Abortion: Even the non-religious should be against it

[Lypher]

But what I’m wondering, is why should a non-believer agree with these statements. I agree that they have a strong intuitive pull, but is the reason we see it as wrong to take human life because we have some knowledge that intrinsic value is granted at the moment of conception, or because when we think of taking human life, we think of things like a teenage girl being stabbed to death or a man being shot, things which are definitely immoral? There would be a lot more suffering in the world if everyone had no aversion to walking up to someone and killing them. But I don’t see any reason to think the same is true for killing or removing fetuses early in their development…

I think you are there with regards to the strong intuitive pull because of the intrinsic value. I also think that most Atheist would find a similar pull and may even wonder why as well. For me I would call that pull the Natural Law as written by God, but perhaps if I were an Atheist, agnostic or just struggling, I might think that it is an inner desire to do what is right for the ultimate reproduction of the species. I would not care about the intrinsic Good since good and evil would not matter. However if that is true then I would think that this acceptance of abortion by most Atheist would likely cease once if they determine that the only real reason to be here is to reproduce and in all other respects nothing else they do matters sense over time very few humans have made individuals marks on the record of humanity. I think that most people in the end are forced to recognize the value of the “potential” life. I am not saying they would not want to monkey with the genetics or something, but if you think about it in the past it is highly likely that abortion and infanticide would have been frowned upon by most human groups due to the desire to expand territory and have their genetic material passed. Perhaps during times of famine or hardships deaths might have occurred when these clans felt that not killing their infants put the group or other more viable children in danger, but each life would have had significance as just having a child put the mother at risk. In any event what I have lately been thinking that the call to be fruitful and multiply could very likely spur us off this rock. It seems to me that humanity seems to find a way to migrate when conditions force them to go. Until such time as we are forced to leave I really doubt we will expend the needed resources to design and build the ships necessary to get very far. However if that day were to come I would think that the society that reproduces the most will have a major say of the future direction of mankind and how these new planets are to develop.

I agree completely. I do not believe that murder is any less wrong if the person being killed was leading a sad lonely life. My morality is based on the effects of the desires, and the desire to walk up to someone on the street and kill them is a bad desire since it typically leads to a great deal of suffering.

If their is no higher purpose the reason to exist is really pretty sad. Kinda like the equavilent of being a grapefruit or fly. At best our purpose would be to propagate with some consideration for others, at worst we would consider ourselves just parasites and we would be free to steal, rape, and do what ever we wanted as we would really only be here for our own selfish drive to pass our own DNA to the next generation. If you think about it those individuals that truly do not believe in a higher purpose are really left with only reproduction as a reason for existence and if that is true then the more they can reproduce regardless of the methods used the more successful their life would be, although without a purpose any measure you would use to determine success is really rather sad and pointless. Since after 20,000 years who really cares?

Not sure what your take will be on these rambling thoughts, but in my younger days I had some doubts about god and the fact that I really could not rationalize a half measure or half purpose meant, at least for me, that I would either need to be the most sexually active person soley bent on passing my DNA or find some other reason why we are here. Anything in between kind of seemed like I was lying to myself and in actuality seemed like it could not be true. Having morals really only works for a higher purpose. The immoral person would seem to be to be a more successful organism with regards to passing DNA. So I was driven to either faith and the acceptance that a higher purpose is here or I was a fly and needed to pass on my DNA, which again means each life that I create is valuable. In either case they both drove me to respect life…kind of weird I guess…More like a circle then left or right.

Take care…

 

[Darkbloom]

I think your reason was based on a misunderstanding of my philosophy. And I do think my statement that “you have yet to present any moral or pragmatic reasons that atheists should oppose abortion in all cases” is accurate. Maybe you’ve presented a reason that you think should convince all atheists (or at least those who adhere to the same beliefs about morality as I do), but I don’t think you’ve presented a reason that actually should convince atheists. If I said that you should become Buddhist because chairs exist, that wouldn’t actually be a reason why you should be Buddhist even if I thought it was. This is kind of nit-picky though, and it’s not worth arguing over. I agree that you think you’ve provided a good reason, but think that all the arguments you’ve provided have either been flawed or have been based on a misunderstanding of my views.

The best I can relate this to is modus ponens. If I argue that:

If P, then Q.
P

Therefore, Q.

And you disagree with me, I would try to explain it again.

Me: You see, P guarantees Q.

You: I agree.

Me: And our second premise is P.

You: Uhuh, I gotcha.

Me: Well, then Q is necessitated.

You: No, I don’t agree.

Would it be more sensible for me to dismiss modus ponens, or to conclude that you, for whatever reason, is wrong?

I am quoting it below, even though it may be unnecessary since I explained it more fully in my last post:

I looked over the post and couldn’t find the scoffing. I have always opposed morality by majority and have been clear that desirism is not morality by majority.

