just type out a response in French or whatever your natural language is and let me figure it out from there.

[Mister Agenda]

@Mister Agenda I was speaking of murder as ending life. If you'd prefer I user unlawful ending of human life then I could rephrase. As fetus' aren't universally agreed upon when they are a human life, and the legality f killing them is in question in some areas; If a fetus is a life and if it is legal to kill them it is state sanctioned murder equivalent to the death penalty and should have just as much legal inquisition as to the cause and moral weight.

If you talk about 'ending life', you're equating ending the life of a fetus with stepping on a bug. If that's how you want to play it, you're going to have trouble making the case that people shouldn't do it, or that it should be a hard decision. We end lives all the time, just by living, it's no big deal. If you're of the opinion that a fetus is a human being that should be treated as a legal person, at least in some respects, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. You don't have to pussyfoot around on what you believe. If you don't believe that, what's your problem with abortion?

@Divinity The stigma and majority issues aside, shouldn't people struggle with the decision? It would be those that don't struggle (fetus are like a wart) with the decision I would be concerned with.

In my opinion, other people's struggles or lack there of are none of your business and private unless your opinion is asked for.
[/quote]

[Simon Moon]

Here's a hypothetical for you.

Let's say that there is a newborn baby whose mother died, that for some medical reason, needs to have a further 7 months of life support from an adult. The infant could be connected to this person's body, who would then be their life support.

Let's further say, that you are a perfect genetic match, and are the only person available to keep this baby alive for 7 months, so it could then live a full and normal life. Without you, the baby will not survive.

Would you be okay with the government mandating, by law, that you be connected to this infant for 7 months? Why, or why not?

No I would not be ok with being compelled to do something, I am however a donor and after I'm dead they can have the parts. Reason stated above.

So then, it must be true that you don't also want women to be compelled to be a life support systems for their fetus for 7+ months.

After all, your not wanting to be a life support system for a baby, is completely understandable. But it would mean (in this scenario) certain death for that baby.

It's a simple bodily autonomy issue. Why is it ok for you to want the rights to keep your bodily autonomy in the hypothetical I poste, but not ok for a women to not have the same rights to her bodily autonomy?

And thank you very much for being a donor!

I received a kidney transplant back in 1989, that is certainly responsible for my continuing survival.

[Amarok]

1. You clearly don't get it forcing a women to carry it to term is equivalent to rape because you are forcing her to use her body against her will and no it's nothing like a kidnapping .


2. My point was it doesn't matter either way and no I'm talking of moral rights not legal ones so I was on point 

3. Not sure what you don't get . We allow parenthood to be choice I was  using this a preempt against the whole "but parenthood is using here body often against her will " and the other argument was to counter the common retort " it's wrong to kill an innocent life "

---

Nice argument from motivation

---

Nope the idea is pretty clear cut

---

As opposed to letting another being use someone's body for their own benefit wither knowingly or not

I appreciate the effort you're making in trying to meet me in my language but this just isn't working. Perhaps just type out a response in French or whatever your natural language is and let me figure it out from there.

I understand that could be difficult .I will try and rewrite my points to make them better understood and I apologize if my tone seems snarky .

[Nihilist Virus]

No I would not be ok with being compelled to do something, I am however a donor and after I'm dead they can have the parts. Reason stated above.

So then, it must be true that you don't also want women to be compelled to be a life support systems for their fetus for 7+ months.

After all, your not wanting to be a life support system for a baby, is completely understandable. But it would mean (in this scenario) certain death for that baby.

It's a simple bodily autonomy issue. Why is it ok for you to want the rights to keep your bodily autonomy in the hypothetical I poste, but not ok for a women to not have the same rights to her bodily autonomy?

And thank you very much for being a donor!

I received a kidney transplant back in 1989, that is certainly responsible for my continuing survival.

That is the compelling case that has been made for why abortion should be legal.  I'm asking why it's morally correct.

We already know that the law is not reflective of morality.  There are things which are legally permissible which we all agree are immoral, such as shady business practices, adultery, etc.  These things cannot be made to be illegal, but they cannot be argued as morally acceptable.

Where the law has tried to be morally correct, it has often failed.  Such as slavery, rights of women, etc.

I'm of the a priori opinion that it is wrong to kill anything that is alive.  Here are my reasons... EDIT: well, there cannot be reasoning to support something if it is a priori. Let's say that these are thought experiments which are consistent with my a priori opinion:

1.) If I were a deity, I would ensure that no living being would suffer or die unless they wanted to.  What do we have instead? A world not only wherein everything dies, but a world with obligate carnivores.  A world in which nearly every living thing with a central nervous system dies in terror and agony.  Any deity who would create such a world would be stupid, evil, or simply unable to do better.

