Abortion

[Marisa]

I DO appreciate your concern for the young and impressionable as well as the abused. My center was in a college town with many high schools also. You do understand, that by younger, however, I'm not talking of 35-year-olds who felt a late, last child wasn't the best idea. I'm talking about 23-year-old grad students, unwed, supported financially by parents, on down.

That's interesting. I was 32 when I started, as was my mother. Perhaps there's some benefit to bothering to grow up before having kids.

 

[1robin]

There are a lot of religious arguments (and general political ones) against abortion. But I think that the argument, generally speaking, demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of the everyman.

So you're against abortion for whatever reason, but consider this argument from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"Most abortions are spontaneous and happen naturally within the human body. Most women who have such an abortion never know it because it happens within the first month. It is very, very common. So in fact the biggest abortionist, if god is responsible for what goes on in your body, is god."

Now when he says 'very common' what he means is 50-70%. That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.

So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

There are two issues brought up here.

1. Comparing (assuming first we blame God with all natural events) God's sovereignty with ours.
2. How can we determine or attempt to do so whether abortion is right or wrong.

1. As for the first one. We must start by assuming something we can not know and which is irrelevant either way. I think it theologically unsound to attribute to God's preference or active will all natural events. The bible does not say and never suggests that God actively causes al events that occur. It merely states that God is aware of all events. However either way this is really irrelevant. Comparing our limited knowledge and lack of any ultimate sovereignty against God's complete sovereignty and infinite knowledge. It is infinitely more absurd to do this than it would be for an ant to judge whether Newton got calculus right. It is simply a meaningless issue which we are not equipped to know or judge.

2. The second point is more meaningful. I have often wondered if there is any way in a secular sense to attempt to determine whether any position on abortion is sufficiently justifiable. There is no way without God to know whether any opinion about abortion is correct or not. In fact without God there is no objective rightness concerning abortion for our opinions to be judged. However there is a method by which we can justify a position on abortion without any certainty if we are right or if there is any actual right to be.

A. Given the fact that society must (or at least will) produce some laws to govern moral issues such as abortion I will not bother to justify our need to have some rules of some kind.
B. So granting we must make laws of some kind in this case how can we justify any law we make.
1. It is abjectly absurd to debate any time frame which the day previous it was morally excusable to kill a life in the womb, and the day after it is completely morally reprehensible to do so. To do so requires making so many arbitrary assumptions that whatever is produced is completely contrived. So the only relevant issue is whether abortion at anytime is justifiable or not.
2. Neither the atheist or the theist has any certainty what so ever whether taking a life in the womb is morally excusable or not. (By the way this only concerns taking a human life for the sake of convenience, to do so for the sake of medical necessity is an altogether different animal).

So the issue comes down to this in general.

Those who support abortion and are traditionally more secular minded have no way what so ever of determining if abortion is justifiable or not. However this group gambles on death for the sake of convenience despite being in complete ignorance. The most common and deplorable justification for doing is usually some mysterious rights granted to the mother, but which exact same rights are denied to the fetus, despite having the theoretical basis for either party having any inherent rights of any kind. This is not a position founded in sufficient reason, but is instead founded in preference and hypocrisy.

Those who deny abortion and are traditionally more theologically minded and likewise have no way what so ever (in a secular sense) to determine if abortion is excusable or not. This group (granting the ignorance) gambles on life instead of death, and does not let self interest in their own convenience wrongly justify the taking of another's life. This group despite having a theoretical basis for inherent rights does not strip the exact same rights from one individual by demanding it for the other but consistently grants both individuals the same rights.

Neither group's position is grounded in certainty but only the latter group is grounded in reason.

 

[Marisa]

There are two issues brought up here.

1. Comparing (assuming first we blame God with all natural events) God's sovereignty with ours.
2. How can we determine or attempt to do so whether abortion is right or wrong.

1. As for the first one. We must start by assuming something we can not know and which is irrelevant either way. I think it theologically unsound to attribute to God's preference or active will all natural events. The bible does not say and never suggests that God actively causes al events that occur. It merely states that God is aware of all events. However either way this is really irrelevant. Comparing our limited knowledge and lack of any ultimate sovereignty against God's complete sovereignty and infinite knowledge. It is infinitely more absurd to do this than it would be for an ant to judge whether Newton got calculus right. It is simply a meaningless issue which we are not equipped to know or judge.

