Abortion: Even the non-religious should be against it

[anEvilAtheist]

Are you saying that conditioning is the issue? So if a parent has no emotional attachment to their children and decides that they can only feed 1 and not 2 that you would have no intrinsic objections to them killing one of the kids to ensure the survival of the other? If you do have an objection why? From what moral ground can you argue that a -1 day old is any different then a +1 day old? Are you just bantering words, getting a rise?

No, as I explained in earlier posts, I think that once humans reach a certain level of development, they start becoming morally significant. I believe that well before birth, humans are morally significant and I think that a -1 day old is not much different than a 1 day old, and assuming that the mother would not die if she gave birth, I think it would be gravely immoral to kill a -1 day old, just as it would be to kill a 1 day old.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

We’re not looking to be impartial, we’re saying what’s true. Abortion IS killing children; that is the full truth of it. Calling it the relocation of a ball of cells is only a half truth. It is just as true if you claimed that you “relocated” me, a being that scientifically can be reduced to a ball of cells, into an active volcano. But calling throwing me into an active volcano the “relocation of a bunch (I suppose I can’t be called a ball) of cells” is not giving you the full truth, that you are killing a living breathing human. That is one of the things I don’t like about pro-choice rhetoric, the use of half-truths to convince people that what they’re doing isn’t murder.

My point is that while both characterizations “killing children” or “relocating cells” may be technically accurate depending on how you define those words, they are biased characterizations that rely on emotions to score points. We are rightly horrified if someone murders a five-year-old child and are generally indifferent about moving cells around. But in order to show that abortion is wrong, you need to show why the morally relevant facts in aborting a human zygote are more like those of murdering a five-year-old than those of relocating cells. Otherwise we’re just trying to persuade others by shouting words. Sure, we could have the whole abortion debate be nothing more than pro-lifers shouting “Life!” and pro-choices shouting “Choice!”. Pro-lifers are trying to protect life and pro-choicers are trying to protect choice, and both life and choice are generally good things, but the issue of abortion is far more complex.

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.

 

[Puddin317]

I’d be happy to talk to people about their experiences. But I think it’s sensible to abstain from drawing too many conclusions from the anecdotes of a small number of possibly unrepresentative people. If I talked to ten people who thought abortion caused them serious harm or ten people who thought it caused them no harm whatsoever, that wouldn’t tell me anything about what happens in the average case. And for people who do endure emotional agony after getting an abortion, we should distinguish between what is directly caused by the abortion, and what is caused by beliefs about abortion.

And I didn’t mean to imply that only the religious can have a sense that abortion is wrong. I think most people pick up some of the moral beliefs of those they associate with. I shared your sense that abortion was wrong at one point, despite being non-religious. But I don’t see any reason to assume that our moral intuitions are infallible and when I thought about the arguments for and against abortion, I concluded that it was not always immoral.

You could talk to the same sample of the 20 people you mention and the result would be the same. You cannot separate the aftermath of abortion into physical harm vs. harm caused by their beliefs about abortion. Abortion in and of itself is harming the whole feminity of the woman and what we were created to do. It goes against the very reason we were created on this earth. My beliefs were not “picked up” by association or some osmosis by being Catholic…my beliefs are based on what I know to be the truth, that my baby was a baby from the very moment of conception and had a soul. Any woman who has had an abortion and claims no after effects whatsoever is either lying, kidding herself, or just hasn’t come to realize the full implication of what she has done. If more people knew the actual aftermath of abortion, there wouldn’t be any abortions at all.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

You could talk to the same sample of the 20 people you mention and the result would be the same. You cannot separate the aftermath of abortion into physical harm vs. harm caused by their beliefs about abortion. Abortion in and of itself is harming the whole feminity of the woman and what we were created to do. It goes against the very reason we were created on this earth.

If you’re saying that there is nobody for whom abortion did not cause them significant physical or emotional harm, then that is simply not true (at least if the harm is something that can be detected by talking with them). And as a non-believer, I do not believe that there is a supernatural creator who created women for the purpose of producing children.

My beliefs were not “picked up” by association or some osmosis by being Catholic…my beliefs are based on what I know to be the truth, that my baby was a baby from the very moment of conception and had a soul.

