Secular reasons for and against legalising abortion

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes, people are responsible for their actions and must live with the consequences of their choices. The couple responsible for the creation of the new life is financially responsible for it.

What about a woman who ends up pregnant due to rape? Where does responsibility comes into play?

The justification for abortion in the case of rape is the notion that carrying the pregnancy to term victimizes the woman a second time.

Rape is not the only crime that has lingering damages. A robber’s assault could leave his victim injured for much longer than 9 months, maybe even permanently. At least in the case of an unwanted pregnancy from rape, there is no actual injury, only the potential emotional trauma. I don’t mean to down play the emotional impact of carrying a rapist’s child, but at the same time we are balancing the life of one human against the mental well-being of another, as discussed in my earlier post.

It is important to remember that there are three parties affected by the crime: the rapist, the woman, and the unborn. The unborn was not a party to the crime between the woman and the rapist. If the unborn is indeed a human being, which is a biological fact, then to take away the life of an innocent human because of someone else’s crime would be unjust.**

** …which BTW is why I do not believe substitutionary atonement is the correct Christian sorietology.

[Dolorian]

The justification for abortion in the case of rape is the notion that carrying the pregnancy to term victimizes the woman a second time.

No, the victimisation occurs when the woman is prevented from having a say so in the matter in the same way that she didn't have a say so in being raped in the first place. If the woman chooses to carry the pregnancy to term then there is no victimisation.

Rape is not the only crime that has lingering damages. A robber’s assault could leave his victim injured for much longer than 9 months, maybe even permanently.

In the case of such a permanent injury there is nothing the victim can do about it, which is not the case in a rape which results in pregnancy, where there is the possibility of having an abortion.

At least in the case of an unwanted pregnancy from rape, there is no actual injury, only the potential emotional trauma. I don’t mean to down play the emotional impact of carrying a rapist’s child, but at the same time we are balancing the life of one human against the mental well-being of another, as discussed in my earlier post.

You are very much down playing it. Claiming that all the woman has to face is a potential emotional trauma is quite the simplification. Having a fetus who is the result of a rape developing in your womb has an impact in the woman's life that goes beyond a potential emotional trauma.

It is important to remember that there are three parties affected by the crime: the rapist, the woman, and the unborn. The unborn was not a party to the crime between the woman and the rapist.

There was not a crime between the woman and the rapist. A crime was committed on the woman by the rapist. The woman is the victim here.

If the unborn is indeed a human being, which is a biological fact, then to take away the life of an innocent human because of someone else’s crime would be unjust.

Maybe, but so is preventing the woman from having a choice in the matter in this particular case.

[Neo-Scholastic]

[quote='ChadWooters' pid='774926' dateline='1413408570']

Rape is not the only crime that has lingering damages. A robber’s assault could leave his victim injured for much longer than 9 months, maybe even permanently.

In the case of such a permanent injury there is nothing the victim can do about it, which is not the case in a rape which results in pregnancy, where there is the possibility of having an abortion.

I thought we were considering, for the sake of argument, that the unborn are human beings. In that case terminating a human life to save another is analogous to forcibly removing the vital organ of a stranger to save your own life by transplant.

---

If the unborn is indeed a human being, which is a biological fact, then to take away the life of an innocent human because of someone else’s crime would be unjust.

Maybe, but so is preventing the woman from having a choice in the matter in this particular case.

So you agree that there is a trade-off within that choice: the death of one human being for 9-months of liberty.

[Chas]

In the case of such a permanent injury there is nothing the victim can do about it, which is not the case in a rape which results in pregnancy, where there is the possibility of having an abortion.

I thought we were considering, for the sake of argument, that the unborn are human beings. In that case terminating a human life to save another is analogous to forcibly removing the vital organ of a stranger to save your own life by transplant.

---

Maybe, but so is preventing the woman from having a choice in the matter in this particular case.

So you agree that there is a trade-off within that choice: the death of one human being for 9-months of liberty.

