an abortion question

[Rau]

I don’t know if it’s okay to “rez” an old thread, but my issue now is “when doles a fetus become a person?” What are your views?

Suggest you start a new thread. A definition of “person” might be useful too.

 

[Ph0enix]

I don’t know if it’s okay to “rez” an old thread, but my issue now is “when doles a fetus become a person?” What are your views?

The church teaches the fetus is always a person.

And science shows brain activity so either way you look at it the fetus is a child

 

[on_the_hill]

The fetus has everything it needs, in terms of genetics, to be human from the moment of conception.

 

[HelenRose]

If a baby is literally dropped on your doorstep, he would diwe if you left it therre. Does that mean you are obligated to care for him?

If she was raped?

If someone has to die in the case of rape, why is it the innocent baby and not the rapist? We could crush his head, cut off his arms and legs, dissect him and sell his organs for research purposes.

 

[francisca]

The murder of an unborn child is not a reasonable response to an unborn child ‘using’ the mother’s body.

If a three year old child is ‘using’ your body without permission, say it’s climbing on your back or something, you may remove the child and put the child on the ground. You may not throw them out of a window; that would not be reasonable.

You may not remove an unborn child from a mother, because it will probably die. The response is not proportional to the effect the child is having on the mother.

Morality discussion, I agree 100% to this argument. Ideally, all unwanted pregnancy should end up in “adoption centre” at the very least.

By pragmantism reasoning: how do you make the policy that capable to support this in reality?

And, as an aside, for Catholics anyway, sex IS consent to pregnancy. It may not always happen, but it is always a possibility.

Peace

I agree to this one too, and therefore I say that a man is as guilty as his woman when she abort her pregnancy, if he doesn’t dissuade her/ offer to raise the child/ help her to find acceptable alternatives to her situation.

If the assumption is “sex equals pregnancy consent”, then that consent to pregnancy also apply to men too, therefore he is just as culpable (if not more culpable, especially if he is the one to initiate the sex) in abortion cases, eventhough abortion is only done by women.

Legally speaking-- talking about broken contract-- two people agree to a contract that inside is stipulated terms & conditions that basically say the completion of the project include “a tall beautiful building should be raised & completed”. One party run away from the project. Does the other party have obligation to complete the building alone? Therefore, my argument, if the project to be continued, it should be by “another contract that allow the one party who is trying to be responsible to be able to handover gracefully and not being implicated by the law because of the other party’s action”. You can’t enforce the law on one party alone, while allowing the other party “keep signing new project contracts that he has no intention to complete” to getaway with it. If you allow this to happen, then you’re allowing oppression of one party towards the other. Therefore, my argument, legality approach is irrelevant to prolife works. Morality approach: both party culpable. It is immoral to enforce responsibility to one party and completely close your eyes from the other party who getaway with it.

 

[francisca]

OP, I believe your original question has been answered. Do you have anything further to ask on this point?

I would like to expand OP question:

What is the morality of making the law that favor the culture of men and encourage men “**using **women’s body” to spread their seed, and make it compulsory child-bearing for these women the result of permissive behavior of both men and women by women alone?

 

[Rau]

I would like to expand OP question:

What is the morality of making the law that favor the culture of men and encourage men “**using **women’s body” to spread their seed, and make it compulsory child-bearing for these women the result of permissive behavior of both men and women by women alone?

I do know the law where you live. Surely the law holds the father to be equally responsible for child support?

Regardless, there is no case in morality for enabling abortion - 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[carn]

I don’t know if it’s okay to “rez” an old thread, but my issue now is “when doles a fetus become a person?” What are your views?

I think its completely irrelevant.

As some guys once said:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Some neglience should be applied to “men” and it should be read as “humans” instead. There is nothing said about persons, so its realy irrelevant, when an unborn human becomes a person, it/he/she has the unalienable Right to Life, if it/he/she is a human.

Of course, these guys added some funny afterthought:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

that if one happens to be subject of a government which is destructive to the protection of these rights, which in my crazy mind for example would be a government balking around with some silly “Uh, humans don’t have a Right to Life, only persons, which is a subset of humans, have such a right, and there are certainly humans which are non-persons and therefore can be killed at leisure”, and one takes these guys seriously one should grab the adequate tool to alter or abolish such an immoral government, which acts directly against the sole cause why governments are instituted among humans.

But thats probably just some sort of funny joke, i don’t get.

Truly bizarre and ridicilous would be, if a country existed founded by such guys, proclaiming that HUMANS must be protected by the government, and then some supreme court of such hypothetical country would, faced with the question to what extent unborn humans are to be protected, suddenly declare itself to be incompetent to determine whether these unborn are HUMANS and instead of dissolving at once due to incompetence/inability to interpret the most IMPORTANT ISSUE upon which it depends, whether its ok or not to grab a rope to hang the king/president/whatever from the next tree, starts to babble about PERSONS, which might be a non-complete subset of HUMANS, as if that resolves anything and actually continues to fake being a competent court.

Fortunately, such a country surely cannot exist, anybode would notice at once the idiocy and quickly reforms would happen.

 

[carn]

I would like to expand OP question:

What is the morality of making the law that favor the culture of men and encourage men “**using **women’s body” to spread their seed, and make it compulsory child-bearing for these women the result of permissive behavior of both men and women by women alone?

This would be immoral.

And actually is immoral, as the case can be made, that such countries exist.

In my personal opinion every single country might be found guilty in that respect, because while often laws threatening the pregnant woman with punishment in case of abortion in certain circumstances exist, i am not aware that any such law ever minded the fact that it usually takes two to get pregnant. And when the issue is punishment for ending the pregnancy, the second culprit should at least be found and questioned regarding any potential guilt in the issue, which is completly alien to all abortion laws i know about.