You say that you know it to be true, even aside from Catholic teachings. I think you only believe it to be true. In order for a belief to count as knowledge, philosophers usually say that you must believe something, it must be true, and you must either have a justification or warrant for believing that it Is true. If tens of millions of people believe they will win the lottery this week, and one of them does, this belief does not count as knowledge because the person did not have a good reason or believing that it would be true that they’d win the lottery. So what I’d be interested in is why do you not only believe it to be true, but know it to be true. You might have some kind of sense that it is wrong, but how is that evidence that it actually is wrong? I know there are some Catholics who have a strong inner sense that gay people should be allowed to get married (at least legally even if not religiously) and who struggle with the Church’s position on it. There are other Catholics who have a strong inner sense that gay marriage is unnatural, morally wrong, and should be illegal. Since our inner senses often conflict, I don’t think an inner sense alone is much evidence of something.

Any woman who has had an abortion and claims no after effects whatsoever is either lying, kidding herself, or just hasn’t come to realize the full implication of what she has done. If more people knew the actual aftermath of abortion, there wouldn’t be any abortions at all.

Well there is at least the after effect of having the fetus leave the woman’s body. And speculating that everyone who reports having had a different experience than you are either lying, kidding themselves, or haven’t realized the full implications of their actions isn’t going to convince anyone. It’s kind of like how some believers say that all people who claim not to believe in God are either lying or deliberately suppressing what they know to be true, and how some atheists say that all believers are simply deluding themselves. Such claims to not persuade those who do not already agree with you. In order to make an argument that even the non-religious should be against abortion, you would have to show that abortion actually does have the kind of consequences that you claim it does.

 

[Swan]

If you’re saying that there is nobody for whom abortion did not cause them significant physical or emotional harm, then that is simply not true (at least if the harm is something that can be detected by talking with them). And as a non-believer, I do not believe that there is a supernatural creator who created women for the purpose of producing children.

You say that you know it to be true, even aside from Catholic teachings. I think you only believe it to be true. In order for a belief to count as knowledge, philosophers usually say that you must believe something, it must be true, and you must either have a justification or warrant for believing that it Is true. If tens of millions of people believe they will win the lottery this week, and one of them does, this belief does not count as knowledge because the person did not have a good reason or believing that it would be true that they’d win the lottery. So what I’d be interested in is why do you not only believe it to be true, but know it to be true. You might have some kind of sense that it is wrong, but how is that evidence that it actually is wrong? I know there are some Catholics who have a strong inner sense that gay people should be allowed to get married (at least legally even if not religiously) and who struggle with the Church’s position on it. There are other Catholics who have a strong inner sense that gay marriage is unnatural, morally wrong, and should be illegal. Since our inner senses often conflict, I don’t think an inner sense alone is much evidence of something.

Well there is at least the after effect of having the fetus leave the woman’s body. And speculating that everyone who reports having had a different experience than you are either lying, kidding themselves, or haven’t realized the full implications of their actions isn’t going to convince anyone. It’s kind of like how some believers say that all people who claim not to believe in God are either lying or deliberately suppressing what they know to be true, and how some atheists say that all believers are simply deluding themselves. Such claims to not persuade those who do not already agree with you. In order to make an argument that even the non-religious should be against abortion, you would have to show that abortion actually does have the kind of consequences that you claim it does.

Agreed on both counts. First, “knowing” and “believing” are very different things. Religious people like to use the word “know” to describe their beliefs. The very fact that some many people who believe so many different things all claim to “know” they are true should be a huge tip off.

Second - I absolutely hate it when people presume to know how I feel. I had an abortion over 25 years ago and have never regretted it (I regretted being stupid enough to find myself in the situation I was in). I’m perfectly fine with the decision and would do it again in the same circumstances. Some might say I’m deluded but that’s a two-way accusation. Equally maddening is the “if you only tried/prayed/ hard enough, you’d agree with me” nonsense. IOW, we’ll if you don’t agree with me you simply aren’t as sincere/sane/dedicated/etc, etc. as I am.

 

[Darkbloom]

Yes, you are stopping a process that if not stopped will probably result in the birth of a sentient creature. I don’t grant that doing so is immoral.

