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

[fix]

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

Consent equals morally correct?

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.

Does the baby get a chance to decide? And how much suffering is needed to claim one has the authority to commit homicide?

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.

Logic, objective truth, and morality are contrary to the “real world”?

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

Basically, if we decode your words, it seems we look to hedonism, relativism, and rationalizations to determine how we ought to act.

 

[rpp]

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.

This is an interesting statement from what is clearly a source lacking credibility. Let me change one noun and change a couple of words to fix the grammar and see if the statement sill flies.

To set the record straight, in case anyone is wondering, I have never killed an** Aborigine**, nor do I ever intend to. 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 **an **Aborigine - I don’t know their circumstances, and I don’t know what state of mind has led to their decision.

Hmm… I do not see the difference between these two statements. Can someone who is able use logic, which excludes the original author of that statement, explain the difference?

 

[bookgirl32]

This is an interesting statement from what is clearly a source lacking credibility. Let me change one noun and change a couple of words to fix the grammar and see if the statement sill flies.

Hmm… I do not see the difference between these two statements. Can someone who is able use logic, which excludes the original author of that statement, explain the difference?

The Aborigine has already been born, that’s it.

 

[Sair]

The Aborigine has already been born, that’s it.

Thank you. I wondered if anyone was ever going to get that. To read many of the responses on this thread, it would seem that once you’re born, your life doesn’t matter - at least not enough to be on the agenda for fanatical moralisers who can’t see the forest for the trees. If only more of that energy was directed at addressing the issues of people who are already out in the world, instead of forgetting about them and going off on what amounts to a cock-eyed crusade against bodily sovereignty for women, then the overall amount of suffering in the world would probably be greatly reduced.

 

[Memaw]

Thank you. I wondered if anyone was ever going to get that. To read many of the responses on this thread, it would seem that once you’re born, your life doesn’t matter - at least not enough to be on the agenda for fanatical moralisers who can’t see the forest for the trees. If only more of that energy was directed at addressing the issues of people who are already out in the world, instead of forgetting about them and going off on what amounts to a cock-eyed crusade against bodily sovereignty for women, then the overall amount of suffering in the world would probably be greatly reduced.

I have a sticker on my car that reads, “Pro-Choice, thats a lie! Babies don’t choose to die.!”
That says it all. God chose them to live, who are we to decide to kill them. God Bless, Memaw

 

[estesbob]

Thank you. I wondered if anyone was ever going to get that. To read many of the responses on this thread, it would seem that once you’re born, your life doesn’t matter - at least not enough to be on the agenda for fanatical moralisers who can’t see the forest for the trees. If only more of that energy was directed at addressing the issues of people who are already out in the world, instead of forgetting about them and going off on what amounts to a cock-eyed crusade against bodily sovereignty for women, then the overall amount of suffering in the world would probably be greatly reduced.

Show me one single statment where someone claims once you are born your life doesnt matter. You continue to present this as somehow being a confilict between the born and the unborn. The point is there is absolutely no difference between the two as far as their right to life is concenred.

As far as your assertion that their is a crusade against bodliy sovereignty(still another , I assume,euphanism for killing ones child) its hard to have an intelligent debate with someone who does not understand basic biology.

 

[estesbob]

The Aborigine has already been born, that’s it.

So?

 

[Sair]

Show me one single statment where someone claims once you are born your life doesnt matter. You continue to present this as somehow being a confilict between the born and the unborn. The point is there is absolutely no difference between the two as far as their right to life is concenred.

As far as your assertion that their is a crusade against bodliy sovereignty(still another , I assume,euphanism for killing ones child) its hard to have an intelligent debate with someone who does not understand basic biology.

If you read back over this thread, you will see at least one poster who stated unequivocally that God values the unborn more than the born.

And if you take the right to life as something that extends from conception through to natural death, then there should likewise be no distinction made between the wrongness of war and the wrongness of abortion. There has never been any war in human history that has not been conducted without some intent to deprive others of life.

And while we’re on the subject of war - and this pertains to those of you who advocate the notion of ‘just’ war - how many of you have read the passages in the Bible that describe in detail the wars waged by the Israelites against various other nations in the ancient Middle East? Would you call this voracious territory grabbing a ‘just’ war? 'Cause it certainly seemed to have God’s full endorsement - as did the tearing apart of pregnant women and the dashing of infants against walls, by the way. All this was okay as long as it wasn’t done against Israelites.