 

[BellsMom]

Why is the innocent life of unborn babies killed in abortion such a terrible sin and those killed in war just unfortunate collateral damage?

I find the catholic philosophy of all life being sacred to be extremely inconsistent.

 

[Ph0enix]

Why is the innocent life of unborn babies killed in abortion such a terrible sin and those killed in war just unfortunate collateral damage?

I find the catholic philosophy of all life being sacred to be extremely inconsistent.

In war it is protecting the nation, Yes it is a shame that war exists (especially because the people we fight are seen as heros to some one else) but in war its protecting a nation

abortion… kills a baby and ruins the womb

 

[HelenRose]

Why is the innocent life of unborn babies killed in abortion such a terrible sin and those killed in war just unfortunate collateral damage?

I find the catholic philosophy of all life being sacred to be extremely inconsistent.

It is governments that called the death of human beings “collateral damage”.

It is horrible terminology which reduces people to objects.

 

[Rau]

Why is the innocent life of unborn babies killed in abortion such a terrible sin and those killed in war just unfortunate collateral damage?

I find the catholic philosophy of all life being sacred to be extremely inconsistent.

It is immoral to intentionally set out to kill innocents (non-combatants) in war. It is immoral to intentionally set out to kill an innocent (unborn). This is consistent and hinges on intentionality.

There is no collateral damage in abortion, only intended damage.

Whether collateral damage in war is immoral or not is a difficult judgement.

 

[carn]

Why is the innocent life of unborn babies killed in abortion such a terrible sin and those killed in war just unfortunate collateral damage?

I find the catholic philosophy of all life being sacred to be extremely inconsistent.

What exactly is the inconsistency?
washingtonexaminer.com/media-gets-it-mostly-right-on-pope-francis-and-weapons-manufacturers/article/2566812

"Engaging in an imaginary conversation with a Christian who is involved in the weapons business, the pope said, “‘No, no Father, I do not manufacture weapons. No, no. I have only invested my savings in the weapons’ manufacturers.’ Ah! And why? ‘Because personal interests are highest.’”

Francis continued, saying in a colloquial manner that the behavior of these men calls into question their ability to be good Christians and to follow Christ’s example. These remarks came on the heels of Francis instructing his audience on the need to serve others.

Rather than serving their neighbor, Francis suggested, self-proclaimed Christians who sell and manufacture weapons, which can later be used to fuel conflicts, appear instead to be sacrificing others for their own gain."

Sounds like at least “vice president” of church is not in favor of collateral damage.

 

[BellsMom]

The inconsistency in my mind is this:

If ALL life is truly sacred, then killing an innocent either intentionally or taking actions you know will likely cause innocents to be killed by accident (shooting into a crowd, setting a building on fire, dropping a bomb) should make no difference at all.

 

[Corki]

The inconsistency in my mind is this:

If ALL life is truly sacred, then killing an innocent either intentionally or taking actions you know will likely cause innocents to be killed by accident (shooting into a crowd, setting a building on fire, dropping a bomb) should make no difference at all.

Yes, all of those are immoral acts. What’s the inconsistency?

 

[Rau]

Yes, all of those are immoral acts. What’s the inconsistency?

Not true. Attacking a military target in a just war in the knowledge that some innocents may be killed can be a moral act.

 

[Rau]

The inconsistency in my mind is this:

If ALL life is truly sacred, then killing an innocent either intentionally or taking actions you know will likely cause innocents to be killed by accident (shooting into a crowd, setting a building on fire, dropping a bomb) should make no difference at all.

All life is sacred means that there is evil in its taking, but does not mean that all taking of life is immoral. I mentioned the just war scenario earlier where the double effect of the military action may also involve loss of innocent life. The moral treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is another, and is morally distinct from the direct killing of the child as a “treatment”.

“Shooting into a crowd” and “setting a building on fire” appear to be acts ( I assume) done with evil intentions and to have only evil foreseeable consequences, and either one of these factors is sufficient to make them morally wrong acts.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

 

[Corki]

Not true. Attacking a military target in a just war in the knowledge that some innocents may be killed can be a moral act.

Absolutely. But Belle(name removed by moderator) did not ask about an act of the military in a just war. She was asking about the act of an individual who was harming innocents.

Even in a just war, all military acts are not moral.

 

[BornInMarch]

I should start out by saying that there are agnostic and even atheist people who oppose abortion. Now that that is established, I will explain (from a non-religious standpoint) why abortion is morally wrong.

In order to be come to a stance on abortion, there are two assumptions that need to be confirmed or reputed. The first is the assumption that the unborn child is a human being, and the second is the assumption that all humans have natural rights.

The first assumption is the easiest to confirm. According to Exploratorium.edu, there are six easily observable characteristics of life.

1.movement (which may occur internally, or even at the cellular level)
2.growth and development
3.response to stimuli
4.reproduction
5.use of energy
6.cellular structure

From the moment of conception, the unborn child has all seven of these characteristics. And because the unborn child has 24 chromosomes like you or me, it could be nothing else but a human.

Now that it has been determined that fetuses and embryos are living humans, we need to still need to confirm or disprove the assumption that all human beings have rights. This is a bit harder, but still possible by observing great thinkers.

According to John Locke,

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it … that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”

According to Nelson Mandela,

“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.”

According to Kay Granger,

“Human rights are not a privilege granted by the few, they are a liberty entitled to all, and human rights, by definition, include the rights of all humans, those in the dawn of life, the dusk of life, or the shadows of life.”

I could go on, but the general consensus is that human rights should never be taken away and that they apply to all humans. Since the humanity of the unborn has already been established, it can be concluded that abortion is morally unjustifiable and should not be allowed in a civilized society.