Abortion is morally wrong

[naimless]

in some cases i think it is

but not in cases of rape etc.

there is a tragic case in ireland where a rape victim has to have her baby

pretty sick tbh

but yeah if you are just a general idiot being promiscuous and getting knocked up you should probably have to face some consequences

murdering foetuses isn't really a good moral solution

[Losty]

[MJ the Skeptical]

Is this thread really still a thing? Abortion is clearly not immoral. Get the fuck out of here theist morons.

[DLJ]

...
I believe it to be morally wrong for non-religious reasons.
...

Completely correct.

Pregnant to-be-mothers must be forced (by law) to carry to full term!

1. The population rate is exploding exponentially

2. The numbers of non-believers / atheists is increasing exponentially

Do the maths!

WTF are we all going to eat?

[answer-is-42]

Prereq: A fetus is a subject (NOT DEBATING THIS ISSUES IN THIS ARGUEMENT)

1) Responsibility for the consequences of your voluntary actions is moral
2) Sex is a voluntary action and pregnancy is a consequence
3) Abortion is by definition a FAILURE to be responsible to the fetus (subject of action for that action
4) THERE FORE (a word I have used MULTIPLE TIMES) abortion is not moral.

Being responsible in general and imagining a social contract with a bundle of cells
...

First, I have not shouted FAILURE AT anyone - I was EMPHASIZING the word in the context of the sentence (dumba$$) not contextually directed at anyone so stating that I have done so ("please stop shouting FAILURE at people who disagree with you." - bold added by me) it is intellectually dishonest and a true straw man arguement.

Regarding morality - each persons morality is there own, I have not disputed that. I have stated my case for why my morality leads to me to believe that abortion is usually immoral - I have NEVER demanded that any DO anything (again dumba$$) if you disagree- well my posts are here, please quote my fallicy and I will gladly apologize.

Back to your arguement. If you read my arguement you would see that I began by stating that the pre-requistite for this arugement is that the fetus is a moral subject/agent/{whatever pompous term you want to put in here}/being. If you do not hold to that belief - as I have stated many times - then this arguement is null from the outset. Whether you should or shouldn't have that belief is a seperate and interesting debate that I would like to have someday (maybe start a thread - that would be fun) but not within the context of this thread. PLEASE READ MY DAMN POSTS.
You state that you only have a responsibility to the woman you impregnate. If she gives birth to a child, then do you have nothing more then financial responsibilty to the child? (I know this is a little off topic and does not really go with my arguement, I'm conceeding that up front but I am just curious to learn more about your morality framework). If you do believe that the fetus is a being then you must have a moral obligation to them as well. As a male (I;m assuming from the context) there is little physically you can do during the gestation, but let me ask a theoritical question. If you could cause a spontanous abortion to the fetus without in anyway effecting the mother (so as to maintain her rights to her body) would it be immoral of you to do so without the consent of the mother? Again, not really directly related to my arguement, but curious about you moral positions and the justifications for them.

Finally "It means accepting that your actions have consequences, and attempting to minimize bad ones. To many, this means not allowing a child to be brought into the world with disadvantageous circumstances." Couple issues. This seems to justify the eradication of anyone who is in a disadvantageous circumstance. Can we go start shooting homeless people because they would be better off dead? What criteria do you use to decide that is better for someELSE to be dead then alive in a given circumstance? Finally minimizing bad outcomes does not really have anything to do with my moral arguement. You can minimize poverty by killing the poor (see above) but does that make it moral? Morality as i see it is about what is right and wrong, not what maximizes good or bad outcomes.

---

Is this thread really still a thing? Abortion is clearly not immoral. Get the fuck out of here theist morons.

First --
FUCK YOU.

I'm not a theist and have repeatly proved that point. Even IF i was (again not) that HAS NOTHING TO DO with my moral arguements. This is a moral question, and if you don't think so then you are a dumba$$ and you should get out of this thread - what did you think you were going to see in a thread labelled abortion is morally wrong? LOL CATS?
If you have an arguement why you believe that abortion is not immoral - you have made a positive claim - then please give it to support your claim or directly address those that have been given. If you have a problem with a theist arguement (as would I) fine - state theism has no validity to you. But I have given a completely secular rational for my belief.

