an abortion question

  • Thread starter Thread starter CeaselessMedik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BornInMarch said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your rationale is reliant on a number of assumptions and personal beliefs. It suffers a further weakness as exposed by the following scenario:

Some atheists may argue that circumstances may make it permissible to kill even an innocent human. For example - where to do so is foreseen to save the life of multiple other innocent human beings. The atheist may tell you that you have 2 choices:
  • do nothing, and, by virtue of such inaction, be responsible for the death of multiple innocents; OR
  • kill one innocent (saving the life of the others).
The atheist may view this as a decision between the human rights of one person or the human rights of multiple, and draw the conclusion that killing one is a lesser evil.

Thus, the atheist, relying on your assumptions and beliefs, still arrives at the “wrong” conclusion.
 
Rau said:
Your rationale is reliant on a number of assumptions and personal beliefs. It suffers a further weakness as exposed by the following scenario:

Some atheists may argue that circumstances may make it permissible to kill even an innocent human. For example - where to do so is foreseen to save the life of multiple other innocent human beings. The atheist may tell you that you have 2 choices:
  • do nothing, and, by virtue of such inaction, be responsible for the death of multiple innocents; OR
  • kill one innocent (saving the life of the others).
The atheist may view this as a decision between the human rights of one person or the human rights of multiple, and draw the conclusion that killing one is a lesser evil.

Thus, the atheist, relying on your assumptions and beliefs, still arrives at the “wrong” conclusion.
Click to expand...
Yes, my rationale is reliant on a number of assumptions … that number is exactly two.

The second one, which claims that all humans have inalienable rights (among which is life) is not faulty in this instance because there are ZERO instances when aborting one unborn child will save a greater number of people.

But by you putting “wrong” in quotations, I assume you support abortion?
 
BornInMarch said:
Yes, my rationale is reliant on a number of assumptions … that number is exactly two.

The second one, which claims that all humans have inalienable rights (among which is life) is not faulty in this instance because there are ZERO instances when aborting one unborn child will save a greater number of people.

But by you putting “wrong” in quotations, I assume you support abortion?
Click to expand...
The atheist may arrive at the conclusion that killing one innocent is OK to save two (for the reasons I gave earlier), and that is a “wrong” conclusion. The quotation marks are to indicate the “wrongness” is not one of strict logic, but is dependent on the system of morality adopted. It is wrong under Catholic theology, but it is or may well be “right” under a Consequentialist system.

The Consequentialist can well argue that the unborn child (not so much in this day and age, but in times past) is a threat to the life of the mother, and the mother’s life is more valuable in light of other children who may be dependent on her. There are also (contrived) scenarios where aborting one child may lead to the sparing of several others. [Gun to the head made up type scenarios.] In these scenarios, your rationale does not itself weigh against abortion - one following your principles may conclude it is rational and right to kill the child since that seems to involve less loss of previous life.

Further, I suggest the basis to oppose abortion should not be fundamentally unique in comparison with other acts of the same moral species (murder, etc.).
 
This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:
  • the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
  • posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.
Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top