But surely you can see how I would think as much when you referenced such things as popular opinion on abortion or the burden of pregnancy to buffer your arguments.

Plus, there are slews of other problems with a morality of desire (in my above post) that need to be answered.

No, they are not treated as if they are morally equal. They are just treated as if there is no supernatural force that makes some desires inherently superior to other desires. Instead, desires are evil because they make the world a worse place by depriving others of what they desire.

This logic is A) temporally based. For the vast majority of human history the greater part of the world considered slavery moral, and even morally obligatory. From Aristotle’s idea of natural slavery to the justification of enslaving Africans to Christianize them, the weight of human desire, if taken across time, leans toward slavery being moral.

B) ineluctably indexed to notoriously difficult notions to grasp like desire, yet attempts to retain an air of scientific objectivity.

C) It shares the greatest flaw of all forms of utilitarianism, which is the attempt to quantify things like “the good,” or “utility,” or, in your case, “desire.”

 

[Darkbloom]

No problem:

I see a number of problems with this argument. First a minor quibble, you should probably change (1) to “Human life is a biological process”, otherwise (2) would be false. The biggest problem lies with (4) and (6). This is like saying that tables commonly have four legs, the thing I just purchased from Ikea is a table, therefore the thing I purchased from Ikea has four legs. The table I purchased may in fact have only three legs, and knowing Ikea, it probably does. For it to work, you would have to strengthen (4) by changing it to “Forcibly ending a life is murder”. But then you would be saying that killing in war is always immoral, which seems inconsistent with Catholic Just War doctrine. You would also be saying that a farmer harvesting his crop is murdering the wheat. Ending a life is sometimes, but not always, called murder.

How is saying life is a biological process not compatible with saying that process starts at conception?

Are you really disputing the fact that forcibly ending a life is called murder?

I advocate speaking about it as what it is: the abortion of a human fetus.

And a human fetus is a human, hence the adjective.

And this is a perfect example of the necessity of those in favor of abortion need obfuscation. Language has to be controlled and sanitized to disguise the obvious.

 

[Darkbloom]

Similarly, we need to determine whether the reasons that ending human life is normally wrong apply to all fetuses.

So we agree that abortion is the ending of a life. We’re getting somewhere.

Sure, we can resort to rhetoric by saying that eating someone’s body is always wrong or that killing human life is always wrong without confronting the reasons that the Eucharist and abortion are unique. But I think that before going there, we need to make sure that the reasons eating someone and killing someone are normally wrong also apply to the Eucharist and to abortion.

The Eucharist, the literal presence, transubstantiation, etc, are all manifestly supernatural matters. Abortion is a medical procedure. That is a huge difference.

 

[Darkbloom]

Would you mind explaining where I have intentionally obfuscated things or been disingenuous? Whenever two people with radically different worldviews engage in dialog, there will be some misunderstandings, but I have tried to present my views as clearly as possible.

When you stated that abortion wasn’t a matter of getting rid of a burden, but then cited the burden of pregnancy to a woman as relevant fact.

Also, when you cited public opinion about abortion as a justification for it, but then argue that other things, i.e. slavery, are always wrong, even when most people disagreed.

Also, when you state that abortion is the ending of a life, but that it is not murder.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Babies are not plants.

Zygotes are not babies.

Hume was very clearly not a believer in objective moral values, which stems from his very rigorous form of empirical skepticism. There have been many attempts refute him, and excepting possibly Kant, none have stuck.

So are you saying that Kant may have refuted Hume? If so, then why are you using Hume’s argument?

The most likely explanation for this is the fact that he is right.

By what criteria do you judge it to be the best explanation? Hume didn’t provide any evidence that you cannot go from is to ought. I could speculate that the universe came into existence 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age without providing any evidence for this claim. An inability to disprove my claim would not be positive evidence in favor of my claim.

There is nothing in our sense experience that forces, or even allows, us to believe in objective morality. Yet, we all do.

Almost all of us believe that what is moral is not determined by personal preference and that murder does not become moral just because the murderer thinks it is.

If nothing in the natural world is a sufficient explanation for something that practically all people agree exists, it seems sensible to conclude the explanation must reside in the supernatural.

There are two separate issues, an explanation of objective morality, and an explanation for the belief in objective morality. I think there are evolutionary reasons why people would come to have certain moral beliefs, regardless of whether objective morality exists. I don’t see the need to say that objective morality must exist because we believe in it. I also think that morality can be called objective without the existence of anything supernatural.

I’ve never said any harming of life is immoral. I was taking your notion, which I agree with, that causing undue harm to an intelligent, sentient, pain-feeling being is immoral.

Okay.