Then you can’t consistently maintain that harming life is wrong.

Would you mind explaining why, because I’m not seeing it?

You’ve said yourself that A) humans deserve more moral consideration than any other creature, and B) you’re a vegetarian because you want to reduce suffering of animals. It follows a fortiori you should oppose abortion.

Humans should get more consideration and not allowing abortion is less burdensome than being a vegetarian.

Kind of, though it’s not exactly intelligence. In some sense you could say that every computer has intelligence. What I think deserves moral consideration is our capacity to desire, to place value on things. Whether or not there is a god, there are things that I value, and a better world would be one in which more people were able to get what they valued most.

Six in one, half dozen in the other. Regardless of what you want to call it, humans are clearly, as you’ve admitted, due more moral consideration than any other being.

I do. I don’t know the extent of animal desires, but I think that humans have more and stronger desires that are thwarted by killing them than animals do. I do think there are some animals, such as coral, that there is no ethical problem with eating. There are also reasonable arguments that it is ethically acceptable to eat animals that have been raised a certain way. I just find it easier to give up meat completely.

Then it should be both more urgent that we defend human life and easier to do so.

Not eating meat requires as little effort as not getting an abortion does. You just do nothing.

If they are equally difficult, and humans deserve more moral consideration, you would be inconsistent not to be pro life.

Not getting an abortion requires one to endure everything associated with pregnancy, which I’ve heard requires quite a bit of effort.

How is that not using abortion to avoid a burden?

I do agree with you that if I thought that ending the life of any member of the kingdom Animalia was immoral, then abortion would also be immoral. But I don’t. And even if there was some level of moral consideration that was applicable merely by something being a member of that kingdom, that still wouldn’t show that a human zygote should be accorded any higher level of moral consideration than we give to coral.

A human zygote is a human. It is either immoral to kill a human or it is not. Anything else is obfuscation.

It is a demarcation between two clearly different states. But showing that there’s a difference between two cells and the union of two cells does nothing to show the moral significance of that difference. It still seems similar to my example of paying someone 0 cents versus paying the 1 cent.

Life is a process, conception is the beginning of that process. End the process and you end life.

II understand that that is what you are arguing. I just don’t think you’ve shown any reasons why conception is a point at which things of little moral significance become something of enormous moral significance.

I’ve clearly shown that life is a process which begins at conception and you’ve agreed to as much. So by your own stated atheistic morality, if you applied it consistently, you would have to be pro-life.

But this isn’t really about morality for many pro-abortion individuals. It is about showing how progressive and secular they can be. Catholicism and other religions teach very fiercely against abortion, and that is why many atheists are against it; not for moral reasons, but for (ir)religious reasons.

 

[Darkbloom]

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “conditional to life”, but I definitely agree with the rest of this.

I’ve explained that life is ontologically prior to morality at least twice now. If you didn’t get it then, I doubt I can add anything that would change that.

You’ve hit on my point. It is unreasonable to expect you defend every theistic worldview, just as it is unreasonable to expect me to defend every atheistic worldview. My original point was that it makes no sense to say without God, all is permitted, since bare theism or atheism make no claims about morality. Without evidence that morality is possible under theism, but impossible under atheism, I don’t see how it makes any sense to say that without God, all is permitted.

God is the bridge between is and ought.

Remember, I asked what desires would be thwarted if people did not have an aversion to early term abortion. A zygote is not sentient, so harming it would not thwart a desire not to harm sentient beings.

It is clear that life begins at conception, a life that will not only soon be sentient (in the first trimester) but will develop to the most fully sentient life we have yet seen.

However, there are clearly some people who not only desire that all sentient beings be protected from harm, but that all humans, from the moment of conception, are protected as well. Harming a zygote would thwart their desires. However, there are also people who do desire to have early-term abortions, so there are conflicting desires.

This is why the idea of morality as contingent on desire is morally reprehensible.

But it is also beside the point. Your own stated desires would be thwarted by abortion. I would venture to say the same is true of most atheists.

Since a basic principle of morality is that ought implies can, you have to look at what is possible.

I think David Hume would believe just the opposite.

