Can someone help explain why abortion is much worse than the Iraqi War?

[nancy_dalrymple]

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

Salaam/ Peace

Please , don’t spread lies & hatred . I gurss you are referring to Prophet’s marriage with his cousin who was divorced by Prophet’s slave . If u want to know more , pl ask in the related thread. There is a thead on Ask about Islam . Also , u can open a new thread.

Moreover , how Prophet Muhammed (p) is related to abortion or Iraq war ? Christians believe he is a fake one ; so how they can justify a war by using his example ? Strange.

Very nice music,what was he singing about? do you have the words to it?I still think killing,is killing and only to defend, is ok but to just kill be cause you don’t like someone is not good,it’s a hate crime.We cannot profess to be Christians and think murder is ok. If you were walking down the street and you seen someone beating on another and the other was realy half dead, you wouldnt think for a moment about helping,you wouldn;t ask them first, if they were Catholic.or prodastant.You would get in there to help as best you could.Love your enemies and pray for them(forgive them Father for they know not what they do)Love is the key. Happy trails: In Jesus name Nancy

 

[bookgirl32]

Catholics seem to feel that abortion is the world’s greatest evil - they consider it in complete isolation, apparently, from every other issue affecting life on this planet. So yes, my post was absolutely sincere.

Quite the opposite, actually. It has everything to do with every other issue affecting life on this planet, and that is precisely why it is so important. If the most defenseless lives are not thought of as worthy simply b/c they are defenseless, then all of the other issues will suffer more because of this. It is the great regard for all life that the Church holds that makes it’s stance on abortion so strong. It is not more important. Because of the potential for damage to all life issues that it has it is, however, more imperative.

 

[Sair]

Quite the opposite, actually. It has everything to do with every other issue affecting life on this planet, and that is precisely why it is so important. If the most defenseless lives are not thought of as worthy simply b/c they are defenseless, then all of the other issues will suffer more because of this. It is the great regard for all life that the Church holds that makes it’s stance on abortion so strong. It is not more important. Because of the potential for damage to all life issues that it has it is, however, more imperative.

This certainly isn’t the impression one would get from reading many of the posts on this forum. From the rabidly blustering outrage expressed by many at the mere mention of abortion, they obviously have this charming mental image of all those selfish, irresponsible women traipsing merrily off to the abortion clinic because they’ve had an ‘oops’! Not the case at all. Abortion is often resorted to only when all possibilities have been weighed, and the decision has been made - often with great difficulty - that the mother’s circumstances would not allow her to raise a child with any degree of quality of life for that child.

To set the record straight, in case anyone is wondering, I have never had an abortion, nor do I ever intend to have one. I have no plans to ever be in a position to consider it. Having said that, however, I am not going to sit here and condemn another’s decision to terminate a pregnancy - I don’t know their circumstances, and I don’t know what state of mind has led to their decision.

The general consensus on this thread seems to be that war is an evil, but sometimes a necessary one (though whether it was necessary in the case of the Iraq war is well and truly open to debate). I would venture to suggest that the same is true of abortion. We should not presume to know another person’s motives. Furthermore, believing abortion to be sometimes necessary does not imply a disrespect for all life. Not everyone believes that the unborn are more important that the ones already out there.

 

[Eileen_T]

ALL life is sacred. But innocent blood cries out for justice, whether born or unborn.

Sair:

From the rabidly blustering outrage expressed by many at the mere mention of abortion, they obviously have this charming mental image of all those selfish, irresponsible women traipsing merrily off to the abortion clinic because they’ve had an ‘oops’! Not the case at all. Abortion is often resorted to only when all possibilities have been weighed, and the decision has been made - often with great difficulty - that the mother’s circumstances would not allow her to raise a child with any degree of quality of life for that child.

And what… she has never heard of adoption?

I have been a crisis pregnancy counsellor (+ post abortion counsellor), most of the women I dealt with were in panic mode. They didn’t even know what help was available to enable them to weigh all possibilities.