For this view to be consistent you would have to explain the following:

1. Several “very strong desires” were thwarted among slave holders in the American south, as evidenced by secession and the Civil War. How do you balance that with the other desires you claim are thwarted?
2. There are several “very strong desires” that are thwarted by the practice of abortion. Even if we leave the children themselves out of the equation, there are legions of people passionately opposed to abortion who have desires thwarted every time a child is killed.

I already touched on these issues. The key is the malleability of the desires. Under desirism, morality is about using the tools we have, such as praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment to encourage good desires that make the world a better place and discourage bad ones. There is no point trying to change desires that are impossible to change. It is not realistic to change all the desires that slavery thwarts. The only desires that can easily be changed are those of the slaveholders. It may certainly be difficult, but as we have seen in the U.S., it is possible. The same holds for abortion. Many countries now overwhelmingly support keeping early-term abortion legal. Meanwhile it is not realistic to try to eliminate the desires women have to not die, to not suffer long-term health problems, to be able to go to college, and to be able to start a family with the person they want, when they want. A ban on abortion would thwart such desires.

1. The current status of abortion is unique to time and place. For instance, 100 years ago, those who would oppose abortion greatly outnumber those who supported it. If the balance of desires can swing so suddenly in just a century, isn’t this a clear example of the mutability of morality, which, if I recall, seems to be one of the major objections to Divine Command theory, which you don’t support?

This demonstrates the mutability in views of morality, not in morality itself. Essential to desirism is the view that beliefs about morality can be changed.

1. If all that qualifies a given act as moral or immoral is a particular desire, how do you explain opposing desires? And how do you judge desires themselves? What makes Ghandi’s desires more noble or just than Hitler’s?

There’s no magical intrinsic force that makes Gandhi’s desires better. His desires are better when they make the world a better place by leading to more other desires being satisfied and fewer other desires being thwarted. Desires are evaluated by their relation to other desires.

Until you answer the above, I think it is fair to say the absence or presence of a desire is a very weak gauge of morality. Furthermore, what of the desires of those who are aggrieved at infanticide?

I don’t think the term ‘infant’ as it is typically used includes fetuses. In any case, I don’t think the desire not to have one month olds be killed is very malleable. We rightly have a strong aversion to this. But as the acceptance of abortion in many countries has shown, we do not have the same kind of aversion to killing fetuses.

Sorry for having to make this post so technical, but if you want to explore the inner workings of my moral theory and see if there are any flaws or inconsistencies, I’m happy to oblige. Of course, even if my view of morality was completely wrong, that still wouldn’t provide any positive reasons that non-believers should oppose abortion.

 

[Rich_Clark]

Are you really equating sucking a child out of the womb with a vacuum tube to giving a lethal injection to a mass murderer?

Are you really equating taking a “morning-after pill” with cooking someone alive with a nuclear weapon?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I think you are there with regards to the strong intuitive pull because of the intrinsic value. I also think that most Atheist would find a similar pull and may even wonder why as well.

I wasn’t saying there is an intuitive pull to the idea that aborting fetuses is wrong, just that there is a pull to saying that ‘killing innocent human life is wrong’ because it is wrong in the case of all the humans we encounter in our everyday lives.

For me I would call that pull the Natural Law as written by God, but perhaps if I were an Atheist, agnostic or just struggling, I might think that it is an inner desire to do what is right for the ultimate reproduction of the species.

I wonder what your view is of people whose intuitions drives them in different directions. For example, some Catholics have strong intuitions that gay people should be allowed to marry while others have strong intuitions that they should not be. How do you know that the intuitions you perceive accurately reflect moral truth?

I would not care about the intrinsic Good since good and evil would not matter. However if that is true then I would think that this acceptance of abortion by most Atheist would likely cease once if they determine that the only real reason to be here is to reproduce and in all other respects nothing else they do matters sense over time very few humans have made individuals marks on the record of humanity.

But if our lives now only have meaning as long as our effect on things persists, then why would reproduction matter? The universe will almost certainly end in a heat death or a big crunch and and contributions we made will be lost. Because of this, some atheists think life has no meaning or value. I disagree. If my life has meaning and value to me now, why should the fact that my life won’t matter trillions of years from now make my life now any less meaningful?

I think that most people in the end are forced to recognize the value of the “potential” life.

I don’t see why atheists should derive their morality from what leads to the greatest reproductive success.

I am not saying they would not want to monkey with the genetics or something, but if you think about it in the past it is highly likely that abortion and infanticide would have been frowned upon by most human groups due to the desire to expand territory and have their genetic material passed. Perhaps during times of famine or hardships deaths might have occurred when these clans felt that not killing their infants put the group or other more viable children in danger, but each life would have had significance as just having a child put the mother at risk. In any event what I have lately been thinking that the call to be fruitful and multiply could very likely spur us off this rock. It seems to me that humanity seems to find a way to migrate when conditions force them to go. Until such time as we are forced to leave I really doubt we will expend the needed resources to design and build the ships necessary to get very far. However if that day were to come I would think that the society that reproduces the most will have a major say of the future direction of mankind and how these new planets are to develop.

