If abortion wasn't murder

[Bruised_Reed]

Mike Rainville,

There are no doubts in my mind about abortion. You can post all the links you want but if I was prochoice you would have done nothing to persuade me otherwise.

I know women who have had abortions and feel no remorse. I could then say it wasn’t wrong for them. I bet that’s what they would say.

Again, you are answering questions I didn’t ask and skimming over what I did ask. Did you read the article I linked to?

 

[Brad]

Blood Rain:

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.

I read the 4th paragraph from the bottom and I disagree with it for the reasons I previously stated. I understand you are trying to find something in common with the pro-choice individual that you both think is evil but until they understand why it is ultimately bad (disobedience to divine law), they will be stuck in moral relativism and continue to justify additional sins.

 

[darcee]

I don’t think your argument structured the way you have it will get you where you want to go.

The pro-choice side does not base its argument on murder or life but on rights and autonomy. Even if you could completely convince a hard-core poor-choicer that abortion was taking the life of an innocent child they would still be pro-choice.

In their argument.

Women have an absolute right to determine the use and destiny of their bodies.

A pregnancy impinges upon a woman’s body.

Therefore a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy if she wants.

There is no place for the child in that argument, the child is not even considered. The child does not have a right to insist on the use of its mother’s womb for any amount of time, even if it is a life or death necessity, any more then a stranger could insist on you giving them a blood transfusion, a bone marrow donation or one of your kidneys.

-D

 

[ralphinal]

Let us approach the question in this manner. First, abortion is not the murder of an unborn child (this is not my position, do not attack it). Second, abortion is an elective proceedure like receiving breast emplants. IN that case, the question is are elective proceedures morally neutral. The answer would be it depends.

What is the reason for the elective proceedure? If it is vanity, then there is a sin involved. If it is a mental health issue, then it should be avoided until all other options are exhausted (remember that surgery is always a risky proposition). If it is a self-mutilation issue, then there is sin involved (like those who split their tongues to look like a snake). There are other possibilities. IN the end, the answer depends on the reason for the surgery, as the act itself is neutral.

Back to abortion. Vanity or “need to keep life from being interfered with” would be sinful reasons. Mutilation would not really apply. What about mental health? Can being pregnant cause mental problems? Yes, but these issues can be treated without surgery. In that case, avoid it.

Back to the origional question. If abortion did not involve the destruction of innocent life, would it be sinful? My answer is yes.

In the end, abortion does involve the death of a child. I am not going to approach this part, as the thread is not going there.

 

[karisue]

Blood Rain:

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.

By definition though, abortion is taking a human life. The questions appears to be philosophical nonsense. How does one think out of the box on this. Can you elaborate?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

darcee:

I agree with those above who say the question is nonsensical because you are postulating a untruth as the antecedent of your enthymeme.

Is it nonsensical because it is or because it requires thinking outside the box a bit.

darcee:

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.

Interesting. ANYONE but me, you mean.

Perhaps I have not articulated my question well or most prolifers are so well trained to disreguard any argument in favor of abortion. If we are reluctant or unable to do that we are unlikely to persuade anyone who is prochoice to consider that abortion is wrong. If one can think outside the box, one is less likely to get *trapped * in a box.

Would it be helpful to think of this a parallel universe thing? And there isn’t a child but a blob of cells. And abortion isn’t 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 it’s just surgery.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

ralphinal:

Let us approach the question in this manner. First, abortion is not the murder of an unborn child (this is not my position, do not attack it). Second, abortion is an elective proceedure like receiving breast emplants. IN that case, the question is are elective proceedures morally neutral. The answer would be it depends.

What is the reason for the elective proceedure? If it is vanity, then there is a sin involved. If it is a mental health issue, then it should be avoided until all other options are exhausted (remember that surgery is always a risky proposition). If it is a self-mutilation issue, then there is sin involved (like those who split their tongues to look like a snake). There are other possibilities. IN the end, the answer depends on the reason for the surgery, as the act itself is neutral.

Back to abortion. Vanity or “need to keep life from being interfered with” would be sinful reasons. Mutilation would not really apply. What about mental health? Can being pregnant cause mental problems? Yes, but these issues can be treated without surgery. In that case, avoid it.

Back to the origional question. If abortion did not involve the destruction of innocent life, would it be sinful? My answer is yes.

In the end, abortion does involve the death of a child. I am not going to approach this part, as the thread is not going there.

dingdingding :clapping:
Finally, someone gets it! You win the prize. *This * is the disussion I want to be able to have.

You answered my question well. How would you have asked it if you wanted to have this discussion? I didn’t go into the points you did or the ones I responded to earlier because I would have just been talking to myself. I didn’t want to explain away any potential dialogue.

Also, I find myself open to what else you have to say because I feel you tried to understand my question (my point of view) without making assumptions or judging me. Interesting.

 

[darcee]

Blood Rain:

Is it nonsensical because it is or because it requires thinking outside the box a bit.