2. The second point is more meaningful. I have often wondered if there is any way in a secular sense to attempt to determine whether any position on abortion is sufficiently justifiable. There is no way without God to know whether any opinion about abortion is correct or not. In fact without God there is no objective rightness concerning abortion for our opinions to be judged. However there is a method by which we can justify a position on abortion without any certainty if we are right or if there is any actual right to be.

A. Given the fact that society must (or at least will) produce some laws to govern moral issues such as abortion I will not bother to justify our need to have some rules of some kind.
B. So granting we must make laws of some kind in this case how can we justify any law we make.
1. It is abjectly absurd to debate any time frame which the day previous it was morally excusable to kill a life in the womb, and the day after it is completely morally reprehensible to do so. To do so requires making so many arbitrary assumptions that whatever is produced is completely contrived. So the only relevant issue is whether abortion at anytime is justifiable or not.
2. Neither the atheist or the theist has any certainty what so ever whether taking a life in the womb is morally excusable or not. (By the way this only concerns taking a human life for the sake of convenience, to do so for the sake of medical necessity is an altogether different animal).

So the issue comes down to this in general.

Those who support abortion and are traditionally more secular minded have no way what so ever of determining if abortion is justifiable or not. However this group gambles on death for the sake of convenience despite being in complete ignorance. The most common and deplorable justification for doing is usually some mysterious rights granted to the mother, but which exact same rights are denied to the fetus, despite having the theoretical basis for either party having any inherent rights of any kind. This is not a position founded in sufficient reason, but is instead founded in preference and hypocrisy.

Those who deny abortion and are traditionally more theologically minded and likewise have no way what so ever (in a secular sense) to determine if abortion is excusable or not. This group (granting the ignorance) gambles on life instead of death, and does not let self interest in their own convenience wrongly justify the taking of another's life. This group despite having a theoretical basis for inherent rights does not strip the exact same rights from one individual by demanding it for the other but consistently grants both individuals the same rights.

Neither group's position is grounded in certainty but only the latter group is grounded in reason.

Let me just drill this down for you. No person whether born or unborn has any more rights than any other person, born or unborn. This includes the special privilege of forcing another person to donate any of their organs to prolong that life. Simple.

 

[1robin]

Let me just drill this down for you. No person whether born or unborn has any more rights than any other person, born or unborn. This includes the special privilege of forcing another person to donate any of their organs to prolong that life. Simple.

Whether this is this simplistic or not is irrelevant. The argument here does not depend on this issue, in fact I made a secular argument that did not presume this. It is those who lack a theological foundation for these rights who are using them as an excuse to deny the exact same rights to another. So it is very likely you are wrong. Even if right can not know it. Even if right and you could know that you were this is not the pivotal issue here. Even if right, you knew it, and it is relevant it is the abortionist side that is running afoul of your assumption not the theistic side which I support.

 

[Nietzsche]

2. Neither the atheist or the theist has any certainty what so ever whether taking a life in the womb is morally excusable or not. (By the way this only concerns taking a human life for the sake of convenience, to do so for the sake of medical necessity is an altogether different animal).

But that's what laws are for. There is no reason for you to be unable to buy beer or cigarettes the day before you turn whatever the legal age happens to be. That extra 24 hours isn't going to change much of anything. But that law is in place because otherwise we're just winging it, relying entirely on individual experiences that can and will run the gambit from good to terrible. Same thing applies to abortion. It being legal until X or Y is for the sake of simplicity, functionality and applicability.

So the issue comes down to this in general.

Those who support abortion and are traditionally more secular minded have no way what so ever of determining if abortion is justifiable or not. However this group gambles on death for the sake of convenience despite being in complete ignorance. The most common and deplorable justification for doing is usually some mysterious rights granted to the mother, but which exact same rights are denied to the fetus, despite having the theoretical basis for either party having any inherent rights of any kind. This is not a position founded in sufficient reason, but is instead founded in preference and hypocrisy.

