B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
If abortion did not take the life of a child, a human being, would it still be wrong?
- Status
N
naknek
Guest
What, like abortion of rabbits or something? 
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Um, no. If a woman has an abortion. Why do you think this is funny?What, like abortion of rabbits or something?
N
naknek
Guest
Sorry, I just thought the question was kind of funny. Obviously, there’s nothing funny about abortion.
How can there be such a thing as abortion that doesn’t take a human being’s life? I mean, it wouldn’t be abortion then, would it?
Do you mean if it weren’t actually a baby, but really just a “blob of cells” or something? I guess then it would be treated like any other body part – probably best not to damage it unnecessarily, but no big deal if there’s a reason to remove it.
How can there be such a thing as abortion that doesn’t take a human being’s life? I mean, it wouldn’t be abortion then, would it?
Do you mean if it weren’t actually a baby, but really just a “blob of cells” or something? I guess then it would be treated like any other body part – probably best not to damage it unnecessarily, but no big deal if there’s a reason to remove it.
M
Mike_Rainville
Guest
If abortion wasn’t murder, then women would have no remorse.
Unfortunately, the consequences to a woman’s mental and physical health are quite serious and long lasting. You might consider that fact as absolute proof that abortion IS murder.
If you listen to the heartfelt grief and remores these women experience, ther will no longer be any doubt in your mind
Abortion Awareness - Silent No More
Consider this – if the clump of cells you speak of, which is already a human being, were carefully transplanted into a healthy surrogate mother, the surrogate mother would eventually give birth to a child with the inherited characteristics of the aborting mother and father.
Perhaps someday women will be able to go to an adoption clinic instead.
Finally, most abortions are committed on a fully formed human being.
National Right to Life - Defining Abortion
Unfortunately, the consequences to a woman’s mental and physical health are quite serious and long lasting. You might consider that fact as absolute proof that abortion IS murder.
If you listen to the heartfelt grief and remores these women experience, ther will no longer be any doubt in your mind
Abortion Awareness - Silent No More
Consider this – if the clump of cells you speak of, which is already a human being, were carefully transplanted into a healthy surrogate mother, the surrogate mother would eventually give birth to a child with the inherited characteristics of the aborting mother and father.
Perhaps someday women will be able to go to an adoption clinic instead.
Finally, most abortions are committed on a fully formed human being.
National Right to Life - Defining Abortion
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Yes, exactly.
Bonus points for you for responding.
I’ve found people don’t like answering this question for some reason.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Mike,
You didn’t answer my question. I said “if” abortion didn’t kill someone. I didn’t (and don’t need) a definition or defense of life.
You didn’t answer my question. I said “if” abortion didn’t kill someone. I didn’t (and don’t need) a definition or defense of life.
T
The_Hidden_Life
Guest
It’s kind of a nonsensical question, Blood Rain. It’s like saying, “If a total lobotomy didn’t remove the brain…?” I mean, by definition, a total lobotomy is the removal of the brain (at least colloquially) and by definition an abortion is the removal of a human being *in utero *(and thus the termination of that life). I’m not sure why you felt it was important to ask this question. Could you enlighten us?
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
It’s not nonsensical; it’s philosophical.
Go back and read my question again. I asked **if ** abortion didn’t take a human life…
The importance has to do with the apologetics of life. I wanted to ask it here because so few people want to try to answer it. It’s not a trick question but it does require one to think outside of the box a little.
Go back and read my question again. I asked **if ** abortion didn’t take a human life…
The importance has to do with the apologetics of life. I wanted to ask it here because so few people want to try to answer it. It’s not a trick question but it does require one to think outside of the box a little.
T
The_Hidden_Life
Guest
So you are trying to get people to ask, “But abortion does take a human life so then why is it legal?”
S
sullivansoul
Guest
Is this another one of those, ‘guns don’t kill, people do’ things? So, abortions don’t kill life, people kill life.
M
Mike_Rainville
Guest
If we are dealing with moral philosophy rather than science, then the statement
if abortion,
(defined as the premeditated act of removing the growing embryo from the safe and healthy environment of the mother’s womb, causing its immediate death,
the embryo who, if not a human being already,
would become a human being,
if left in the safe environment of the womb,
were not murder …
Since abortion is murder ( A IS M)
Then if abortion were not murder amounts to
IF A IS NOT M
which is equivalent to
IF A IS NOT A
Which is patently false, a fallacy.
I have highlighted the relevant text in bold.
[SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION ](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html)
if abortion,
(defined as the premeditated act of removing the growing embryo from the safe and healthy environment of the mother’s womb, causing its immediate death,
the embryo who, if not a human being already,
would become a human being,
if left in the safe environment of the womb,
were not murder …
Since abortion is murder ( A IS M)
Then if abortion were not murder amounts to
IF A IS NOT M
which is equivalent to
IF A IS NOT A
Which is patently false, a fallacy.