I didn’t completely follow how this relates to the morality of abortion.

If their is no higher purpose the reason to exist is really pretty sad.

But why is having a higher purpose so crucial? I don’t think I was put here on earth by someone to achieve a certain end, but that doesn’t make life any less amazing. I cherish every day I have, and take pleasure in constantly learning more about myself and the world around me.

Kinda like the equavilent of being a grapefruit or fly.

Can a fruit fly appreciate the beauty of a fine piece of classical music, contemplate the origin of the cosmos, or philosophize about the meaning of life? I don’t need some supernatural cosmic ruler decreeing that he likes me more than a fly for me to treasure the many wonderful things I can do that a fly cannot.

At best our purpose would be to propagate with some consideration for others, at worst we would consider ourselves just parasites and we would be free to steal, rape, and do what ever we wanted as we would really only be here for our own selfish drive to pass our own DNA to the next generation.

There will be bad people who will steal and rape regardless of whether they believe in God. I have no interest in stealing or raping and would not do so regardless of whether I would face any consequences. I value being nice to other people and want other people to be happy. A realization that there is no God-given purpose does not change that and make it so the only thing I desire is to maximize reproductive success. I still desire what I desire. Like everyone, I have some selfish desires and some benevolent desires.

If you think about it those individuals that truly do not believe in a higher purpose are really left with only reproduction as a reason for existence and if that is true then the more they can reproduce regardless of the methods used the more successful their life would be, although without a purpose any measure you would use to determine success is really rather sad and pointless. Since after 20,000 years who really cares?

This is why I don’t think reproduction makes sense as the source of meaning, and instead just embrace the meaning my life has to me and how I can achieve my goals of living a happy life and making the world a better place.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Not sure what your take will be on these rambling thoughts, but in my younger days I had some doubts about god and the fact that I really could not rationalize a half measure or half purpose meant, at least for me, that I would either need to be the most sexually active person soley bent on passing my DNA or find some other reason why we are here. Anything in between kind of seemed like I was lying to myself and in actuality seemed like it could not be true.

I know that there are at least a few atheists who see things the same way you do, but I don’t think atheism leads to that conclusion.

Having morals really only works for a higher purpose. The immoral person would seem to be to be a more successful organism with regards to passing DNA. So I was driven to either faith and the acceptance that a higher purpose is here or I was a fly and needed to pass on my DNA, which again means each life that I create is valuable. In either case they both drove me to respect life…kind of weird I guess…More like a circle then left or right.

That’s interesting, and I don’t think your story is unique. However, even if objective morality was impossible without God, I don’t think that would give anyone a good reason to believe. It’s like saying that if A is true then B is true, I really really don’t want B to be true, therefore A is not true. It would be like someone saying that reason led them to think that Catholicism is true, but they really don’t want it to be true because it says homosexuality is wrong, therefore they will believe Catholicism is not true. I don’t mean to belittle your journey, but I just wanted to share why I don’t find morality a good reason to believe, even for those who think morality is impossible without God.

Take care…

You too, I wish you all the best. There’s one thing that I’ve been thinking about recently that came to mind when reading your post. Whether there’s a God and we suffer from original sin, or we’re the imperfect result of a long evolutionary process, we’re all flawed beings with our own foibles and biases trying to live our lives as best we can. Maybe it’s just me, but this gives me a profound sense of love and compassion for everyone.

 

[Lizziebel]

But what I’m wondering, is why should a non-believer agree with these statements. I agree that they have a strong intuitive pull, but is the reason we see it as wrong to take human life because we have some knowledge that intrinsic value is granted at the moment of conception, or because when we think of taking human life, we think of things like a teenage girl being stabbed to death or a man being shot, things which are definitely immoral?

There’s no reason it has to be an either-or thing. It’s both. In both cases, an innocent human life is brutally ended. All the things that make a teen girl being stabbed to death, or a man shot, obviously and definitely immoral apply at any moment in life. Why would it matter what point of development that life is in? That life is human, and that same teenager or that man had no less intrinsic value as a human when their lives were ended, as they did at any other point in their development. No matter at what point, it still deliberately causes pain and suffering. To that human life, to the mother as far as the physical and emotional aftereffects, and/or to those around him or her that are left behind. And it still deliberately puts an end to that life, and all the things that person would have otherwise done and experienced in life.

There would be a lot more suffering in the world if everyone had no aversion to walking up to someone and killing them. But I don’t see any reason to think the same is true for killing or removing fetuses early in their development.