The ‘oops!’ you are referring to is because they were having sex without considering the possible consequences of their actions. That is why the Church preaches celibacy before marriage and fidelity after, as well as being open to the transmission of life.

I forget how many women I have counselled to keep their baby when they thought their only option was abortion. But one I visited after the birth. Her English wasn’t very good but it didn’t take much to understand her repeated words “Thank you for saving my baby.”

We had women who were threatened with eviction, abandonment by the loser father, violence from the father, violence from the parents (his as well as hers) you name it I saw it. Including pressure from family members because it would be an embarrassment to their position in their “church”.

I dealt with fathers who claimed it wasn’t human (the mother said: “well it isn’t a chicken!”); fathers who said they weren’t ready or old enough for the responsibility of fatherhood (one was 32!); women who had broken up with the father and wanted to move on with no ties to the past.

Actually, in that last category was a family member who gave my great-nephew up for adoption. Without any (name removed by moderator)ut from me, I might add.

Not everyone believes that the unborn are more important that the ones already out there.

If God does, that is all that matters!

Who can judge the value the aborted unborn could have contributed to our society? Maybe the aborted unborns could have been those who discovered a cure for cancer or AIDS, a solution for the climate problems we face, a leader who would have achieved world peace or solved many other problems we face today.

We don’t know, only God knows. That is why it is so important not to frustrate God’s Plan for our lives.

Through Scripture we know that we should not have sex outside of the marital covenant. If we do, we will answer to God for any child that is conceived whether it is born or aborted.

The encyclical *Humanae Vitae *was a prophetic document. I recommend everyone read it. Humanae Vitae

 

[Sair]

ALL life is sacred. But innocent blood cries out for justice, whether born or unborn.

Hence the purpose of the OP’s initial question - yet many on this thread seem to suggest that it is less unjust to kill innocent people in war, who never had any say in declaring or supporting the war.

And what… she has never heard of adoption?

Sadly, in our society - which is still, despite the fact that there are many children in desperate need of fostering or adoption, and despite the burden to the planet created by overpopulation of humans, irresponsibly and alarmingly pronatalist - adoption still has a stigma attached to it. Biological parenthood is still held up as some sort of sacred ideal, and so the prospect of giving a child up for adoption also carries with it the stigma of somehow being a ‘bad’ or ‘immature’ choice - strangely, moreso than abortion or having the child when you’re not in a position to care for it. I’m not saying this is a justification for succumbing to social pressure - just that the social pressure exists, against all reason and sensible judgement. If a woman is psychologically capable of going through with pregnancy and childbirth (even of, say, a rapist’s child) and giving the child up for adoption - then coping with the long-term ramifications of that choice - then I am all for that option. But not everyone is psychologically capable of going through all that and actually coping.

Who can judge the value the aborted unborn could have contributed to our society? Maybe the aborted unborns could have been those who discovered a cure for cancer or AIDS, a solution for the climate problems we face, a leader who would have achieved world peace or solved many other problems we face today.

This argument is always trotted out, and the refutation is simple - it is just as likely that the unborn child will turn out to be a rapist, murderer, dictator or some other variety of heinous villain. Far more likely, statistically, since none of the achievements you mention above have yet come about, despite the multitudes of children born every day. As some have said, if only Herr and Frau Hitler had used a condom…

We don’t know, only God knows. That is why it is so important not to frustrate God’s Plan for our lives.

This argument is just another way of refusing to apply intellectual rigour to the moral decisions we make.

 

[PerryJ]

This certainly isn’t the impression one would get from reading many of the posts on this forum. From the rabidly blustering outrage expressed by many at the mere mention of abortion, they obviously have this charming mental image of all those selfish, irresponsible women traipsing merrily off to the abortion clinic because they’ve had an ‘oops’! Not the case at all. Abortion is often resorted to only when all possibilities have been weighed, and the decision has been made - often with great difficulty - that the mother’s circumstances would not allow her to raise a child with any degree of quality of life for that child.