Thinking outside the box is a nice little catch phrase but it won’t make the untrue true or the illogical logical. Your postulation is nonsensical because it is. It is based on a fallacious premise and therefore can not make sense. But if you read my entire post you will see that I answered it anyhow… illogical base and all.
Blood Rain:

Interesting. ANYONE but me, you mean.

Obvsiouly you are exempt from reason since you are asking the question to start with.
Blood Rain:

Perhaps I have not articulated my question well or most prolifers are so well trained to disreguard any argument in favor of abortion. If we are reluctant or unable to do that we are unlikely to persuade anyone who is prochoice to consider that abortion is wrong. If one can think outside the box, one is less likely to get *trapped *in a box.

Would it be helpful to think of this a parallel universe thing? And there isn’t a child but a blob of cells. And abortion isn’t 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 it’s just surgery.

No, I think you have articulated your question fine. It just won’t work the way you would like. “Would abortion be wrong if it was just surgery?” It would depend. Your argument doesn’t have enough points to draw a conclusion from once you take out the given absolute of life you are stuck with one premise and to construct an accurate syllogism you need two.
-D

 

[ralphinal]

Blood Rain:

dingdingding :clapping:
Finally, someone gets it! You win the prize. *This * is the disussion I want to be able to have.

You answered my question well. How would you have asked it if you wanted to have this discussion? I didn’t go into the points you did or the ones I responded to earlier because I would have just been talking to myself. I didn’t want to explain away any potential dialogue.

Also, I find myself open to what else you have to say because I feel you tried to understand my question (my point of view) without making assumptions or judging me. Interesting.

I try not to judge anyone. In fact, I will discuss almost anything with almost anyone until they show that they are the ones being judgemental or trying to to really discuss.

As far as asking this question, I am not sure how to have done it any better. See, people have trouble suspending the Truth for philisophical debate. That is actually normal. Perhaps the question could have been back-doored. Start with can an elective proceedure ever be evil, then lead into the possibility that if abortion is only an elective proceedure with no inherent evil act involved (your question as I read it), then can it still be problematic. In reality, it is problematic even without the murder part. The risks do not outweigh the rewards. Please also note that I am not talking about the exceptions to the abortion arguement (health of mother, rape incest), these are separate issues to be addressed. All of that said, if you want to discuss this or anything any further, I am here.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

darcee:

Your argument doesn’t have enough points to draw a conclusion from once you take out the given absolute of life you are stuck with one premise and to construct an accurate syllogism you need two.
-D

Um…I don’t have an arguement. I had a question. And the premise was incomplete but I was hoping you and others would have filled in the blanks, like ralphinal did.

 

[Poisson]

Blood Rain:

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.

This paragraph?

Here, then, is the center of it all. If abortion had nothing to do with the stilling of heartbeats and brains, there would be no abortion controversy.

I think there would still be controversy in the Catholic Church maybe not so much so in Protestantism as many denominations accept contraceptives. The preceeding paragraph makes the whole point mute:

But anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that emotions are not the deciding factor. In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain and, whatever the method, break some bones and rupture some organs.

 

[darcee]

ralphinal:

Let us approach the question in this manner. First, abortion is not the murder of an unborn child (this is not my position, do not attack it). Second, abortion is an elective proceedure like receiving breast emplants. IN that case, the question is are elective proceedures morally neutral. The answer would be it depends.

What is the reason for the elective proceedure? If it is vanity, then there is a sin involved. If it is a mental health issue, then it should be avoided until all other options are exhausted (remember that surgery is always a risky proposition). If it is a self-mutilation issue, then there is sin involved (like those who split their tongues to look like a snake). There are other possibilities. IN the end, the answer depends on the reason for the surgery, as the act itself is neutral.

Back to abortion. Vanity or “need to keep life from being interfered with” would be sinful reasons. Mutilation would not really apply. What about mental health? Can being pregnant cause mental problems? Yes, but these issues can be treated without surgery. In that case, avoid it.

Back to the origional question. If abortion did not involve the destruction of innocent life, would it be sinful? My answer is yes.

In the end, abortion does involve the death of a child. I am not going to approach this part, as the thread is not going there.

I think the problem with this is the nature of pregnancy.

Let’s redefine pregnancy instead of it being a baby it will be a large lump of cells that will grow for approximately nine months to approximately 7 pounds and then be pass though the vagina.

During that nine months the women suffering from this condition will endure hormone swings, weight gain, an increase in blood volume, nausea, fatigue and other conditions.

At the end she will endure approximately 12 hours of moderate to intense pain, she may have vaginal tearing, she might not be able to pass the growth and it will have to be surgically extracted.

She will likely be left with scaring and stretch marks for life.

After she has passed the growth she will have to recover, hormones changes will cause her breast to become engorged with milk and she might suffer depression varying from mild to sever.

There is a chance that she will not survive this procedure.

With that prognoses the removal of the growth at the earliest convenience could hardly be called elective.