Again, it still brutally ends an innocent life, and all the things that person would have otherwise have done and experienced. So it’s no less a tragedy over that life lost than for any other human life lost. No matter what, we’re talking about deliberately and brutally cutting short a life. The only difference is that the teenage girl and the man have simply had longer, and have therefore had the chance to experience and do more.

Also, It still deliberately causes pain and suffering. So I don’t see any difference, no matter what point in development that life is.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

The best I can relate this to is modus ponens. If I argue that:

If P, then Q.
P

Therefore, Q.

And you disagree with me, I would try to explain it again.

Me: You see, P guarantees Q.

You: I agree.

Me: And our second premise is P.

You: Uhuh, I gotcha.

Me: Well, then Q is necessitated.

You: No, I don’t agree.

Would it be more sensible for me to dismiss modus ponens, or to conclude that you, for whatever reason, is wrong?

If I made an assertion like that, then of course you should conclude that that assertion of mine was wrong. But I don’t think I have. What do P and Q represent?

I am quoting it below, even though it may be unnecessary since I explained it more fully in my last post:

Did you forget to copy in the quote?

But surely you can see how I would think as much when you referenced such things as popular opinion on abortion or the burden of pregnancy to buffer your arguments.

I wasn’t referencing popular opinion as determining what is moral, and I don’t see what saying that pregnancy imposes some costs on women has to do with popular opinion. However, desirism is hard to grasp at first and I definitely don’t blame you for misunderstanding it and thinking that it was morality by popular opinion. I had my share of confusions when I first heard of it as well.

Plus, there are slews of other problems with a morality of desire (in my above post) that need to be answered.

And I have responded to those perceived problems.

This logic is A) temporally based. For the vast majority of human history the greater part of the world considered slavery moral, and even morally obligatory. From Aristotle’s idea of natural slavery to the justification of enslaving Africans to Christianize them, the weight of human desire, if taken across time, leans toward slavery being moral.

But even thousands of years ago, enslaving someone thwarted quite a lot of very strong nonmalleable desires.

B) ineluctably indexed to notoriously difficult notions to grasp like desire, yet attempts to retain an air of scientific objectivity.

But why should we assume that morality must always be trivially easy to grasp? What matters is whether a moral theory is true, not whether it is simple and easy to grasp.

It is true that we cannot currently measure desires with the precision that we can measure something like temperature. But we still know that we have stronger desires for some things than for others. Just as people were still able to know quite a lot about temperature before thermometers were invented, we can still know quite a lot about the comparative strength of various desires.

C) It shares the greatest flaw of all forms of utilitarianism, which is the attempt to quantify things like “the good,” or “utility,” or, in your case, “desire.”

For one thing, you don’t need to put a precise number of the strength of a certain desire to know that there are some things we desire more than others. But also, why do you see this as a flaw? Not all moral issues are easy and there will be times when we don’t know enough about the relevant desires to say for sure whether something is moral or not. This is only a problem if we expect a true moral theory to instantly give us the answers to every moral question. In order to determine whether something is moral, we need both a correct moral theory, and sufficient information about the effects of our desires and actions.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

How is saying life is a biological process not compatible with saying that process starts at conception?

Because if you are referring to all life and not just human life, you have to consider that many life forms reproduce differently (there is no conception). It is not always the case that a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction

Are you really disputing the fact that forcibly ending a life is called murder?

No, I am not disputing a fact. Twice in this thread I have looked at how Merriam-Webster defines “murder” and showed that there are multiple reasons that abortion does not fall under that definition. This is true for most definitions of murder. Nobody I know of defines murder in such a way that killing someone who was about to kill you is murder.

If you want to continue to argue that my definition or murder is wrong, I request that you first respond to my earlier explanation of why it is not.

And a human fetus is a human, hence the adjective.

Yes it is.

And this is a perfect example of the necessity of those in favor of abortion need obfuscation. Language has to be controlled and sanitized to disguise the obvious.

I have no need for obfuscation. I simply think it’s more productive to talk about abortion in neutral terms rather than to minimize the act by saying it’s merely relocation cells, or exaggerating the act by saying it’s murdering babies.

If I was discussing the morality of eating meat with someone, I would not say that by buying and eating fish, you are funneling money to murderers and subsidizing the callous murder of innocent life. I would not just do this because it would be unproductive; I would do this because I would merely be using rhetoric rather than providing people a reason why they should not eat meat.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

So we agree that abortion is the ending of a life. We’re getting somewhere.

I have never denied this. I have always accepted that that is what abortion is.

The Eucharist, the literal presence, transubstantiation, etc, are all manifestly supernatural matters. Abortion is a medical procedure. That is a huge difference.

You’re missing the point. It is irrelevant whether there is any similarity between the two. I was merely pointing out that your argument was logically fallacious and I thought that using an example of an argument that was fallacious in the same way might help illustrate that.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

When you stated that abortion wasn’t a matter of getting rid of a burden, but then cited the burden of pregnancy to a woman as relevant fact.