As for my supposedly misguided notions of female sovereignty being just an excuse for ‘killing one’s child’ as you put it, yes, that is an element of it, but it’s a much, much broader issue. To highlight the importance of this issue, let’s consider the case of a woman who has been raped and becomes pregnant as a result. Her body has already been violated. She didn’t have a say in her pregnancy, so her situation is different to that of a woman who becomes pregnant through an act of consensual sex. The expectation of many on this forum is that the woman who is pregnant as a result of rape should carry the rapist’s child to term and give it up for adoption. If a woman is psychologically capable of choosing this path, that is all to the good. But she should not ever be forced to continue to incubate an embryo that she had no choice in bringing about. As I said before, her body has already been violated by the rapist, and she should not be expected to continue the violation by harbouing a foetus that is half his. That would involve an enforced surrender of bodily sovereignty, which is morally reprehensible.

As for your implications about my imperfect understanding of biology, it’s true that it’s not my area of expertise, but I know enough to seek information when I know my understanding to be incomplete. That’s what a scientifically-inclined mind does, you see. And I can assure you that intelligent debate is much harder with people who see morality in black and white and look no further than what they’ve been told to believe.

 

[cascherman]

I can’t believe this thread has made it as long as it has. There is a very simple answer.

1. Some stats say 8,000 civilians have died and others say up to 100,000. Let’s say 100,000 for arguments sake. Add 5,000 American military deaths to that, and also another 3,000 for other country military deaths. That makes 108,000 dead. Now compare that to the US abortion alone since Roe V Wade- Fifty MILLION to One Hundred and Eight THOUSAND. By shear number alone it is 462 times worse in the US alone.
2. Abortion is a worldwide problem, not just in one country. 50 Million have died in the US alone, so just imagine the rest of the world.

HOW HAS THIS DISCUSSION GONE ON SO LONG?

 

[Ender]

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.

You are right only to the extent that if you make yourself the final arbiter of what is moral then it’s hard to see how you could ever do anything wrong. How do you determine what is moral? Is each individual the final arbiter of right and wrong for himself? Are we bound to the same moral standard or can we each choose our own?

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 interesting that you speak of moral behavior on the one hand and then dispute the uniqueness of humans on the other. The actions of animals have no moral basis … which is perhaps not that far removed from believing that whatever one chooses is right.

Yes, there is the right to life - that leads to the right to control one’s reproductive functions

No one disputes the right of women to control their reproductive functions. On the other hand, when they use them in such a way that another life is created, it is no longer simply the rights of the woman that are involved.

Ender

 

[bookgirl32]

Thank you. I wondered if anyone was ever going to get that. To read many of the responses on this thread, it would seem that once you’re born, your life doesn’t matter - at least not enough to be on the agenda for fanatical moralisers who can’t see the forest for the trees. If only more of that energy was directed at addressing the issues of people who are already out in the world, instead of forgetting about them and going off on what amounts to a cock-eyed crusade against bodily sovereignty for women, then the overall amount of suffering in the world would probably be greatly reduced.

Well, you’re about to stick your foot in your mouth now. If the ONLY difference, and you agree with me, is that one group is born and one group is not, then you are essentially also agreeing with me that abortion is legal b/c our society thinks it’s okay for being unborn to be a criteria for which we can judge the worthiness of another person’ life and therefore judge that it is okay for them to die. In agreeing that that is the only difference between the hypothetical “Aborigine” and the unborn, you are saying that, if we came up with a good enough reason, the Aborigine could legally be killed.

You are suggesting that we are ignoring the humans that are already born in order to protect the lives of those who aren’t. The simple point is, those aren’t born do not even have the basic right to be born in the first place, and the only criteria for that is that they are not yet born. You just completely proved my point. If our society does not care (and according to you shouldn’t have to care) that an entire population group even has the most basic right, that of life, then why would you expect our society to care about the quality of those already living?

Let’s put it this way: the Nazi’s did not think that the Jews should be allowed to continue living simply because they were Jews. Their society and culture eventually, obviously, imploded. And I think it would be safe to say that it did this b/c it decided that it was worthy to judge the rights certain humans should have to be alive.

OF COURSE we need to pay attention to those already living. That abortion is more imperitave an issue in no way takes away from the importance of the other issues. You are seeming to suggest that it is either / or when it needs to be both.

 

[bookgirl32]

So?

Exactly, so?! If the Aborigine should have the right to live, then so should the unborn child. I’m with you estesbob.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Exactly, so?! If the Aborigine should have the right to live, then so should the unborn child. I’m with you estesbob.

I agree too Psalms 101 Nancy

 

[Sair]

I can’t believe this thread has made it as long as it has. There is a very simple answer.

I think the word you’re looking for here is ‘simplistic’, not simple. If there was a simple solution, there would be no argument. If you want to reduce every issue to a question of numbers, then of course the solutions will be simple. Mathematics is about objective certainty. However, human interactions are qualitative, subjective and full of uncertainty. That’s why utilitarianism is not generally accepted as an absolute basis for moral judgements.

Abortion is a worldwide problem, not just in one country. 50 Million have died in the US alone, so just imagine the rest of the world.