You will first need to present a convincing justification for claiming a fertilized egg is a human being.
You have failed to do so, and until you do, your argument is meaningless.

[paulpablo]

I heard in an audio book about statistics that it's possible that abortion reduces the crime rate, I only have 3 minutes to think about what I'm typing here which is frustrating but it's in an audiobook called freakanomics and it's basically saying abortion stops unwanted babies which turn into unwanted children who basically know they are unwanted and hold a lot of resentment and so on.

[FatAndFaithless]

I heard in an audio book about statistics that it's possible that abortion reduces the crime rate, I only have 3 minutes to think about what I'm typing here which is frustrating but it's in an audiobook called freakanomics and it's basically saying abortion stops unwanted babies which turn into unwanted children who basically know they are unwanted and hold a lot of resentment and so on.

I remember that chapter. I believe the conclusion wasn't quite as simple as "abortion reduces criminals", but rather that areas that encourage pro-choice ideas also happen to have healthier ideas about other things such as gender roles (woman =/= mother by rule) and economic disparity (welfare, help programs, etc).

[Jenny A]

Concerning the question of whether and when a fetus is ever a human being, I'd like to address some semantic confusion. Human is both a noun and an adjective. When we say a human fetus, we don't necessarily mean that the fetus is a human. After all we also talk of human hands, human corpses, human hearts, and human desires and no one makes the mistake of thinking any of those things is a human being.

So my question is, what is it that makes a human being a human being for purposes of being considered a person morally?

Personally, if find the idea that sperm entered egg and thus instant person hood unconvincing. As someone, I'm pretty sure it was Chas, noted in this thread or another recent one, fertilized eggs sometimes split and become twins. Or if there are two fertilized eggs in the uterus one sometimes fuses with and absorbs the other. If we can't tell if we have one person or two, we really don't have any. We just have potential human beings.

I get in trouble with strict pro choice advocates because I don't think exiting the uterus is a magic moment of person-hood. In late pregnancy, the development of the fetus in the uterus and the child outside it is pretty much the same. Both feel pain, react to stimuli, and brain development is pretty much the same. Both can survive outside the mother, but one is inside and one is outside. It seems an arbitrary distinction to me.

Many cultures relied on the distinction of "quick" versus not quick. Quick has meant alive as in "the quick and the dead," and that is roughly the context meant when asking is the pregnancy quick, except that those cultures defined quick as moving in the uterus so as to be felt by the mother.

I don't find that distinction helpful as there are many things not human that move of their own volition or involuntarily. Additionally, whether a woman feels the movement depends largely on her weight (thin women feel movement earlier) and the size of the fetus.

What determines it for me is brain development and a working nervous system. If the fetus's brain development approaches that of a born child and it can feel pain, then that is a human being and not just a potential one. The reason I define a human being this way is because I think it is our brain that makes us essentially human.

How would you define a human being and why?

[vorlon13]

This topic has actually been a challenge for me.

I've been harping at the christers for so long about ensoulment occurring with the first breath upon birth (Genesis 2:7) that I actually haven't considered what my actual position is.

As an exclusively gay male, maybe I shouldn't have one ???

[Jenny A]

This topic has actually been a challenge for me.

I've been harping at the christers for so long about ensoulment occurring with the first breath upon birth (Genesis 2:7) that I actually haven't considered what my actual position is.

As an exclusively gay male, maybe I shouldn't have one ???

I expect that you can look at the issue more dispassionately than most people. So yes, I'd appreciate it if you thought enough to have an opinion.

[Dolorian]

I've been harping at the christers for so long about ensoulment occurring with the first breath upon birth (Genesis 2:7) that I actually haven't considered what my actual position is.

Welcome to the club, it is sort of the same for me, just that I come from a Catholic background

I never showed much interest in these issues and just accepted the position of The Church on it (I was more interested in theological, as opposed to moral, discussions).