But you don't have to be a deity to consider your participation here.  While you are obviously incapable of being omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent, you actually are capable of being omnibenevolent.  Certainly, it would not be evil for you to be such, or to make such an attempt.  Would an omnibenevolent pregnant woman have an abortion?  I'd think not.  Would an omnibenevolent person use their body as a host for a fetus for 7+ months, assuming it's medically possible?  Absolutely.

And if omnibenevolence is not the the ultimate "goal" of morality, then what is?  Equality?  I'd be interested in your take on defending that or something else.

2.) If we extend the idea of the veil of ignorance further to encompass any living thing, how would you feel about being a pig?  Or a chicken?  Or a human fetus?

The fact that we must kill living things in order to survive does not make it morally acceptable to kill living things.  That would be an appeal to consequences fallacy, often called "rationalization."  The best we can do, assuming we aren't going to just allow ourselves to starve to death to spare vegetables, is to live a vegan lifestyle so that we ensure we do not contribute to the death or suffering of any living thing which has a nervous system.

So I guess the next question is, "When does a fetus develop a nervous system?"  Except that's irrelevant if we are omnibenevolent, isn't it?  And that's what the conversation boils down to: the ideals of morality.  Certainly NOT the ideals of legality.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think I see the problem you're having, now.  

That's not what an appeal to consequences means.  An appeal to consequences is when some proposition is held to be true or false because it leads to (or away from) a desired (or undesired) conclusion.

So, for example:

"No one has answered my questions on the many ways that abortion can be morally justified - because then I'd just have stuck my foot in my mouth and refused to remove it for all these posts, and that would be embarrassing"

Whereas

"If you shoot that child in the chest, they will die" is a simple statement of fact. Just as the statements "I have a compelling moral obligation to abort this child", "The consequences of this childs birth would be be poor for all involved parties" and "The consequences of stigmatizing abortion, morally or legally, are worse than abortion" can be.

Moral good, imperative.
Final moral good, elective.
Avoidance.

If it's still escaping you, we'll take a look at it through the lens of your own statements.

The best we can do, assuming we aren't going to just allow ourselves to starve to death to spare vegetables, is to live a vegan lifestyle so that we ensure we do not contribute to the death or suffering of any living thing which has a nervous system.

If an appeal to consequences meant what you think it does, this would be an appeal to consequences. It also has the unfortunate distinction of being untrue. Living a vegan lifestyle won't ensure that you don't contribute to the death or suffering of any living thing which has a nervous system.

What you're thinking of, is an appeal to nature.

[Nihilist Virus]

I think I see the problem you're having, now.  

That's not what an appeal to consequences means.  An appeal to consequences is when some proposition is held to be true or false because it leads to (or away from) a desired (or undesired) conclusion.

So, for example:

"No one has answered my questions on the many ways that abortion can be morally justified - because then I'd just have stuck my foot in my mouth and refused to remove it for all these posts, and that would be embarrassing"

Whereas

"If you shoot that child in the chest, they will die" is a simple statement of fact.  Just as the statements "I have a compelling moral obligation to abort this child", "The consequences of this childs birth would be be poor for all involved parties" and "The consequences of stigmatizing abortion, morally or legally, are worse than abortion" can be.

Moral good, imperative.
Final moral good, elective.
Avoidance.

If it's still escaping you, we'll take a look at it through the lens of your own statements.

The best we can do, assuming we aren't going to just allow ourselves to starve to death to spare vegetables, is to live a vegan lifestyle so that we ensure we do not contribute to the death or suffering of any living thing which has a nervous system.

If an appeal to consequences meant what you think it does, this would be an appeal to consequences.  It also has the unfortunate distinction of being untrue.  Living a vegan lifestyle won't ensure that you don't contribute to the death or suffering of any living thing which has a nervous system.

What you're thinking of, is an appeal to nature.

Pretty much the only thing you got right was the definition you copy/pasted. So that's a shift in the right direction for you.

We've been over this and I concluded that you're unable to follow the points being made. I remain satisfied that any onlooker would agree. Feel free to check back in when you understand the difference between "abortion is justifiable in ANY scenario" vs "abortion is justifiable in SOME scenarios."

[The Grand Nudger]

The only situation in which an abortion isn't justifiable in the specifics is when there's nothing wrong with the child, no compelling reason other than the halth of the child to abort, and everyone wants to or is willing to have and can care for the child.

IOW, when no one is looking to justify an abortion, lol.

-and even in that situation, it's still justifiable in principle as a policy of avoidance. If you're looking for someone to convince you to have an abortion, then so be it - but if what you wanted to know was how abortion could be justified..that question has already been answered. It doesn't follow that the mere existence of justifications for abortion will convince you or anyone else to have one, and if you don't want to have one..-that- problem is easily solved. Don't.