The general consensus on this thread seems to be that war is an evil, but sometimes a necessary one (though whether it was necessary in the case of the Iraq war is well and truly open to debate). I would venture to suggest that the same is true of abortion. We should not presume to know another person’s motives. Furthermore, believing abortion to be sometimes necessary does not imply a disrespect for all life. Not everyone believes that the unborn are more important that the ones already out there.

I do believe woman, and men associated with, abortion should be held accountable. Your thought that people on this site believe many have abortions because of an oops is true. Let us apply some states from the pro-choice Guttamacher Institute.

73% of woman having abortions have had a pregancy before.
47% of woman having an abortion had a previous abortion
60% of woman having an abortion have already had a kid

75% of the woman having an abortion state that they do not want the responsibilty of a child
75% of the woman having an abortion state that a child would interfere with work or school

58% of woman having an abortion have had some college education
33% of woman having an abortion have graduated from college
31% of woman having an abortion have graduated from high school without going on to College.

Stastics show that the more educated a person is the more likley they will have an abortion.

The thought that all of these woman are poor, 15 years old and uneducated is not statisitcally true. It does occur and it is tragic; however, the majority of woman and the men involved know what is occurring and do not take responsibility for their actions.

The statement that “not everyone believes the unborn are more important than a living person” is exactly what is wrong with this world. Being so selfish and self centered that one is willing to kill a living innocent human being versus accept the responsibility of their actions. The vast majority of abortions involve educated men and woman that have these oops, as you call them, multiple times. Babies that I have shown feel the pain of death more than adults and if one considers the Iraq war to US abortions the death rate is by a 1,500 to one ratio.

The number one need in fighting abortion is to educate people. So many believe abortions are for the uneducated backwards people that made one mistake. Pro-choice stats show that this belief is just not true.

 

[Ender]

I am not going to sit here and condemn another’s decision to terminate a pregnancy - I don’t know their circumstances, and I don’t know what state of mind has led to their decision.

What circumstances justify the intentional killing of an innocent person?

The general consensus on this thread seems to be that war is an evil, but sometimes a necessary one (though whether it was necessary in the case of the Iraq war is well and truly open to debate).

That is what the Church teaches so it shouldn’t be surprising that the general consensus on a Catholic site agrees with the Church.

I would venture to suggest that the same is true of abortion.

Abortion is an intrinsic evil which means that there are no circumstances whatever in which it is moral.

Not everyone believes that the unborn are more important that the ones already out there.

No one believes this. The issue isn’t whether one life is more important than another, it is whether all killing is morally equal. The answer to that is obviously no and the worst type of killing is the intentional slaying of the innocent. This is why even the unintentional killing of innocents in war is not as morally grave as abortion, because of the question of intent.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

Abortion is often resorted to only when all possibilities have been weighed, and the decision has been made - often with great difficulty - that the mother’s circumstances would not allow her to raise a child with any degree of quality of life for that child.

.

For what other social issues do you beleive the kiling of the potential recipients is an accpetable alternative?

 

[Sair]

For what other social issues do you beleive the kiling of the potential recipients is an accpetable alternative?

To answer the immediate question - euthanasia, when quality of life is irreparably damaged, and only with the consent of the (fully aware) subject.

To expand this point - There are many who believe that a foetus is still part of a woman’s body until it is born, and that the woman has sovereignty over the functions of her own body. Furthermore, there is ample scientific evidence that a foetus is incapable of registering pain before 12-24 weeks’ gestation, depending upon which studies you read.

If morality is based on the real-world supposition that suffering occurs (and before anyone suggests that suffering sanctifies the person undergoing said suffering, that may happen in some circumstances, but it is far more likely that suffering will brutalise the subject to some extent), then the decision to abort the foetus becomes a matter of weighing up the pre-birth suffering and the post-birth suffering. In some cases, the circumstances into which the child will be born will cause a lifetime of suffering, not just a half-hour’s suffering, or whatever the timeframe is for an abortion procedure.