I have highlighted the relevant text in bold.
[SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION ](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html)
M
Mike_Rainville
Guest
This argument is beautifully described by Peter Kreeft in “Three Approaches to Abortion”
Each of these logical statements MUST be true or false.
Foetus is a human person.
We know that the foetus is a human person.
I do not want THIS child
or THIS IMPERFECT CHILD or
THIS CHILD IS A THREAT TO ME (only lethal risk could justify self defense, not mental health or poverty)
or I or we are a threat to THIS CHILD
or the child is a threat to HIMSELF (really about trouble to the parents)
from www.hli.org
Quote:
Notice carefully that the certainty that there is a child is implicit or explicit in every case. Women know they are with child, that they are expecting achild, and even men know for certain that they will be fathers unless something is done.
One more thing: Lifesaving medical procedures are not called abortions. They are also exceedingly rare.
Each of these logical statements MUST be true or false.
Foetus is a human person.
We know that the foetus is a human person.
- We know he is a person (both true):
Abortion is murder. - He’s a person, but we don’t know:
Abortion is manslaughter - It’s NOT a person, but we don’t know that:
Abortion is criminal negligence. - It’s not a person, and we know that:
Abortion can only be moral in this particular case,
but if you are having an abortion
because you don’t want a child
then how can you avoid knowing?
I do not want THIS child
or THIS IMPERFECT CHILD or
THIS CHILD IS A THREAT TO ME (only lethal risk could justify self defense, not mental health or poverty)
or I or we are a threat to THIS CHILD
or the child is a threat to HIMSELF (really about trouble to the parents)
from www.hli.org
Quote:
- “I want no (more) children” (30.9%);
- “I want to postpone childbearing” (21.1%);
- “Having a child will disrupt my education or job” (19.9%)
- “My mental health is at risk” (9.8%);
- “I can’t afford a baby now” (6.6%);
- “I have a problem with my relationship or my partner does not want this pregnancy” (4.4%);
- “There is a risk to fetal health” (negative eugenics) (3.1%);
- “I am too young; my parent(s) or other(s) object to my pregnancy” (1.5%);
- “My physical health is at risk” (1.1%); and
- Other reasons (1.6%).1
Notice carefully that the certainty that there is a child is implicit or explicit in every case. Women know they are with child, that they are expecting achild, and even men know for certain that they will be fathers unless something is done.
One more thing: Lifesaving medical procedures are not called abortions. They are also exceedingly rare.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
The Hidden Life:
If they believe it kills a child (and surprisingly, many do) that’s one direction for the discussion to take. If they don’t we can talk about the definition of life.
The fourth paragraph from the bottem states my point.
Not exactly, but you are getting there. If I were in a discussion with a person who was prochoice I want to let them know that I wouldn’t be against abortion if it didn’t kill a life.
If they believe it kills a child (and surprisingly, many do) that’s one direction for the discussion to take. If they don’t we can talk about the definition of life.
The fourth paragraph from the bottem states my point.
M
Mike_Rainville
Guest
Why do they want the abortion in the first place?
A hysterectomy or salpingectomy is a life saving. There is confusion of terminology in most people’s mind’s, created by the pro-choice factions. These procedures are lumped together with abortions, even though they are morally quite different.
The removal of a foetus from a uterus is not lifesaving or healthy. The conclusion is that abortion is never justified as self defense.
If the threat is to career, or some other lifestyle convenience, then it’s a matter of the interest of the mother weighed against the right to life of the human being who will ultimately be born.
Nothing can take precedence over this first and most fundamental of all rights.
Read “Degenerate Moderns” by E. Michael Jones for some in depth popular examples.
A hysterectomy or salpingectomy is a life saving. There is confusion of terminology in most people’s mind’s, created by the pro-choice factions. These procedures are lumped together with abortions, even though they are morally quite different.
The removal of a foetus from a uterus is not lifesaving or healthy. The conclusion is that abortion is never justified as self defense.
If the threat is to career, or some other lifestyle convenience, then it’s a matter of the interest of the mother weighed against the right to life of the human being who will ultimately be born.
Nothing can take precedence over this first and most fundamental of all rights.
The real problem is one of denial, denial of responsibility, for the crime of abortion. If people who contracept or abort, or even counsel such things, accept the facts, the logic of science and reason, then they have to accept personal responsibility for murder.
Read “Degenerate Moderns” by E. Michael Jones for some in depth popular examples.
B
Brad
Guest
Blood Rain:
It comes down to obedience to God - in opposition to obedience, we have rebelled against God because we think we know better and it has created an attitude that looks at children as a burden unworthy of our time and effort, rather than the tremendous blessing that they are.