-D

 

[Bruised_Reed]

ralphinal:

I try not to judge anyone. In fact, I will discuss almost anything with almost anyone until they show that they are the ones being judgemental or trying to to really discuss.

As far as asking this question, I am not sure how to have done it any better. See, people have trouble suspending the Truth for philisophical debate. That is actually normal. Perhaps the question could have been back-doored. Start with can an elective proceedure ever be evil, then lead into the possibility that if abortion is only an elective proceedure with no inherent evil act involved (your question as I read it), then can it still be problematic. In reality, it is problematic even without the murder part. The risks do not outweigh the rewards. Please also note that I am not talking about the exceptions to the abortion arguement (health of mother, rape incest), these are separate issues to be addressed. All of that said, if you want to discuss this or anything any further, I am here.

Thanks. I had no idea how difficult this was going to be but I understand why. I remember answering questions like this and being frustrated (“But…but… that would never happen. It doesn’t make sense.”)

Thanks for playing along everyone. I still would like to hear from y’all on the that article. And, please, feel free to continue the discussion. This has been enlightening.

 

[darcee]

Blood Rain:

Um…I don’t have an arguement. I had a question. And the premise was incomplete but I was hoping you and others would have filled in the blanks, like ralphinal did.

Argument as in the construction of a logical point not as in a dispute.

Raphinal made a good attempt at doing what you want, but the problem is what you want won’t work.

You want someone to come up with an argument that will work with someone who is pro-choice without regards to abortion being murder. To take the tact that abortion is just a surgical procedure that is wrong because it is elective or it is more damaging then it is benificial denies the real dangers and discomforts of pregnancy.

Even if you could come up with such an argument the pro-choicer wouldn’t accept it because their argument for abortion rest on the rights of the mother to control her own body.

-D

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Poisson:

This paragraph?

I think there would still be controversy in the Catholic Church maybe not so much so in Protestantism as many denominations accept contraceptives. The preceeding paragraph makes the whole point mute:

Yes, that paragraph. No, it doesn’t take into consideration contraceptives and niether did I because I was trying to zero in one point that most prochoicers would be able to dicuss. If they think abortion is acceptable than contraception is really no big deal. I think I’m less likely to persuade them about contraceptives than I am on abortion. But. I don’t think it’s a good idea or fair to take contraception completely out of the arguement because it becomes close to bait and switch.

What I liked about the article is that I can see alot of prochoice people reading it (and disagreeing with it) but when they get to that paragraph they have seen in black and white the position of most prolifers.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

darcee:

You want someone to come up with an argument that will work with someone who is pro-choice without regards to abortion being murder.

No, I don’t.

 

[darcee]

Did you read what I wrote in #32? Is that closer to what you want?

-D

 

[ralphinal]

darcee:

I think the problem with this is the nature of pregnancy.

Let’s redefine pregnancy instead of it being a baby it will be a large lump of cells that will grow for approximately nine months to approximately 7 pounds and then be pass though the vagina.

During that nine months the women suffering from this condition will endure hormone swings, weight gain, an increase in blood volume, nausea, fatigue and other conditions.

At the end she will endure approximately 12 hours of moderate to intense pain, she may have vaginal tearing, she might not be able to pass the growth and it will have to be surgically extracted.

She will likely be left with scaring and stretch marks for life.

After she has passed the growth she will have to recover, hormones changes will cause her breast to become engorged with milk and she might suffer depression varying from mild to sever.

There is a chance that she will not survive this procedure.

With that prognoses the removal of the growth at the earliest convenience could hardly be called elective.

-D

Good point. I would counter though, that it might be better for the woman to let the “condition” run its course and we deal with the issues as they come up. Surgery, like antibiotics, are overused in this country. Besides, the life threating problems that accompany abortion are more prevalent than those with pregnancy. In the end, it would still be an elective proceedure, at least for right now in America.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

darcee:

Did you read what I wrote in #32? Is that closer to what you want?

-D

Yes, I didn’t respond because you quoted ralphinal. I thought he could make his point waaaay better that I could. And hey, I was right.

But more to the point what I want is to be able to say to a person who is prochoice “If abortion didn’t stop a beathing heart, kill a living human being, than I wouldn’t have a problem with it.” I know this is incomplete because I am leaving out everything about contraception, the gift of human sexuality and God’s design for it and his will for our lives.

The one time I was able to say this to someone we at least were able to agree that we disagreed about wether or not it was a human being. That’s as far as it got. Which is fine. She thinks Peter Singer is on target. I knew I couldn’t argue it because his position is so…evil, that I just get too frustrated to speak. I mean, saying “that’s just evil (insane, stupid)” no matter how true, isn’t a solid arguement.

 

[darcee]

I seriously doubt if a you were to have a growth in your body that would have the same results that you would regard the speedy removal of it elective.

The only way that argument works is if you downplay the reality of pregnancy. I have given birth to 5 children and there is NO WAY I would go through a pregnancy for anything less then a life. If there was an otherwise harmless growth that would cause the same affects of a pregnancy I would not think treating it sympomatically to be prudent.

-D