If, however, morality is based upon what is set down in religious texts, then the choice is yours as to whether you surrender your rational, real-world faculties to writings that are confusing, contradictory and in some cases highly destructive and inhuman; or whether you apply intellect and mental vigour to the choices with which you are presented, in a real-world context.

We don’t live in an ideal world, and not everyone who wishes for an ideal world has the same ideals. No-one in their right mind would claim that war was just or acceptable in every circumstance; that doesn’t prevent it being an option for any government. Were it not an option, however, what would become of many nations of the world, particularly those small nations who desire freedom from overlordship? The same goes for abortion - it is not a right, not ideal in every circumstance, but were it not available as an option, what would be the consequences?

That is what must be weighed - real-world consequences, real suffering, the real cost to the world, both human and otherwise.

 

[bookgirl32]

This certainly isn’t the impression one would get from reading many of the posts on this forum. From the rabidly blustering outrage expressed by many at the mere mention of abortion, they obviously have this charming mental image of all those selfish, irresponsible women traipsing merrily off to the abortion clinic because they’ve had an ‘oops’! Not the case at all. Abortion is often resorted to only when all possibilities have been weighed, and the decision has been made - often with great difficulty - that the mother’s circumstances would not allow her to raise a child with any degree of quality of life for that child.

To set the record straight, in case anyone is wondering, I have never had an abortion, nor do I ever intend to have one. I have no plans to ever be in a position to consider it. Having said that, however, I am not going to sit here and condemn another’s decision to terminate a pregnancy - I don’t know their circumstances, and I don’t know what state of mind has led to their decision.

The general consensus on this thread seems to be that war is an evil, but sometimes a necessary one (though whether it was necessary in the case of the Iraq war is well and truly open to debate). I would venture to suggest that the same is true of abortion. We should not presume to know another person’s motives. Furthermore, believing abortion to be sometimes necessary does not imply a disrespect for all life. Not everyone believes that the unborn are more important that the ones already out there.

Again, it’s not a question of importance. It would be inaccurate to paint every woman that has had an abortion as “selfish, irresponsible women traipsing merrily off to the abortion clinic because they’ve had an ‘oops’!” (although, it would be inaccurate to claim there were none like this as well). Most women are not throwing a party at going to get an abortion. None of this, however, matters. If a woman had a five week old child and at that point decided that “circumstances would not allow her to raise a child with any degree of quality of life for that child” she would not have the legal option of euthanizing that child. It is not a question of judging someone’s decision, it is a matter of abortion not being a legal option in that decision-making process.

 

[estesbob]

To answer the immediate question - euthanasia, when quality of life is irreparably damaged, and only with the consent of the (fully aware) subject.

Obviously the unborn child can’t give their full consent. And if you believe that everybody’s who is euthanized has given full consent you really haven’t followed the issue very well.

To expand this point - There are many who believe that a foetus is still part of a woman’s body until it is born, and that the woman has sovereignty over the functions of her own body. Furthermore, there is ample scientific evidence that a foetus is incapable of registering pain before 12-24 weeks’ gestation, depending upon which studies you read.

There are many who believe Elvis is still alive also but that doesn’t make it true. People are entitled their own opinions but they are not entilted to their own biology -the unborn child is separate distinct human life from the moment of conception on. It is not a part of the woman’s body.

I fail to see what the ability to feel pain has to do with the right to life. I underwent four hours of surgery last week and didn’t feel a thing-could the doctor have legally slit my throat while I was under since I couldn’t feel it?

If morality is based on the real-world supposition that suffering occurs (and before anyone suggests that suffering sanctifies the person undergoing said suffering, that may happen in some circumstances, but it is far more likely that suffering will brutalise the subject to some extent), then the decision to abort the foetus becomes a matter of weighing up the pre-birth suffering and the post-birth suffering. In some cases, the circumstances into which the child will be born will cause a lifetime of suffering, not just a half-hour’s suffering, or whatever the timeframe is for an abortion procedure.