You cannot feasibly get everyone who wants an abortion to no longer desire an abortion, no longer desire to go to college (or whatever the pregnancy might have stood in the way of), no longer desire to be healthy (in cases where one’s pregnancy poses health risks), or no longer desire financial stability. However, it is possible to convince someone that early-term abortions are morally permissible, and overwhelming majorities in many countries do not find anything immoral about such abortions. It is not possible to convince everyone overnight, but it is much more possible in the long run. There is a bit of a parallel with slavery. Even if you could convince the slaves that they desired to be slaves, slavery would still thwart many of their desires, such as freedom, lack of physical abuse, and ability to choose one’s wife and protect one’s family. In a world in which you could change every single thing people cared about so that being enslaved brought them maximum satisfaction, people would no longer be people. Although it took a long time, the desire to enslave others declined. So now almost no desires are being thwarted by prohibiting slavery.

You’re basically advocating a democratic morality, which is way more troublesome than Divine command theory.

You’re stating that popular approval is the same as morally acceptable. If that were true, then slavery in the American South or Nazism was moral during the periods where a simple majority approved of them.

May I ask what you believe then? Do you subscribe to divine command theory, and if so, what kind? Regarding Fear and Trembling, what do you think I would find interesting in it? I just ask because the list of books I’d like to read (even just those dealing with philosophy and religion) is in the hundreds so I probably won’t get to it in a long time unless I have a good idea why it’s important.

I’m not decided on Divine Command theory in a fully philosophical way. God is clearly the source of morality, but I can’t (at least as of now) explain all the implications of that. As a matter of shorthand, I’d say I’m a Kantian Catholic.

I’d say you cannot fully consider the Divine Command theory without reading Fear and Trembling. Think of it this way. Even your most militantly atheistic existentialists are indebted to Kierkegaard, and he was 100% Christian.

 

[Darkbloom]

Here it seems like you are doing the very thing you claim to decry. We should mindfully and intelligently and weigh both sides of an issue instead of using loaded words to score rhetorical points. Now I don’t know if this was your intent, but saying abortion is killing children is no more impartial than saying that abortion is the relocation of a ball of cells.

I have mindfully and intelligently weighed both sides and come to the conclusion that abortion is murdering a child in the womb. Loaded vs. neutral terminology doesn’t even show up on my radar screen.

Honestly, is there nothing you feel so strongly about that you would simply say what is true without trying to be diplomatic?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Then you can’t consistently maintain that harming life is wrong.

I never said I maintained that harming life is always wrong. I do not believe it is immoral to pick a flower for instance. There is nothing magical about something being life that gives it moral standing.

You’ve said yourself that A) humans deserve more moral consideration than any other creature, and B) you’re a vegetarian because you want to reduce suffering of animals. It follows a fortiori you should oppose abortion.

I do want to reduce the suffering of animals. But aborting a fetus that does not yet feel pain or have desires does not cause it to suffer. I have repeatedly said that there is nothing magical about possessing human DNA, and do not think that a zygote has the same moral standing as an adult human.

Humans should get more consideration and not allowing abortion is less burdensome than being a vegetarian.

Why don’t you do a poll of mothers and see how burdensome pregnancy can be. You get something wonderful at the end of it, but it is by no means easy. Being vegetarian merely means eating some foods rather than others. At least for me, once I got used to it, it has presented no appreciable burden.

Six in one, half dozen in the other. Regardless of what you want to call it, humans are clearly, as you’ve admitted, due more moral consideration than any other being.

Yes, once a human has attained a certain stage in development, it deserves more moral consideration than any other being we know of. I have explained the reasons for this, and those same reasons do not apply for a zygote.

Then it should be both more urgent that we defend human life and easier to do so.

If they are equally difficult, and humans deserve more moral consideration, you would be inconsistent not to be pro life.

How is that not using abortion to avoid a burden?

A human zygote is a human. It is either immoral to kill a human or it is not. Anything else is obfuscation.

Life is a process, conception is the beginning of that process. End the process and you end life.

I think I have already addressed these issues earlier in this message and in others. I feel that I have been repeating myself a lot, so I will hold off on answering them. If you look back over this post and previous ones of mine and still don’t feel that some of these have been addressed, let me know and I’ll respond to those.