HOW HAS THIS DISCUSSION GONE ON SO LONG?

Because war and abortion are complex issues, that’s why. Because different people have different understandings of the world, and of spirituality, and of morality. Therefore you’ll always get different interpretations of every issue. There is much more to think about than just numbers.

 

[estesbob]

I think the word you’re looking for here is ‘simplistic’, not simple. If there was a simple solution, there would be no argument. If you want to reduce every issue to a question of numbers, then of course the solutions will be simple. Mathematics is about objective certainty. However, human interactions are qualitative, subjective and full of uncertainty. That’s why utilitarianism is not generally accepted as an absolute basis for moral judgements.

Subjectivity has probably caused more deaths in the world than any other thing.

Because war and abortion are complex issues, that’s why. Because different people have different understandings of the world, and of spirituality, and of morality. Therefore you’ll always get different interpretations of every issue. There is much more to think about than just numbers.

Complex only for those trying to rationalize the killing of the unborn.

 

[cascherman]

I think the word you’re looking for here is ‘simplistic’, not simple. If there was a simple solution, there would be no argument. If you want to reduce every issue to a question of numbers, then of course the solutions will be simple. Mathematics is about objective certainty. However, human interactions are qualitative, subjective and full of uncertainty. That’s why utilitarianism is not generally accepted as an absolute basis for moral judgements.

Because war and abortion are complex issues, that’s why. Because different people have different understandings of the world, and of spirituality, and of morality. Therefore you’ll always get different interpretations of every issue. There is much more to think about than just numbers.

I presented an answer to a question that I thought to be SIMPLE. The question of the thread was not what is the solution to the problems, hence no reason for a SIMPLISTIC solution.

I’ll represent what the question of this thread is:

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

And so I answered it.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I presented an answer to a question that I thought to be SIMPLE. The question of the thread was not what is the solution to the problems, hence no reason for a SIMPLISTIC solution.

I’ll represent what the question of this thread is:

And so I answered it.

I have answered this a few times before,I had said they were both wrong but I see now that in war you have no choice but to kill or be killed in abortion the person has a choice to kill,or not which makes it a more serious cold blooded offense against the commandments of Father.Pray for the Lords return,people are so bad God Bless Nancy P.S. Wars do end,while Abortion,goes on.

 

[Ender]

Because war and abortion are complex issues, that’s why.

I agree that war can be complex but I fail to see the complexity of abortion. Can you explain what circumstances justify the intentional killing of an innocent person? If there is no such situation then where is the complexity?

Because different people have different understandings of the world, and of spirituality, and of morality. Therefore you’ll always get different interpretations of every issue.

There are indeed many different personal interpretations of what constitutes moral truth, but either the truth exists separately from individual interpretation or it doesn’t exist at all and if it exists then it doesn’t matter how many people disagree with it. You have a right to your own opinion but not to your own truths - or are you claiming that everyone has the right to believe what he wants and to act accordingly? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.

Ender

 

[Memaw]

I agree that war can be complex but I fail to see the complexity of abortion. Can you explain what circumstances justify the intentional killing of an innocent person? If there is no such situation then where is the complexity?
There are indeed many different personal interpretations of what constitutes moral truth, but either the truth exists separately from individual interpretation or it doesn’t exist at all and if it exists then it doesn’t matter how many people disagree with it. You have a right to your own opinion but not to your own truths - or are you claiming that everyone has the right to believe what he wants and to act accordingly? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.

Ender

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen said, " The truth is the truth even if no one believes it and a lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it."
I am afraid that today to many people believe lies.

 

[Sair]

I agree that war can be complex but I fail to see the complexity of abortion. Can you explain what circumstances justify the intentional killing of an innocent person? If there is no such situation then where is the complexity?

If you read a previous post of mine, I gave what I felt to be a very good example of when abortion is a complex issue. Also some examples from a text that many Christians take to be objectively true, on God’s supposedly ‘pro-life’ stance. I notice no-one has yet responded to that post.

There are indeed many different personal interpretations of what constitutes moral truth, but either the truth exists separately from individual interpretation or it doesn’t exist at all and if it exists then it doesn’t matter how many people disagree with it. You have a right to your own opinion but not to your own truths - or are you claiming that everyone has the right to believe what he wants and to act accordingly? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.

Ender

That sounds a little like Anselm’s ‘proof’ of the existence of God. The issue is not so much whether there is an objective moral truth, as whether that truth is knowable, and whether we as humans have any claim to know it. You might notice that philosphers have debated the nature of truth for centuries. And there is a vast gulf between saying that objective truth is a matter of circumstance, experience and observation, and saying that it doesn’t exist so anyone can just do what they like. Again, I throw complex issues out for comment, and get simplistic responses.