Again you set up a false premise that the right to life is predicated on “feelings”

I am somewhat amused but not surprised that you continual use of the word fetus. Generally those who try to rationalize their probative abortion try to use as many euphemisms as they can. Of course I’m sure you going to tell me the fetus is a medical term but then I don’t see you referring to those born as Homo sapiens.

If, however, morality is based upon what is set down in religious texts, then the choice is yours as to whether you surrender your rational, real-world faculties to writings that are confusing, contradictory and in some cases highly destructive and inhuman; or whether you apply intellect and mental vigour to the choices with which you are presented, in a real-world context.

We don’t live in an ideal world, and not everyone who wishes for an ideal world has the same ideals. No-one in their right mind would claim that war was just or acceptable in every circumstance; that doesn’t prevent it being an option for any government. Were it not an option, however, what would become of many nations of the world, particularly those small nations who desire freedom from overlordship? The same goes for abortion - it is not a right, not ideal in every circumstance, but were it not available as an option, what would be the consequences?

If it was not an option a lot less children would die. I have not seen you put for a single argument justifying abortion that would also not apply to a single woman who suddenly found it was difficult to provide for her seven-year-old. Should she have the right to terminate her child any time based on their current financial status?

That is what must be weighed - real-world consequences, real suffering, the real cost to the world, both human and otherwise.

Without the right to life all other rights are irrelevant. That is the way the real-world works whether one is religious or not.

 

[bookgirl32]

Sadly, in our society - which is still, despite the fact that there are many children in desperate need of fostering or adoption, and despite the burden to the planet created by overpopulation of humans, irresponsibly and alarmingly pronatalist - adoption still has a stigma attached to it. Biological parenthood is still held up as some sort of sacred ideal, and so the prospect of giving a child up for adoption also carries with it the stigma of somehow being a ‘bad’ or ‘immature’ choice - strangely, moreso than abortion or having the child when you’re not in a position to care for it. I’m not saying this is a justification for succumbing to social pressure - just that the social pressure exists, against all reason and sensible judgement. If a woman is psychologically capable of going through with pregnancy and childbirth (even of, say, a rapist’s child) and giving the child up for adoption - then coping with the long-term ramifications of that choice - then I am all for that option. But not everyone is psychologically capable of going through all that and actually coping.

First of all, your opinions on the state of adoption in America are simply that, opinions. If you want to back some of those claims up with some statistics, feel free.

Secondly, yes, there are plenty of kids in the foster system waiting to be adopted, some will never be adopted. Can you truly claim that this fact means they should not be alive? This is essentially what you’re claiming.

As far as overpopulation, how would you propose to deal with this using abortion? Which unborn children are worthy or life, and which need to be conveniently killed? If you tell me the children with uncertain futures (we ALL have uncertain futures) then please refer to the above paragraph and what that would be claiming about living, born, protected citizens of this country: something that is not legal.

Thirdly, the psychological ability of the woman to go through a pregnancy is not a valid option for the killing of another human being. If we take this argument at it’s face value, then we could conclude that it should be legal to “terminate” any one of any relation to any person who does not feel they have the psychological strength to deal with that person’s existence. The only case this is legal is, again, in the case of the unborn.

This argument is always trotted out, and the refutation is simple - it is just as likely that the unborn child will turn out to be a rapist, murderer, dictator or some other variety of heinous villain. Far more likely, statistically, since none of the achievements you mention above have yet come about, despite the multitudes of children born every day. As some have said, if only Herr and Frau Hitler had used a condom…

Not true. From the moment of conception until they voluntarily gave up that right, Hitler, murderers, dictators and heinous villains have a right to life. The abortion of Hitler himself, before he voluntarily made the decisions he made and did what he did, would have been sinful. There are NO unborn children who are any of these things, period, even though they may turn out to be one. Imagine if this argument could be used on born humans, it could be used to make the case for the death of any person, since any of us, under certain circumstances, have the potential to do anything. I would also ask you who would be the deciding factor in this situation? Which of us are more able to judge another?