I’ve clearly shown that life is a process which begins at conception and you’ve agreed to as much. So by your own stated atheistic morality, if you applied it consistently, you would have to be pro-life.

No, I address this point earlier when I explain why abortion is not immoral under my morality. I see you have responded to it in a subsequent post, so I will get into more detail when responding to that. Here is the relevant passage:

However, there are clearly some people who not only desire that all sentient beings be protected from harm, but that all humans, from the moment of conception, are protected as well. Harming a zygote would thwart their desires. However, there are also people who do desire to have early-term abortions, so there are conflicting desires. Since a basic principle of morality is that ought implies can, you have to look at what is possible. You cannot feasibly get everyone who wants an abortion to no longer desire an abortion, no longer desire to go to college (or whatever the pregnancy might have stood in the way of), no longer desire to be healthy (in cases where one’s pregnancy poses health risks), or no longer desire financial stability. However, it is possible to convince someone that early-term abortions are morally permissible, and overwhelming majorities in many countries do not find anything immoral about such abortions. It is not possible to convince everyone overnight, but it is much more possible in the long run. There is a bit of a parallel with slavery. Even if you could convince the slaves that they desired to be slaves, slavery would still thwart many of their desires, such as freedom, lack of physical abuse, and ability to choose one’s wife and protect one’s family. In a world in which you could change every single thing people cared about so that being enslaved brought them maximum satisfaction, people would no longer be people. Although it took a long time, the desire to enslave others declined. So now almost no desires are being thwarted by prohibiting slavery.

But this isn’t really about morality for many pro-abortion individuals. It is about showing how progressive and secular they can be. Catholicism and other religions teach very fiercely against abortion, and that is why many atheists are against it; not for moral reasons, but for (ir)religious reasons.

If you’re saying that atheists support abortion because religions oppose it and atheists want to stick it to religion, I disagree. I have met a lot of atheists and I have yet to meet a single one who adopts moral positions on issues primarily because religions take the opposite position.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I’ve explained that life is ontologically prior to morality at least twice now. If you didn’t get it then, I doubt I can add anything that would change that.

I think we’re on the same page about life being ontologically prior to morality. I was just thrown off by your terminology and wanted to make sure that we actually were in agreement on this.

God is the bridge between is and ought.

Do you care to explain how he does that in your view? I also don’t see how this relates to my point that it is possible to have a range of views on morality and be a theist or to have a range of views and be an atheist. And of course, once you know the correct atheistic or theistic worldview, the morality of that worldview is the morality you should follow, and it is not true that any moral views are equally good.

It is clear that life begins at conception, a life that will not only soon be sentient (in the first trimester) but will develop to the most fully sentient life we have yet seen.

Yes, but you have yet to give a reason that even a non-believer should attach moral significance to this life when it is still a zygote.

This is why the idea of morality as contingent on desire is morally reprehensible.

You say it’s morally reprehensible but you don’t explain what you find morally reprehensible about it. Also, even If disagrees with your intuitions, if it is a true moral theory, than it is true. If I became convinced that the Catholic God exists, but some of the Church’s teachings disagreed with my intuitions, that would not mean that I should ignore the Church’s true moral teachings.

But it is also beside the point. Your own stated desires would be thwarted by abortion. I would venture to say the same is true of most atheists.

If we’re going to continue this conversation, I’d like you to try to explain yourself better so I don’t have to try to guess at your meaning. Which stated desires of mine would be thwarted by abortion?

I think David Hume would believe just the opposite.

So? I think we’d both agree that Hume was right about some things and wrong about other things. While I think the overwhelming majority of modern moral philosophers hold to ‘ought implies can’ at least in some sense, there are probably some who disagree. I do not think this is the place for a completely comprehensive defense of my moral theory since the truth of the theory I subscribe to is not relevant to the issue being discussed. If I had no moral theory at all, I could still say that you have yet to present any moral or pragmatic reasons that atheists should oppose abortion in all cases.

You’re basically advocating a democratic morality, which is way more troublesome than Divine command theory.

You’re stating that popular approval is the same as morally acceptable. If that were true, then slavery in the American South or Nazism was moral during the periods where a simple majority approved of them.

No, I just explained why even if every single person on earth thought slavery was moral, it would still be immoral.