Those who deny abortion and are traditionally more theologically minded and likewise have no way what so ever (in a secular sense) to determine if abortion is excusable or not. This group (granting the ignorance) gambles on life instead of death, and does not let self interest in their own convenience wrongly justify the taking of another's life. This group despite having a theoretical basis for inherent rights does not strip the exact same rights from one individual by demanding it for the other but consistently grants both individuals the same rights.

A fetus becomes a person, it doesn't start as one. Neither you nor I expect sperm & eggs to have the same rights & laws as people. They are just as much an intermediary stage to becoming a person as a fetus(prior to being viable outside the womb) is. But we classify sperm & eggs as parts of the individual they come from. Because without that person, they're dead. Wholly dependent on that individual to survive. A fetus is no different except in regards to it being "more human" than sperm or eggs are.

It is better to err on the side of a person we know exists rather than a person that might exist.

 

[1robin]

But that's what laws are for. There is no reason for you to be unable to buy beer or cigarettes the day before you turn whatever the legal age happens to be. That extra 24 hours isn't going to change much of anything. But that law is in place because otherwise we're just winging it, relying entirely on individual experiences that can and will run the gambit from good to terrible. Same thing applies to abortion. It being legal until X or Y is for the sake of simplicity, functionality and applicability.

Are you saying all our laws are granted an assumed legitimacy no matter what the stakes because they are necessary? BTW we are not talking about buying cigarettes here. If I am going to justify depriving another's life of everything it has or ever will have I hope I do so with more justification than the excuse well I had to draw the line somewhere. An arbitrary and unjustifiable rule does not gain justification by it's necessity (not there is any necessity to draw a line). Also the reasoning of my argument does not necessarily apply to all legality. We should require more justification for laws that destroy a hundred million lives than restrict our drinking. Nor drawing any line for abortion (not allowing it) is at least as functional and imperative as allowing it with arbitrary limits.

A fetus becomes a person, it doesn't start as one. Neither you nor I expect sperm & eggs to have the same rights & laws as people. They are just as much an intermediary stage to becoming a person as a fetus(prior to being viable outside the womb) is. But we classify sperm & eggs as parts of the individual they come from. Because without that person, they're dead. Wholly dependent on that individual to survive. A fetus is no different except in regards to it being "more human" than sperm or eggs are.

Ok you tell me (with enough certainty to justify death) when it becomes a person and how you know. As I said no one here has certainty. I suggest we gamble for life.

It is better to err on the side of a person we know exists rather than a person that might exist.

What does that even mean? How does anyone know what defines a person and how that determines the right to life in any objective sense. This also falsely assumes it is one or the other despite the majority of abortions being for convenience not necessity. I could make an even better argument that the value of a life yet to live is greater than a life half already lived. We may have aborted the guy who cured cancer and Nietzsche's Uberman by now. You cannot make convincing value arguments in this context, not that any should be attempted in this case.


I do not care what language you use in the attempt. All efforts like the one above will equal merely preference and opinion, and that wholly lacks any justification necessary to justify 100 millions unnecessary deaths.

 

[McBell]

Whether this is this simplistic or not is irrelevant. The argument here does not depend on this issue, in fact I made a secular argument that did not presume this. It is those who lack a theological foundation for these rights who are using them as an excuse to deny the exact same rights to another. So it is very likely you are wrong. Even if right can not know it. Even if right and you could know that you were this is not the pivotal issue here. Even if right, you knew it, and it is relevant it is the abortionist side that is running afoul of your assumption not the theistic side which I support.

Try all you like to dismiss the point, the point still stands in the way.

 

[Nietzsche]

Are you saying all our laws are granted an assumed legitimacy no matter what the stakes because they are necessary? BTW we are not talking about buying cigarettes here. If I am going to justify depriving another's life of everything it has or ever will have I hope I do so with more justification than the excuse well I had to draw the line somewhere. An arbitrary and unjustifiable rule does not gain justification by it's necessity (not there is any necessity to draw a line). Also the reasoning of my argument does not necessarily apply to all legality. We should require more justification for laws that destroy a hundred million lives than restrict our drinking. Nor drawing any line for abortion (not allowing it) is at least as functional and imperative as allowing it with arbitrary limits.


Ok you tell me (with enough certainty to justify death) when it becomes a person and how you know. As I said no one here has certainty. I suggest we gamble for life.