This argument is just another way of refusing to apply intellectual rigour to the moral decisions we make.

The notion that morality and intellectualism are mutually exclusive is ridiculous.

 

[bookgirl32]

To answer the immediate question - euthanasia, when quality of life is irreparably damaged, and only with the consent of the (fully aware) subject.

What is the difference between the value and dignity of the above mentioned person and one that has yet to be born? Why is this person above worthy of giving their “fully aware” consent and one that is not yet born is not?

 

[bookgirl32]

To expand this point - There are many who believe that a foetus is still part of a woman’s body until it is born, and that the woman has sovereignty over the functions of her own body. Furthermore, there is ample scientific evidence that a foetus is incapable of registering pain before 12-24 weeks’ gestation, depending upon which studies you read.

We’ve already dealt with the pain argument. Who are these “many” that think that a human being with completely different DNA makeup is an actual part of the body in which it is residing? I’d like to see some real documented evidence of an actual biologist, scientist, doctor, etc. who believes this?

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

What circumstances justify the intentional killing of an innocent person?
That is what the Church teaches so it shouldn’t be surprising that the general consensus on a Catholic site agrees with the Church.
Abortion is an intrinsic evil which means that there are no circumstances whatever in which it is moral.
No one believes this. The issue isn’t whether one life is more important than another, it is whether all killing is morally equal. The answer to that is obviously no and the worst type of killing is the intentional slaying of the innocent. This is why even the unintentional killing of innocents in war is not as morally grave as abortion, because of the question of intent.

Ender

Dear Ender,God will judge by the intentions of the heart for he is the searcher of the heart,and knows all the hidden things,done in darkness and will bring them to the light. He will expose the very heart of Man for it is there that war starts and abortion. I agree with you. God Bless you for your truths and understanding.Pray for the blind,who feed on only the milk:flowers:nNancy

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

To expand this point - There are many who believe that a foetus is still part of a woman’s body until it is born, and that the woman has sovereignty over the functions of her own body. Furthermore, there is ample scientific evidence that a foetus is incapable of registering pain before 12-24 weeks’ gestation, depending upon which studies you read.

In some cases, the circumstances into which the child will be born will cause a lifetime of suffering, not just a half-hour’s suffering, or whatever the timeframe is for an abortion procedure.

And what about the 7-week foetus feeling the pain and trying to move away? He may be inside the woman’s body, but is not a part of it - it’s a separate although not independent, living, human being, with a separate beating heart by day 18, and a separate nervous system and brain that can register pain sometime later. A 22-week old foetus already communicates, there’s a famous photo of a 22-week foetus grabbing the finger of a surgeon who operated on him.

It’s patently dishonest and untrue to claim that the foetus is part of the woman’s body - there’s no point even having discussions based on such untrue assumptions. The woman’s actions will not only affect the functions of her own body - they will kill a separate human being living inside her womb. These are basic facts, and there’s no point denying them.

If killing a human being at the expense of half an hour of suffering is acceptable, than I guess we should rehabilitate Hitler with his gas chambers. Once the hydrogen cyanide gas was released, most victims were unconscious within 10 minutes and died within 20 minutes. This whole logic seems absurd to me. And what about the Nazi doctor who anesthetized his victims before killing them? Should we award him for killing without subjecting his victims to pain?

And for a child born to a lifetime of suffering, but one who nevertheless rejoices in her life and praises God every day for surviving, look up Gianna Jessen on youtube. She was 7 and 1/2 month old foetus when her mother aborted her, but she somehow survived, although with cerebral palsy and a slight limp to her walking that will affect her for the rest of her life. Still, she is happy with her life, sufferings included, and who are we to judge her and tell that she should have been killed? It’s up to God to decide who should live and who should die, and you, I, or even Gianna’s mother, had/has no right to kill her.