I’m not decided on Divine Command theory in a fully philosophical way. God is clearly the source of morality, but I can’t (at least as of now) explain all the implications of that. As a matter of shorthand, I’d say I’m a Kantian Catholic.

I’d say you cannot fully consider the Divine Command theory without reading Fear and Trembling. Think of it this way. Even your most militantly atheistic existentialists are indebted to Kierkegaard, and he was 100% Christian.

I’ll check it out. I’ve explored divine command theory a little bit and I’ve yet to find a formulation that seems to provide a good grounding or morality. If you’re interested in the subject I recommend these two papers by my favorite Christian philosopher of religion, Wes Morriston.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I have mindfully and intelligently weighed both sides and come to the conclusion that abortion is murdering a child in the womb. Loaded vs. neutral terminology doesn’t even show up on my radar screen.

Honestly, is there nothing you feel so strongly about that you would simply say what is true without trying to be diplomatic?

I agree with you that when you believe something is a great evil, you should loudly denounce it without reservation or concerns of diplomacy (except when diplomacy would make you more likely to prevent the evil). When you said that “If someone is environmentally conscious, antiwar, rabidly politically correct, and generally makes “compassion” their mantra, but yet thinks it morally acceptable to kill a child in the womb, something is clearly amiss.” it seemed to me like you were trying to use the words ‘kill a child’ to score an emotional point without providing a strong argument that aborting a fetus is immoral. Saying abortion is killing a child and killing a child is bad no more settles the issue than saying that allowing abortion improves choice and improving choice is good.

Would you care to explain why you think it is murder, since I already explained why I think that it does not match the definition of murder in a multiple ways?

 

[Puddin317]

It baffles me why people come to a Catholic web site or forum to argue these points? Ulterior motives I think.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

It baffles me why people come to a Catholic web site or forum to argue these points? Ulterior motives I think.

What do you think my ulterior motives might be?

If you’re interested, the reason I came here originally was that I was just beginning to explore religion for myself and wanted to bounce some of my ideas off of believers and also see if any of them had good reasons to believe. I could have instead joined an atheist site and only heard the opinions of those who already agreed with me, but I thought this would give me a better perspective on what believers actually believe. The site has inspired me to think more deeply about a lot of philosophical issues, and I feel I have benefited from posting here.

 

[Des]

Some might say I’m deluded but that’s a two-way accusation.

Or just selfish minded.

There’s an arrogance about you I feel from reading your post where you seem all to proud to have killed your child. I seriously pity you as I pray for his/her soul.

It baffles me why people come to a Catholic web site or forum to argue these points? Ulterior motives I think.

What baffles me is how people think they have logical minds when attempting to place certain criterias that must be met, before a growing human being get’s it’s right to life.

 

[Darkbloom]

I never said I maintained that harming life is always wrong. I do not believe it is immoral to pick a flower for instance. There is nothing magical about something being life that gives it moral standing.

I never implied that you did say any and all harm to life immoral. But you did say that doing it without just cause is immoral. That means abortion is immoral.

I do want to reduce the suffering of animals. But aborting a fetus that does not yet feel pain or have desires does not cause it to suffer. I have repeatedly said that there is nothing magical about possessing human DNA, and do not think that a zygote has the same moral standing as an adult human.

You’re using indeterminacy as a crutch. Any moral person, as you have said throughout, would oppose the unnecessary destruction of life. That is exactly what abortion is.

Furthermore, is there any indisputable proof of exactly when a fetus does feel pain? If not, why not error on the side of compassion and not abort?

Why don’t you do a poll of mothers and see how burdensome pregnancy can be. You get something wonderful at the end of it, but it is by no means easy. Being vegetarian merely means eating some foods rather than others. At least for me, once I got used to it, it has presented no appreciable burden.

Be this as it may, you are advocating abortion as a way to relieve a mother of a burden.

More over, human are clearly possessed of evolutionary adaptations for eating meat, which is to say it is natural to our biology. Being a vegetarian gets easier, I know first hand, but it is still our nature to eat meat.

Likewise, women are adapted to have children. It is also a basic biologic function. They are really on the same moral plane.