[tackattack]

---

Sorry NV, it wasn't intentional to not engage, just missed in the scroll. I was attempting to navigate the topic without religiosity being thrown in. Homicide/genocide/killing is not moral, IMO , but can be justified or unjustified. Ie. I would kill to eat and feed my family. I would kill to prevent anaphylactic shock. I would kill to make a safer community. I would kill to defend myself or an individual unable to defend themselves. I would kill in war for an ideal. I would would have the moral weight of those killings on my conscience and the weights would differ based on my ideals and to the perceived value of the victim.

Ok. Well you're still avoiding the question.

Christianity stands or falls on one issue: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's it. If I proved that Jesus never performed any miracle whatsoever except the miracle of rising from the dead, I'd still prove Christianity true even while showing the majority of the gospels to be false.  And the converse is true also: if you proved that Jesus did perform every miracle attributed to him in the gospels except for rising from the dead, and you inadvertently proved with absolute certainty that he did not rise, either physically or spiritually, then you would still be disproving Christianity.

Christians dodge questions, lie, and twist things around.  But there's no reason for that. Just admit that the genocides of Joshua were immoral, because they quite obviously were.  That will be a blow to your religion, sure, but it won't be the death knell. At the very least just admit that you disagree with the decision but that you trust God. But when you dodge and lie, or play stupid games, you're not advertising your beliefs with nobility. I don't think to myself, "I want to be a part of that group! Look how dishonest and underhanded they are! Sign me up!"

If Christians would just be honest and honorable in debate then we'd respect your opinion. So until you guys can do that, you'd be of better service to the unborn by saying nothing because when you open your mouth about abortion you're just going to piss people off.

---

Bolding by me. In case you skimmed I did admit genocide was immoral. I didn't dodge, I didn't twist. The rest of your post was just biased opinion and is worth just as much as you attribute to mine so you can just say nothing unless you'd like to actually read and discuss a topic.

---

@Mister Agenda I was speaking of murder as ending life. If you'd prefer I user unlawful ending of human life then I could rephrase. As fetus' aren't universally agreed upon when they are a human life, and the legality f killing them is in question in some areas; If a fetus is a life and if it is legal to kill them it is state sanctioned murder equivalent to the death penalty and should have just as much legal inquisition as to the cause and moral weight.

If you talk about 'ending life', you're equating ending the life of a fetus with stepping on a bug. If that's how you want to play it, you're going to have trouble making the case that people shouldn't do it, or that it should be a hard decision. We end lives all the time, just by living, it's no big deal. If you're of the opinion that a fetus is a human being that should be treated as a legal person, at least in some respects, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. You don't have to pussyfoot around on what you believe. If you don't believe that, what's your problem with abortion?

@Divinity The stigma and majority issues aside, shouldn't people struggle with the decision? It would be those that don't struggle (fetus are like a wart) with the decision I would be concerned with.

In my opinion, other people's struggles or lack there of are none of your business and private unless your opinion is asked for.

---

I do believe a fetus is a life, and worthy of person-hood. I also know that a definition of personhood is contestable so I was merely breaking it down to it's simplest. It's a life. Killing is either moral or immoral. I don't have a problem with abortion in justifiable circumstances, just like I don't have a problem with killing in the slew of reasons I listed earlier (war, execution, eating, self-defense, etc.).
I agree that other people's struggles are none of my business and I stated early on that in a real conversation I might not even answer if asked my opinion IRL, just to recognize the person's struggle. This is a discussion board though so I consider that carte blanch.

---

No I would not be ok with being compelled to do something, I am however a donor and after I'm dead they can have the parts. Reason stated above.

So then, it must be true that you don't also want women to be compelled to be a life support systems for their fetus for 7+ months.

After all, your not wanting to be a life support system for a baby, is completely understandable. But it would mean (in this scenario) certain death for that baby.

It's a simple bodily autonomy issue. Why is it ok for you to want the rights to keep your bodily autonomy in the hypothetical I poste, but not ok for a women to not have the same rights to her bodily autonomy?

And thank you very much for being a donor!

I received a kidney transplant back in 1989, that is certainly responsible for my continuing survival.

---

I don't want women to be compelled to be a life support systems for their fetus for 7+ months for a justifiable reason. If that reason is because you hate blue eyes or red hair and your baby will have them, I consider it murder. If it's to save the mother's life, or spare child suffering, then it's justified. Neither is a moral choice, it's the lesser of 2 bads. That's why I believe abortion is immoral, but sometimes necessary.
Nothing about the issue is simple, and it deserves thought, discussion and compassion. Most societies don't allow bodily autonomy at the expense of all else.

Congrats, I'm glad you made the list, there's not enough to go around and I'm glad it took.

[The Grand Nudger]

Moral-amoral-immoral. Calling something amoral removes it from moral consideration. It would be the neutral state, neither right nor wrong...unconcerned with both.

Selecting the lesser of two evils is the most common type of moral decision we make. Life is full of exclusively suboptimal decisions.