 

[Sair]

Well, gadzooks. I know I’m never going to win this argument, 'cause trying to argue reason with absolutists and fanatics is always futile. But I guess I’m just a glutton for punishment.

Obviously the unborn child can’t give their full consent. And if you believe that everybody’s who is euthanized has given full consent you really haven’t followed the issue very well.

This is the problem with every legal/moral issue that confronts us. There is always the possibility of abuse. If you allow something to happen, there will always be the possibility that someone will take the opportunity to use it for dishonest ends; however, if you disallow something, there is always the possibility that you will be denying someone who has a geniune, well-considered need, all for the sake of those who might abuse the system. The legal system is complicated for the same reason - for every innocent person who is exonerated, at least one other guilty person will get away with their crime.

There are many who believe Elvis is still alive also but that doesn’t make it true. People are entitled their own opinions but they are not entilted to their own biology -the unborn child is separate distinct human life from the moment of conception on. It is not a part of the woman’s body.

The difference is that no-one has actually presented any evidence for Elvis being alive. A foetus has no ability to survive outside the mother’s body before birth - not without extensive medical intervention, at least - and that only after 24 weeks’ gestation. To many, that is evidence that the mother’s rights supersede those of the unborn foetus.

I fail to see what the ability to feel pain has to do with the right to life. I underwent four hours of surgery last week and didn’t feel a thing-could the doctor have legally slit my throat while I was under since I couldn’t feel it?

In any practical evaluation of rights, the ability to suffer is a fundamental consideration. Any creature that is capable of suffering has a right to be spared suffering, if such suffering can be shown to be unnecessary.

I am somewhat amused but not surprised that you continual use of the word fetus. Generally those who try to rationalize their probative abortion try to use as many euphemisms as they can. Of course I’m sure you going to tell me the fetus is a medical term but then I don’t see you referring to those born as Homo sapiens.

Actually, I’m perfectly happy to refer to humans as homo sapiens, if only to place us on a level with other species inhabiting this planet. The arrogance of the presumption that Homo sapiens sapiens (to give us our proper scientific classification) is the most important species on earth is something I find overwhelming. It is a supposition used to justify all manner of violence and injustice done to other species.

If it was not an option a lot less children would die. I have not seen you put for a single argument justifying abortion that would also not apply to a single woman who suddenly found it was difficult to provide for her seven-year-old. Should she have the right to terminate her child any time based on their current financial status?

Here you fall victim to the subjectivity of which you accuse me. What’s the difference between referring to a Homo sapien as a human and referring to an unborn foetus as a child? I refer you to my previous argument regarding female sovereignty over her own body, and the distinction between the unborn and the born.

Without the right to life all other rights are irrelevant. That is the way the real-world works whether one is religious or not.

Yes, there is the right to life - that leads to the right to control one’s reproductive functions, and also the right to refuse to defend one’s country at the risk to life and limb. The right to life implies the right to sovereignty over that life, when there is the legal capability of exerting it. Taking away that sovereignty, when a person is otherwise capable of independent life and informed choice, is a serious moral issue.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Sadly, in our society - which is still, despite the fact that there are many children in desperate need of fostering or adoption, and despite the burden to the planet created by overpopulation of humans, irresponsibly and alarmingly pronatalist - adoption still has a stigma attached to it. Biological parenthood is still held up as some sort of sacred ideal, and so the prospect of giving a child up for adoption also carries with it the stigma of somehow being a ‘bad’ or ‘immature’ choice - strangely, moreso than abortion or having the child when you’re not in a position to care for it.

This argument is just another way of refusing to apply intellectual rigour to the moral decisions we make.

Okay, now it gets personal. I had to duck to miss Charity flying out the window.