You are misinterpreting me. Here is the quote that I think you are referring to:

I find it terribly problematic that this question would be posed in the first place. By what standards are we to judge the value of human life? And even if we could decide on what standards to use, do we then have license to terminate a life we deem not to be valuable because it would be a burden to someone?

What I was saying was that the most important thing in determining whether a given abortion is immoral is whether the fetus is sufficiently developed that it deserves moral consideration. If a fetus is sufficiently developed, then abortion may be immoral even if pregnancy imposes a burden on the mother. But if the fetus has not yet reached the point where it deserves moral consideration, a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason.

Also, when you cited public opinion about abortion as a justification for it, but then argue that other things, i.e. slavery, are always wrong, even when most people disagreed.

I never once cited public opinion about abortion as a justification for it.

Also, when you state that abortion is the ending of a life, but that it is not murder.

I say that because not all killing of life is murder. You seem to have rejected normal definitions of “murder” and created your own under which abortion is murder. By your definition that murder is forcibly ending a life, killing weeds would make you a mass murderer. For the third time, here is my discussion of the definition of “murder” and why abortion is not murder:

I think your use of biased rhetoric is especially bad when you characterize abortion as murder. While it may be technically accurate to describe abortion as ‘killing children’ under some definitions of those words, I don’t think it’s reasonable to describe it as murder since murder is typically defined as unlawful killing and abortion is not illegal. To illustrate, Merriam-Webster defines murder as “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.” Even if the definition of ‘persons’ should include zygotes, and even if everyone getting abortions did so because they hated their fetuses and wanted to take pleasure in watching them die, it would still not be murder since abortion is not illegal.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

There’s no reason it has to be an either-or thing. It’s both. In both cases, an innocent human life is brutally ended. All the things that make a teen girl being stabbed to death, or a man shot, obviously and definitely immoral apply at any moment in life. Why would it matter what point of development that life is in? That life is human, and that same teenager or that man had no less intrinsic value as a human when their lives were ended, as they did at any other point in their development.

But is there any reason to believe that humans have intrinsic value? A comment I made earlier relates to this:

Before saying whether humans have intrinsic value, we need to clarify what we mean by intrinsic. Merriam-Webster defines it as “belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing.” I do not think that there is any reason to believe that there is any super special property of enormous value that a fused sperm and egg possess that is not possessed by a sperm or egg.

No matter at what point, it still deliberately causes pain and suffering. To that human life, to the mother as far as the physical and emotional aftereffects, and/or to those around him or her that are left behind. And it still deliberately puts an end to that life, and all the things that person would have otherwise done and experienced in life.

Except for abortions late in a fetus’ development, the fetus cannot yet feel pain or suffer. And I have yet to find a study that shows that abortions early in pregnancy cause the mother significantly more pain and suffering than carrying the pregnancy to term. If someone believes they committed an act that is morally equivalent to murdering a toddler, that understandably might have emotional aftereffects, but aside from this, I do not think that abortion generally increases pain and suffering. Parents determining not to attempt to conceive a child in a given month also results in someone never being born who otherwise would have done and experienced many things in life. So simply the fact that abortion results in a person not being born and experiencing things in life is not a reason to say it is immoral.

Again, it still brutally ends an innocent life, and all the things that person would have otherwise have done and experienced. So it’s no less a tragedy over that life lost than for any other human life lost. No matter what, we’re talking about deliberately and brutally cutting short a life. The only difference is that the teenage girl and the man have simply had longer, and have therefore had the chance to experience and do more.

Also, It still deliberately causes pain and suffering. So I don’t see any difference, no matter what point in development that life is.

My point is that abortion does not cause the types of suffering that murder does.

It’s also wrong to say that there’s no difference between killing a zygote and killing a teenage girl. The girl is conscious, can think, feel pain, and has many things she values and desires which would be taken away by killing her.

 

[Lizziebel]

But is there any reason to believe that humans have intrinsic value? A comment I made earlier relates to this:

Except for abortions late in a fetus’ development, the fetus cannot yet feel pain or suffer. And I have yet to find a study that shows that abortions early in pregnancy cause the mother significantly more pain and suffering than carrying the pregnancy to term. If someone believes they committed an act that is morally equivalent to murdering a toddler, that understandably might have emotional aftereffects, but aside from this, I do not think that abortion generally increases pain and suffering. Parents determining not to attempt to conceive a child in a given month also results in someone never being born who otherwise would have done and experienced many things in life. So simply the fact that abortion results in a person not being born and experiencing things in life is not a reason to say it is immoral.

Whether the suffering is more or less, it is still suffering. And you don’t think abortion generally increases pain and suffering in comparison to what?