Further, we are also reluctant to tell children and young adults that the marital act belongs in marriage and that fornication is wrong.
While murder is the by far the greatest reason that abortion is wrong, it is the the first or only reason - the first reason is we are saying a loud NO to God’s plan - we are putting ourselves over God.
The argument must revolve around sin in order to be ultimately effective in changing hearts and minds. Murder is a particular and grave sin but it is not the first sin committed in the chain.
If abortion was not murder (i.e it was just a blob of cells), then it would not be called abortion, it would be called something close to contraception and this would still be wrong as we would still be saying no to the gift of life that God has provided to us. The reason that abortion has been allowed to proliferate is because before abortion, people failed to understand the sinfulness of contraception. By saying “no” to the greatest gift and purpose of the marital act, you are saying no to God and no to your spouse. You are saying that you are engaging in the marital act solely for your own pleasure and are not willing to sacrafice completely for your spouse and trust completely in your God.
It comes down to obedience to God - in opposition to obedience, we have rebelled against God because we think we know better and it has created an attitude that looks at children as a burden unworthy of our time and effort, rather than the tremendous blessing that they are.
Further, we are also reluctant to tell children and young adults that the marital act belongs in marriage and that fornication is wrong.
While murder is the by far the greatest reason that abortion is wrong, it is the the first or only reason - the first reason is we are saying a loud NO to God’s plan - we are putting ourselves over God.
The argument must revolve around sin in order to be ultimately effective in changing hearts and minds. Murder is a particular and grave sin but it is not the first sin committed in the chain.
D
darcee
Guest
Your question: If abortion did not take the life of a child, a human being, would it still be wrong? Becomes one of the following arguments: Abortion does not take the life of a child therefore it is not wrong. or Abortion does not take the life of a child but it is still wrong.
I agree with those above who say the question is nonsensical because you are postulating a untruth as the antecedent of your enthymeme. Usually such questions are logic traps to try and make an argument appear to be something it is not. That and the fact that you will be sore pressed to have ANYONE who is pro-life cede that abortion does not take a human life when it obviously does more than accounts for the reluctance you sense in people to actually respond to your question.
But to answer your question I will return to the derived arguments
“Abortion does not take the life of a child therefore it is not wrong”
This is logically false there are MANY reasons something can be wrong. The fact that something does NOT take a life does not make it right.
“Abortion does not take the life of a child but it is still wrong.”
This is possibly true.
To answer this one would have to know why the abortion was taking place and what the intended results are. If it was as a form of birth control it would be wrong on the same grounds as birth control is wrong. But at any rate it is lacking enough information to form a judgement.
Abortion takes the life of a child.
Taking the life of a child is always wrong.
Abortion is always wrong.
-D
I agree with those above who say the question is nonsensical because you are postulating a untruth as the antecedent of your enthymeme. Usually such questions are logic traps to try and make an argument appear to be something it is not. That and the fact that you will be sore pressed to have ANYONE who is pro-life cede that abortion does not take a human life when it obviously does more than accounts for the reluctance you sense in people to actually respond to your question.
But to answer your question I will return to the derived arguments
“Abortion does not take the life of a child therefore it is not wrong”
This is logically false there are MANY reasons something can be wrong. The fact that something does NOT take a life does not make it right.
“Abortion does not take the life of a child but it is still wrong.”
This is possibly true.
To answer this one would have to know why the abortion was taking place and what the intended results are. If it was as a form of birth control it would be wrong on the same grounds as birth control is wrong. But at any rate it is lacking enough information to form a judgement.
Abortion takes the life of a child.
Taking the life of a child is always wrong.
Abortion is always wrong.
-D
P
Poisson
Guest
Blood Rain:
Although your premise is not possible the answer is yes it would wrong for the same reasons any form of artificial contraception is wrong. It would be the same as chewing on the Eucharist and then spitting it out on the ground, you are partaking in the sacrament only to reject the part that you don’t want.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
You are right of course. I deliberately vagued it up a bit to get the discussion going. That said, did you read the paragraph I linked to earlier? Click on that link and tell me what you think.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
When I’ve asked this question before I would ask to put aside any arguements about contraception because, even though they are spot on, they are unlikely to persuede someone who is hardcore prochoice. I’m trying to get to a point that two people (or two groups) can can start from: is it a human life or isn’t it? And I want to make it clear from the beginning where I stand on the issue.
I would ask you as well to link on the above link to the article from the Atlantic Monthly and tell me what you think. Fourth paragraph from the bottom. Shout out to Mark Shea, from whose blog I got the link originally. It was the first time I got any kind of answer to my original question.
- Status