Tell me, how do you feel about the Death Penalty?

What does that even mean? How does anyone know what defines a person and how that determines the right to life in any objective sense. This also falsely assumes it is one or the other despite the majority of abortions being for convenience not necessity. I could make an even better argument that the value of a life yet to live is greater than a life half already lived.

It means that the fetus is not yet a person. And as others have mentioned, even if it is a person, no one is obligated to keep someone else alive. No one, man or woman, is obligated to be a host-organism or organ-farm for anyone against their will. Not to mention that abortions will happen. Making them illegal just opens up a black-market for the service, to funnel more money into organized crime, and removing all possible regulation & oversight.

You have two options regarding abortion if you don't want the black-market thing to happen;

1. Keep it legal.

2. Render it illegal and then be prepared to foot the bill to care for the woman carrying the child(that she does not want) and also to pay for the care the child will need after it is born.

We may have aborted the guy who cured cancer and ... You cannot make convincing value arguments in this context, not that any should be attempted in this case.

Or Hitler 2.0. All things being equal and such. Don't toss around the "cancer cure" and the like without recognizing that we've also gotten rid of an equal or greater number of monsters.

Nietzsche's Uberman by now.

Quibble time; the Ubermench is attainable by all people. It's a state of mind or system of philosophy brought about by choice.

I do not care what language you use in the attempt. All efforts like the one above will equal merely preference and opinion, and that wholly lacks any justification necessary to justify 100 millions unnecessary deaths.

Appeals to emotion aren't going to work with me.

Deaths? 88%(or more) abortions are done before the 12-week mark. This is something about the size of a lime at this point. It's also just now forming the most basic nerves. It's less developed neurologically at this stage than most invertebrates.

 

[Marisa]

Whether this is this simplistic or not is irrelevant. The argument here does not depend on this issue, in fact I made a secular argument that did not presume this. It is those who lack a theological foundation for these rights who are using them as an excuse to deny the exact same rights to another. So it is very likely you are wrong. Even if right can not know it. Even if right and you could know that you were this is not the pivotal issue here. Even if right, you knew it, and it is relevant it is the abortionist side that is running afoul of your assumption not the theistic side which I support.

Yes, it does. This argument is about whether a woman's bodily autonomy is as precious as anyone else's. It's just that simple. I'm not wrong because our society does not accept the idea of special pleading.

ETA: "abortionist" is only slightly offensive. FYI.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, the position of the "pro-choice" movement is not based on abortion, it is based on bodily autonomy. This is why "pro-abortion" is an extremely misleading classification, whereas "pro-choice", or protecting a woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body, is accurate.

This is arbitrary.
I'm arbitrary too, but I see it differently.
To be "pro-abortion" means to favor the legality of abortion. No other interpretation is common.
And as we libertarians say, "We're pro-choice on everything.", including.....
- The right to choose when we die.
- The right to choose serving in the military or not.
- The right to contraception & abortion. (I've never personally used the latter right.)
- The right to choose circumcision or not (for oneself...not for others).
- There are more choices.

I don't disrespect anyone's identifying as "pro-choice", but I'm both that & "pro-abortion".
The latter is more specific, accurate, unambiguous, cromulent, acceptable & entirely ethical.

 

[thau]

This is arbitrary.
I'm arbitrary too, but I see it differently.
To be "pro-abortion" means to favor the legality of abortion. No other interpretation is common.
And as we libertarians say, "We're pro-choice on everything.", including.....
- The right to choose when we die.
- The right to choose serving in the military or not.
- The right to contraception & abortion. (I've never personally used the latter right.)
- The right to choose circumcision or not (for oneself...not for others).
- There are more choices.

I don't disrespect anyone's identifying as "pro-choice", but I'm both that & "pro-abortion".
The latter is more specific, accurate, unambiguous, cromulent, acceptable & entirely ethical.

You had me right up until “entirely ethical.” : )

Re: Libertarianism --- Even though I agree the govt is way too invasive, corrupt and ineffective; giving people the rights to choose everything and anything for themselves doesn’t seem to be working well either. - - - (of course my solutions are not popular at all, so no need to revisit that.)

 

[Nietzsche]

You had me right up until “entirely ethical.” : )

Perhaps one could say it is at least more ethical...?