Yes, once a human has attained a certain stage in development, it deserves more moral consideration than any other being we know of. I have explained the reasons for this, and those same reasons do not apply for a zygote.

It seems that you’ve gone from saying that living beings deserve moral consideration to saying only certain orders of living beings deserve moral consideration. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that seems to be the case.

Life is very clear cut. Your notion is much more nebulous. If we are to be consistently moral, why would we not hold ourselves to the standard of protecting life instead just life that has risen above some ill defined standard of morally worthwhile life?

I think I have already addressed these issues earlier in this message and in others. I feel that I have been repeating myself a lot, so I will hold off on answering them. If you look back over this post and previous ones of mine and still don’t feel that some of these have been addressed, let me know and I’ll respond to those.

I’m positive that my previous post was the first time I asked you how ending a pregnancy because it is burdensome to a mother is not using abortion as a way to do away with a burden because you just recently said that pregnancy was a burden (to differentiate it from vegetarianism), even though you earlier said you did see abortion as a way of disposing of a burden.

No, I address this point earlier when I explain why abortion is not immoral under my morality. I see you have responded to it in a subsequent post, so I will get into more detail when responding to that. Here is the relevant passage:

If you’re saying that atheists support abortion because religions oppose it and atheists want to stick it to religion, I disagree. I have met a lot of atheists and I have yet to meet a single one who adopts moral positions on issues primarily because religions take the opposite position.

It doesn’t at all surprise me that atheists do not volitionally structure their morality to oppose religious teachings. Like I said earlier, much of the support of abortion is not thought out at all; instead, it is chosen reflexively to signal a rejection of faith and membership in a certain subculture.

Really, what has more predictive and explanatory power, the idea that those who most wildly uphold compassion and tolerance as their watch words just happen not to see anything wrong with infanticide, or that those people support abortion because to do so is to demonstrate how far removed from religion one is?

 

[Darkbloom]

I think we’re on the same page about life being ontologically prior to morality. I was just thrown off by your terminology and wanted to make sure that we actually were in agreement on this.

Then it should be plain that when we deal with life itself, we are dealing with a moral issue of a higher order than most.

Do you care to explain how he does that in your view? I also don’t see how this relates to my point that it is possible to have a range of views on morality and be a theist or to have a range of views and be an atheist. And of course, once you know the correct atheistic or theistic worldview, the morality of that worldview is the morality you should follow, and it is not true that any moral views are equally good.

There has been no convincing secular rebuttal of Hume’s distinction between “is” and “ought”. There never will be in my opinion. Hume rightly showed that nothing in the natural world accounts for the nearly universal human belief that “is” does in fact lead to “ought”.

Since this is the case, it follows that if no natural explanation can link “is” and “ought”, even the connection is recognized in one form or another by nearly everyone, then the only other option is a supernatural explanation.

Yes, but you have yet to give a reason that even a non-believer should attach moral significance to this life when it is still a zygote.

You gave the reason in nascent form yourself. We should avoid undue harm to life, especially human life as the highest yet known.

You can reframe it as a desire not to cause harm or suffering, but you still haven’t escaped that life is ontologically prior to morality, harm, suffering, etc, and hence rises to a higher moral order.

You say it’s morally reprehensible but you don’t explain what you find morally reprehensible about it. Also, even If disagrees with your intuitions, if it is a true moral theory, than it is true. If I became convinced that the Catholic God exists, but some of the Church’s teachings disagreed with my intuitions, that would not mean that I should ignore the Church’s true moral teachings.

You’re making my point for me. Moral truth is true of itself, not because of popular assent.

If you are truly arguing for the morality of the simple majority, then you must, if you are to remain consistent, agree that enslaving black people in the American south was okay because it was held to be moral by a majority of those in the south. Same is true for Nazism, the subjugation of women, the whole sale slaughter of heretics, etc, because there have been times and places where these views were held by a simple majority.

If we’re going to continue this conversation, I’d like you to try to explain yourself better so I don’t have to try to guess at your meaning. Which stated desires of mine would be thwarted by abortion?

Your stated desire not to cause undue harm, and your belief that moral consideration should be commiserate with sophistication/intelligence/whatever of life.