Parents determining when a child is conceived is a vastly, vastly different thing from killing a life that has already been conceived. Killing an innocent human life, taking away their chance to experience life is immoral. It is no less immoral than doing this to any other human life, at any other point in human life.

My point is that abortion does not cause the types of suffering that murder does.

It snuffs out an innocent life. How much more than that does one need to say it’s wrong or causes suffering to those involved? Yes, there are physical aftereffects. And, there is the emotional stuff to deal with as well.

I also want to make the point that suffering isn’t the only thing that makes a murder wrong. Even if a murder were carried out by a family who didn’t care the least bit about the child, but was done in a way that the child didn’t feel any pain, it’s no less wrong of a murder.

It’s also wrong to say that there’s no difference between killing a zygote and killing a teenage girl. The girl is conscious, can think, feel pain, and has many things she values and desires which would be taken away by killing her.

No, it isn’t wrong to say that both are immoral. Both are immoral because they cut short an innocent life. Both take life away.

That girl’s murder may have involved making her unconscious first so that she couldn’t think or feel pain, but it’s still immoral regardless. Yes, the fact that she has many things she values and desires which would be taken away by killing her is part of what makes killing her wrong. To kill an unborn takes away all that, and more, because it’s cutting a life short before he or she even has the chance to really life that life and to develop those things in life.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Whether the suffering is more or less, it is still suffering. And you don’t think abortion generally increases pain and suffering in comparison to what?

What evidence do you have that abortion causes significant harm? There may be a small potential for harm, as there is with any medical procedure, including giving birth, but I think abortion is generally a pretty benign procedure.

Parents determining when a child is conceived is a vastly, vastly different thing from killing a life that has already been conceived. Killing an innocent human life, taking away their chance to experience life is immoral.

How do you know it is vastly different morally? In either case you are denying a potential person the possibility of experiencing life.

It is no less immoral than doing this to any other human life, at any other point in human life.

Why? And why do you believe that zygotes have enormously more moral worth than sperm cells, which are also human life?

It snuffs out an innocent life. How much more than that does one need to say it’s wrong or causes suffering to those involved?

One needs a lot more. Both Catholics and atheists acknowledge that there are certain forms of life that it is morally acceptable to kill and certain situations (such as a Just War) when it is morally permissible to kill someone (even if they’re an innocent who was forced by their government to go to war). You actually have to justify why killing a fetus is wrong if you want to convince anyone.

Yes, there are physical aftereffects. And, there is the emotional stuff to deal with as well.

Do you have any studies that show that abortion has significant negative effects? I have yet to find one demonstrating such effects which did not have glaring methodological flaws.

I also want to make the point that suffering isn’t the only thing that makes a murder wrong. Even if a murder were carried out by a family who didn’t care the least bit about the child, but was done in a way that the child didn’t feel any pain, it’s no less wrong of a murder.

Of course.

No, it isn’t wrong to say that both are immoral. Both are immoral because they cut short an innocent life. Both take life away.

That girl’s murder may have involved making her unconscious first so that she couldn’t think or feel pain, but it’s still immoral regardless. Yes, the fact that she has many things she values and desires which would be taken away by killing her is part of what makes killing her wrong. To kill an unborn takes away all that, and more, because it’s cutting a life short before he or she even has the chance to really life that life and to develop those things in life.

Even if she’s currently unconscious, she still had those desires, and they’re still relevant, just as the desires of a dead man are still relevant. Even if it would make other people happy to use the dead man’s corpse as a puppet, it would be extremely immoral to do so if the dead man wanted a respectful burial.

What you’ve been repeating again and again is that you think it is obviously immoral to kill fetuses because they are innocent human life. But I don’t see any reason to think that it is always wrong to kill innocent human life. Consider the example I gave of killing the enemy in a Just War, or the trolley problem in which you can flip the switch so the trolley kills one man instead of five (in which case it intuitively seems morally permissible to have the trolley kill the one instead of the five). If you have good reasons that killing fetuses specifically is wrong, then I might change my mind. But merely pointing out that fetuses are a subset of a group, human life, whose members we typically (but not always) have good reasons to protect, does not show that we also have good reasons to protect fetuses.

 

[Lizziebel]

What evidence do you have that abortion causes significant harm? There may be a small potential for harm, as there is with any medical procedure, including giving birth, but I think abortion is generally a pretty benign procedure.

Butchering a body by tearing it apart or burning it with saline solution sounds pretty horrific to me. Not sure how it’s possible to call that benign.

How do you know it is vastly different morally? In either case you are denying a potential person the possibility of experiencing life.

No, in one case, a specific person is created from among all the potentials. Potentials. And aside from choosing conditions, we have no say in which specific child gets created. Nor do we know that the other potential ones don’t get created somewhere else. So, I think we’re both in agreement here that we can’t say that this is immoral. In this case, we’re just talking about the circumstances of creation, and we’re not talking about destroying anyone here. That’s the key difference.