[Losty]

Sugar honey baby doll. This thread is over 100 pages long. If he had a point he probably gave his argument pages ago.

---

Also, I have read your argument. Several times. The problem I see with it is that you make you're being right a condition before you begin.

Ok so let us make two assumptions
A) a fetus is a moral subject
B) the only way to be responsible for a moral subject is to provide it life

Now here's the argument.

If you have sex and get pregnant then having an abortion is morally wrong.



Well that's not really an argument that's an assertion and the rest of your argument is void because the only reason it "works" is because you made that the condition of the argument in the first place.


So, I will give you A, but I will not give you B.
You're welcome to try to convince me again if you're interested. But if providing life is the only way to be responsible for a fetus then you will need to prove that because I completely disagree with that.

[Brian37]

109 pages and it still amounts to NOT YOUR FUCKING BODY!

I do not give one fuck about your religious reasons, or even pretending to mask it in secular reasoning. Pro birth has nothing to do with pro quality of life after birth. So unless you have the money to take care of all those pregnancies you want to force on women. SHUT THE FUCK UP!

If abortion is murder then a blow job is cannibalism. And not one of you idiots want to punish a girl or woman as equally as you want to punish the doctor, which makes your reasoning BULLSHIT.

[bennyboy]

First, I have not shouted FAILURE AT anyone - I was EMPHASIZING the word in the context of the sentence (dumba$$) not contextually directed at anyone so stating that I have done so ("please stop shouting FAILURE at people who disagree with you." - bold added by me) it is intellectually dishonest and a true straw man arguement.

1) Stop EMPHASIZING with CAPS, it's RUDE and POINTLESS.
2) You clearly don't know what a straw man argument is. Please stick to debatey-sounding terms that you understand.

If you do believe that the fetus is a being then you must have a moral obligation to them as well.

I don't know what "being" means to you. I define it as the ability to feel emotions, pain, and other physical sensations. I don't think an early-term fetus can meet that definition, because it hasn't got a developed brain.

As a male (I;m assuming from the context) there is little physically you can do during the gestation, but let me ask a theoritical question. If you could cause a spontanous abortion to the fetus without in anyway effecting the mother (so as to maintain her rights to her body) would it be immoral of you to do so without the consent of the mother?

That question doesn't make sense, because a human fetus is a group of cells with a particular physical collection to the mother.

Finally "It means accepting that your actions have consequences, and attempting to minimize bad ones. To many, this means not allowing a child to be brought into the world with disadvantageous circumstances." Couple issues. This seems to justify the eradication of anyone who is in a disadvantageous circumstance. Can we go start shooting homeless people because they would be better off dead?

No, we can't. They have spent a lot of time and effort developing feelings and world views. The can experience fear and pain, and have a will to live.

What criteria do you use to decide that is better for someELSE to be dead then alive in a given circumstance?

I don't have criteria for that. I have a criterion for deciding whether a pregnant female should carry her fertilized egg cell to term: 1) She wants to.

Finally minimizing bad outcomes does not really have anything to do with my moral arguement. You can minimize poverty by killing the poor (see above) but does that make it moral? Morality as i see it is about what is right and wrong, not what maximizes good or bad outcomes.

Unless you have a compelling description of the "rightness" of forcing some impoverished teenage girl to carry an unwanted infant to term and raise it in a life of poverty, then I'll go with minimizing the impact of her pregnancy by letting her have an abortion.

[FatAndFaithless]

What the hell is this conflation between a woman choosing to abort and social Darwinism/eugenics?

[Brian37]

What the hell is this conflation between a woman choosing to abort and social Darwinism/eugenics?

It is a stupid scare tactic arguing that if we understand the world naturally without a sky hero we will become evil robots who murder everyone by force of government.