So? I think we’d both agree that Hume was right about some things and wrong about other things. While I think the overwhelming majority of modern moral philosophers hold to ‘ought implies can’ at least in some sense, there are probably some who disagree. I do not think this is the place for a completely comprehensive defense of my moral theory since the truth of the theory I subscribe to is not relevant to the issue being discussed. If I had no moral theory at all, I could still say that you have yet to present any moral or pragmatic reasons that atheists should oppose abortion in all cases.

I’ve presented a very solid reason atheists should oppose abortion, arising from your own stated philosophy. Maybe you disagree with that reason, but to say I didn’t present one is a lie.

No, I just explained why even if every single person on earth thought slavery was moral, it would still be immoral.

Please quote the passage in which you did this because I don’t see it.

Earlier in the very same post I am replying to, you scoff at my notion that morality by simple majority is reprehensible, but now you say that even if everyone on earth thought that slavery was moral it would still be immoral. That is not consistent.

That speaks to the fundamental flaw in desire utilitarianism. All desires are treated as if they are morally equal, which they are not.

 

[Darkbloom]

I agree with you that when you believe something is a great evil, you should loudly denounce it without reservation or concerns of diplomacy (except when diplomacy would make you more likely to prevent the evil). When you said that “If someone is environmentally conscious, antiwar, rabidly politically correct, and generally makes “compassion” their mantra, but yet thinks it morally acceptable to kill a child in the womb, something is clearly amiss.” it seemed to me like you were trying to use the words ‘kill a child’ to score an emotional point without providing a strong argument that aborting a fetus is immoral. Saying abortion is killing a child and killing a child is bad no more settles the issue than saying that allowing abortion improves choice and improving choice is good.

Would you care to explain why you think it is murder, since I already explained why I think that it does not match the definition of murder in a multiple ways?

Again, quote the passage where you wrote this because I have not seen it.

This is a very simple argument.

1. Life is a biological process.
2. That biological process begins at conception.
3. Stopping that process is tantamount to ending that life.
4. Forcibly ending a life is commonly referred to as murder.
5. Abortion forcibly stops the biological process of life.
6. Hence, abortion is murder.

If characterizing abortion as what it is makes you feel uncomfortable, then you need to reevaluate your morality, not insist I speak in code.

 

[Boxie]

With abortion being the fruit of the tree of contraception it is amazing to me that some Catholics in positions of authority don’t teach or practice Church teachings.

God Bless You.

It is also a church teaching that if a woman’s life is in jepordy the doctor should be able to save her. but this was not the case for the woman who’s life was threatened and needed an abortion and the NUN said she should have it and a wacky bishop excomunicated her just reciently? Then he made her do a realy good confession and excepted her back but not in he same positon she was in before. Now is all the woman who need car for their lives going to die? What a jerk he was, and is.That is not keeping their words in the cchrch i bet tat woman never goes to a catholic hospital ever again. She could ahve died and was going to unless the nun said ok, then the nun gets the bull after she at least saved her life.

 

[Des]

It is also a church teaching that if a woman’s life is in jepordy the doctor should be able to save her. but this was not the case for the woman who’s life was threatened and needed an abortion and the NUN said she should have it and a wacky bishop excomunicated her just reciently? Then he made her do a realy good confession and excepted her back but not in he same positon she was in before. Now is all the woman who need car for their lives going to die? What a jerk he was, and is.That is not keeping their words in the cchrch i bet tat woman never goes to a catholic hospital ever again. She could ahve died and was going to unless the nun said ok, then the nun gets the bull after she at least saved her life.

Killing an innocent person directly to save yourself is morally wrong so likewise the Church has NEVER said it’s ok to intentionally kill an unborn child to save oneself. So the Nun was wrong and was rightfully excommunicated.

Good for the Bishop for standing against abortion and keeping within Church’s teachings.

 

[MikiBee]

Killing an innocent person directly to save yourself is morally wrong so likewise the Church has NEVER said it’s ok to intentionally kill an unborn child to save oneself. So the Nun was wrong and was rightfully excommunicated.

Good for the Bishop for standing against abortion and keeping within Church’s teachings.

Really??? I was under the impression that the Catholic church said abortion is acceptable if the woman has an ectopic pregnancy.