1. Where do you live that adoption carries such a stigma? I suppose that might have been the case in Stalinist Russia, but not in America.
2. The idea that aborting a child (and your argument is that it is better to murder than to save) instead of placing the child for foster/adoption is out and out ridiculous.
3. Foster Children who are not adopted do (on average) lag behind their natural born and adopted peers by 1.5 years in social/educational development prior to age 18 However, this difference disappears after the age of 25.
4. Children who are adopted by age 14 have that lag disappear. Children adopted between 15-17 have that lag cut to under 6 months.
5. The logic of aborting a child because you cannot raise it properly is absurd. Using that same reasoning you could kill your high school student if they do not get a scholarship as it would hurt your retirement/vacation ability to send them to school.

Abortion is ALWAYS evil.

 

[estesbob]

Well, gadzooks. I know I’m never going to win this argument, 'cause trying to argue reason with absolutists and fanatics is always futile. But I guess I’m just a glutton for punishment.

Actually that’s a problem trying to reason with relativist’s

This is the problem with every legal/moral issue that confronts us. There is always the possibility of abuse. If you allow something to happen, there will always be the possibility that someone will take the opportunity to use it for dishonest ends; however, if you disallow something, there is always the possibility that you will be denying someone who has a geniune, well-considered need, all for the sake of those who might abuse the system. The legal system is complicated for the same reason - for every innocent person who is exonerated, at least one other guilty person will get away with their crime.

I don’t see what this has to do with abortion? I was merely pointing out that euthanasia in reality, like abortion, ends up with a lot of innocent, nonconsenting people dying.

The difference is that no-one has actually presented any evidence for Elvis being alive… A foetus has no ability to survive outside the mother’s body before birth - not without extensive medical intervention, at least - and that only after weeks’ gestation. To many, that is evidence that the mother’s rights supersede those of the unborn foetus.

No one has presented any evidence that the unborn child is a part of the woman’s body either, yet you seem to buy into that. A newborn cannot survive without intensive intervention from its parents. Do we really want to make the right to life dependeent on the ability to care for yourself?

In any practical evaluation of rights, the ability to suffer is a fundamental consideration. Any creature that is capable of suffering has a right to be spared suffering, if such suffering can be shown to be unnecessary.

Says who? If we’re to follow this is logical conclusion murder would be okay as long as it was done quickly and painlessly.

Actually, I’m perfectly happy to refer to humans as homo sapiens, if only to place us on a level with other species inhabiting this planet. The arrogance of the presumption that Homo sapiens sapiens (to give us our proper scientific classification) is the most important species on earth is something I find overwhelming. It is a supposition used to justify all manner of violence and injustice done to other species.

What you call arrogance most of us would just call common sense. If one saw a baby and a turtle laying in the middle of a busy highway would it be arrogance to save the baby instead of the turtle?

Here you fall victim to the subjectivity of which you accuse me. What’s the difference between referring to a Homo sapien as a human and referring to an unborn foetus as a child? I refer you to my previous argument regarding female sovereignty over her own body, and the distinction between the unborn and the born.

Actually here is where you fall victim to culture relativism. Because some cultures have decided that the unborn child is less human they believe it’s okay to kill it. Calling it a fetus really doesn’t change things other than to assauge one’s conscience about the evil they are supporting

Yes, there is the right to life - that leads to the right to control one’s reproductive functions, and also the right to refuse to defend one’s country at the risk to life and limb. The right to life implies the right to sovereignty over that life, when there is the legal capability of exerting it. Taking away that sovereignty, when a person is otherwise capable of independent life and informed choice, is a serious moral issue.

More euphemisms. By controlling one’s reproductive functions you’re referring to killing her unborn child , correct? After all by the time abortion occurs there is no longer a question of reproduction. You support the right of a person to serve in a war and possibly get killed but on the other hand support the right of the mother to kill her child without their consent. It would appear that you have a very subjective approach as to when consent is required.

 

[fix]

Abortion is often resorted to only when all possibilities have been weighed, and the decision has been made - often with great difficulty - that the mother’s circumstances would not allow her to raise a child with any degree of quality of life for that child.

What type of justification is this to intentionally kill an innocent person? Does the child get a vote in any of this “reasoning”?