Abortion is morally wrong

[Minimalist]

[ShaMan]

Well the issue here, I believe, is it morally wrong or not. If a fetus is a human being than it follows that by their very nature it is wrong to murder them. Right now I am interested in the ontology, the essence of the issue. I believe it to be a very important issue with significant consequences for ethics and civic justice one way or the other.

(bold added by me)

Witch Trials?

The Crusade?

The Genocide of Original People?

ALL, Christian inventions.

[Anomalocaris]

Hard question!
But sometimes there's nothing else to do
If a child is going to be borned with defect. Than better abort him..
Because he may suffer later.

Well the issue here, I believe, is it morally wrong or not. If a fetus is a human being than it follows that by their very nature it is wrong to murder them.

The fact that you chose to obsurdly stretch a definition to obscure the distinction between a zygote and a fully functioning human being in order to obtain your, admit it, religiously inspired, end does not change at all whether it is wrong to kill a zygote - whatever you call it - if its mother wills it.

[Esquilax]

Well the issue here, I believe, is it morally wrong or not. If a fetus is a human being than it follows that by their very nature it is wrong to murder them. Right now I am interested in the ontology, the essence of the issue. I believe it to be a very important issue with significant consequences for ethics and civic justice one way or the other.

Okay, let's accept that a fetus is a human being for the sake of argument.

What other scenario can you even think of where we find it morally and legally acceptable to force another human being to sacrifice their health and body in order to ensure the survival of another?

You're arguing that fetuses are human and then ignoring that we don't grant other humans the right to subjugate the bodily autonomy of others for their survival at the same time. You can't have it both ways.

[Arthur123]

Great responses! If we take morality to be a real entity that must be obeyed, i.e, murdering an innocent for fun is morally wrong than the question is relevant. If, on the other hand you hold to no moral framework(subjectivism,nihilism, ect.) than the quetion becomes meaningless. I shall begin with the presupposition that objective morality exists and work from there. As to the petri-dish example ect,our emotionally attachment to certain criteria has no bearing on that criteria truth or falsehood. Similarly, if a fetus is a human than it should acquire the same rights as any other walking talking homo-sapien. A hair cells are not genetically complete in its human information. Humans, are by definition large animals homo-sapiens that have descended from other homo-sapiens. Fetuses are genetically complete in there information to adequately be classified as one of these beings.

---

Well the issue here, I believe, is it morally wrong or not. If a fetus is a human being than it follows that by their very nature it is wrong to murder them. Right now I am interested in the ontology, the essence of the issue. I believe it to be a very important issue with significant consequences for ethics and civic justice one way or the other.

Okay, let's accept that a fetus is a human being for the sake of argument.

What other scenario can you even think of where we find it morally and legally acceptable to force another human being to sacrifice their health and body in order to ensure the survival of another?

You're arguing that fetuses are human and then ignoring that we don't grant other humans the right to subjugate the bodily autonomy of others for their survival at the same time. You can't have it both ways.

Well if it is morally wrong, than a womans desire to not allow her body discomfort does nothing to change the fact that it is murder.

[Minimalist]

What business is it of yours what a woman who you have never met does with her own body?

[Esquilax]

Well if it is morally wrong, than a womans desire to not allow her body discomfort does nothing to change the fact that it is murder.

You're missing the point: it's not a matter of discomfort, it's a matter of autonomy. That fetus, if it is a person, has no right to attach itself to a woman's body against her will in order to sustain its own life, in much the same manner as a person can't force an organ donation because they'll die without one. That's not murder, it's just the reality of the situation; the fetus will die without that other human body, that other person does not consent to hosting the fetus, and thus it's no more immoral than being able to refuse a request for organ donation, something we also allow people to do.

In fact, it more moral than that, since the fetus won't feel any pain and isn't aware to know that it's dying. You said yourself that if a fetus is human it should have the same rights as anyone else, but even taking that as true that means abortion is okay. Your own argument doesn't even prove what you think it does.

Moreover, don't work from the presupposition that objective morality is real. Demonstrate that it is, or work within a moral framework that's more real than "It's my opinion that the universe says this is immoral."

Edited to add: I also object to the characterization of abortion as "for fun." You could at least try not to poison the well.

[Anomalocaris]

Whether all murder is wrong depends on whether the word "murder" is only used for actions that are in themselves wrong. To call something murder in order to make it seem wrong is foolish. To include something that is not in itself wrong under the word murder only makes it clear that all murder is not wrong.

But using semetics and definition to argue the merit of a particular action is a very religious kind of baffoonery, so I can understand why you find it so hard to leave it behind.

But humor me. What is the justification for deeming the killing of a zygote to in itself be wrong?

[Arthur123]

If fetuses are human beings than the question becomes what business is it of mothers to do with other humans bodies? The answer to me, is clear. If a fetus is a human than bodily rights must also be given to them and murder is ontologically wrong.

[Minimalist]

But the law is against you. Fetuses are not human beings.

This brings you back to the status of mere busy-body trying to inject your religion (btw, your 'god' had no problem with killing babies let alone fetuses) onto someone else.