In the other case, we are specifically destroying a child who has been created. We’re definitely without a doubt taking away that child’s existence.

Why? And why do you believe that zygotes have enormously more moral worth than sperm cells, which are also human life?

I haven’t yet said either way what I believe about that. We haven’t been talking about it until now. But sperm and egg cells are the seeds of human life. A sperm cell on its own, or an egg cell on its own, isn’t a human. But when an egg and sperm cell combine, a new human is conceived. And that human’s cells start dividing, and so on…

One needs a lot more. Both Catholics and atheists acknowledge that there are certain forms of life that it is morally acceptable to kill and certain situations (such as a Just War) when it is morally permissible to kill someone (even if they’re an innocent who was forced by their government to go to war). You actually have to justify why killing a fetus is wrong if you want to convince anyone.

Even in the war you mentioned, it doesn’t make the murder of an innocent, unarmed person who got caught in the middle of it right. And for those fighting, they did choose to participate in the war. Yet, still it doesn’t make it right that the war took place to begin with and that people couldn’t manage to find a way to deal with each other, and to live and love in peace.

And I did justify why it’s wrong. If you disagree that taking life is not only brutal, but takes away everything from him or her, you disagree.

Do you have any studies that show that abortion has significant negative effects? I have yet to find one demonstrating such effects which did not have glaring methodological flaws.

Just look at some of the pictures showing the effects of what it does. It brutally destroys a human body. And, studies or not, their are people do grieve and mourn the loss of their child before ever getting the chance to hold him or her. Not everyone does, but we’ve already established that lack of mourning over a killing doesn’t make that killing right.

Of course.

Even if she’s currently unconscious, she still had those desires, and they’re still relevant, just as the desires of a dead man are still relevant.

And that unborn child was growing and developing, and had the same potential to reach that point one day until that chance was taken away from him or her, too. That is relevant as well.

Even if it would make other people happy to use the dead man’s corpse as a puppet, it would be extremely immoral to do so if the dead man wanted a respectful burial.

Definitely!

What you’ve been repeating again and again is that you think it is obviously immoral to kill fetuses because they are innocent human life. But I don’t see any reason to think that it is always wrong to kill innocent human life.

Well, that’s our point of disagreement. I don’t see any possible way to justify it.

Consider the example I gave of killing the enemy in a Just War

Ok, I addressed that one above.

, or the trolley problem in which you can flip the switch so the trolley kills one man instead of five (in which case it intuitively seems morally permissible to have the trolley kill the one instead of the five).

 

[Lizziebel]

I haven’t read up on that trolley problem, so bear with me here. You’re using the problem to attempt to justify killing innocents? But the problem with using this analogy is that it doesn’t make your argument for you.

Instead, what we’re talking about is making a rapid choice to maximize everyone’s chance of survival. You’re not deliberately choosing to kill someone. You’re making that choice to take the trolley in one direction over another, in the hopes that it’ll be easier for that one person to get out of the way of that train vs. for five people to be able to. Presumably you want that person to survive and be able to get out of the way in time. And presumably you’d be doing everything possible to give that one person enough warning to do just that. So your intention isn’t to deliberately kill anyone. You’d be doing everything you can to save even that one life. Doesn’t mean you’ll be able to, but you don’t even know for certain ahead of time whether that one person will or won’t manage to get off the track in time. If they can’t, it’s a tragic accident, and you’ve done all you could to save everyone involved.

If you have good reasons that killing fetuses specifically is wrong, then I might change my mind. But merely pointing out that fetuses are a subset of a group, human life, whose members we typically (but not always) have good reasons to protect, does not show that we also have good reasons to protect fetuses.

We do always have good reasons to protect innocent life. You still haven’t presented any good reasons not to do everything in our power to protect innocent life.

 

[Charlotte408]

anEvilAtheist;6696015:

What evidence do you have that abortion causes significant harm? There may be a small potential for harm, as there is with any medical procedure, including giving birth, but I think abortion is generally a pretty benign procedure.

Having an abortion is NOT like having a cavity filled.

There are IMMEASURABLE consequences, emotionally scarring women. There is NO way, before hand, that a woman can possibly predict how she’s going to be able to mentally handle an abortion…

Its like, with adoption. There have been mothers that have put their child up for adoption, and then once the baby was born - went crazy at the thought of separation. You can’t measure that ‘maternal bond’ or suppress it. I’m sure there was even a case where a judge ruled on it and after some exploration might be able to dig it up!

I think you may think abortion is a pretty ‘benign’ procedure because, as a man, you would never have to experience one. I mean, we are having a LIFE taken from us, a PEICE of us…and destroying it. Wether a woman can rationalize herself into doing it doesn’t take away that GUILT.