 

[thau]

Abortion being "wrong" is not an argument against bodily autonomy. Thus, it is irrelevent to the conversation. If you want to provide an argument as to why the "choice" in "pro-choice" should not be available, you must argue against a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

"bodily autonomy" --- that sounds pretty one sided to me. Maybe we can appease the evolution crowd and just refer to it as "natural selection."

(I respect your right to hold your own opinions and ideas of right and wrong. Very few switch sides on this subject.)

 

[Revoltingest]

You had me right up until “entirely ethical.” : )

Of course, "ethical" will differ from person to person.

Re: Libertarianism --- Even though I agree the govt is way too invasive, corrupt and ineffective; giving people the rights to choose everything and anything for themselves doesn’t seem to be working well either. - - - (of course my solutions are not popular at all, so no need to revisit that.)

Empowering people to make their own decisions regarding their own livews means that we won't like some people's choices.
I can live with that.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

My opinion has nothing to do with religion and just what is best for the human family.
Tom

How is your opinion 'just what is best for the human family?' I'm not sure what you are mean by this? In all practical situations (i.e. what would be best in practical terms) abortion is natural process and in fact is the norm for most pregnancies in the animal (and human) kingdom. If 3 million years of evolution has produced a species that spontaneously aborts most pregnancies based on environmental feedback mechanisms, and this type of feedback mechanism is not only the norm but universally successful in evolutionary terms throughout the sexually reproducing world (not only animals, but plants as well), then the question I pose is how on earth can you assert that arbitrarily sacrificing the option of the normal, natural, successful, and universal trait, best for the 'family?'

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

"bodily autonomy" --- that sounds pretty one sided to me. Maybe we can appease the evolution crowd and just refer to it as "natural selection."

(I respect your right to hold your own opinions and ideas of right and wrong. Very few switch sides on this subject.)

LOL...autonomy..sound one sided...CLASSIC, just CLASSIC.

However the idea of bodily autonomy is 180 against natural selection. Natural selection completely ignores any kind of autonomy. You couldn't be further from conclusion couldn't be further from your premise.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Mr Tyson's observation is irrelevant to the issue.

It's the knowledge and control that makes artificial abortion an issue. Lots of people die as children, that doesn't mean you can kill them if you change your mind about parenthood.

Tom

So, If god is in control of all these spontaneous abortions, and god has knowledge of what he is doing, then....try again to explain how Mr. Tyson's observation is irrelevant to the issue? Because so far you have made his point, not refruted it.

Thinking outlaid here...you say it is the knowledge and control that makes abortion an issue. God has complete knowledge and control...Mr. Tyson says look at what god's doing...And you retort that Tyson's observation is irrelevant to the issue because it is knowledge and control that makes abortion an issue...

Sorry..I'm either going to have to find an escape loop to your logic or my brain will explode.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

If there is no life at conception, how does the fetus develop?

But there is life when a bacteria buds! There is life, in biological terms, in an unfertilized egg, in ten million sperm cells looking for that egg. 9,999,999 of those LIVING sperm cells are going to die. That last one most likely will die. When I clap my hands I KILL thousands of living (life) cells.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you need to discern between LIFE (bacteria) and whatever you see as entitled life?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

It's actually my Mom who is radically anti-abortion, but I don't think she believes life begins at conception.

Personally, I am anti-abortion, but that is a personal preference. Even more so I am pro-choice, and that is a matter of principle and human compassion. I do not believe life starts at conception. I believe life started once. I believe every sperm is alive, and therefore every act of sex is the abortion of 10 to 20 million possible humans. I believe every ova is alive, and therefore every menstrual cycle is the death of a potential child.

When it is scientific fact that 70% of fertilized fetuses result in spontaneous abortions, I must strive to justify forcibly refusing early term abortions based merely on MY EVAUATION of the situation; I find myself believing only the pregnant party can make that choice.

Plants do it, animals do it, god does it! Only a self-righteous individual could raise themselves above all nature and god and decide for others.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

There are no specific doctrine in Hinduism on abortion. There are theological opinion and standpoints depending on who you ask. However this is no clear cut rule in Hinduism based in it.

Hem, as far as I can tell there is no doctrine in xtianity on abortion either.