Is abortion morally acceptable

[ribozyme]

I will not intend to convince people of accepting that abortion is morally acceptable; but I do think that abortion is morally acceptable. I think the tolerence of abortion is a natural consequence of adhering to a secular ethical system like utilitarianism.

I must add that I think it is inconsistent for a Catholic to think that abortion is morally acceptable, so I will not attempt to argue that it is consistent with the teachings of the Magisterium. I am opposed to the pro-life movement in America, not because I necessary like abortion (as I am personally abhored by it), but because even if abortion is rendered illegal, it will not completely deter abortion. So my objection is based on pragmatics. What will prevent one who really wants an abortion to get it illegal, or in Mexico and Canada? I think that the right wing politicians adopted a pro-life stance to appeal to religious people (and once they are in office, they can get money from corporate lobbists). Because of this and other reasons listed above, I think one should not base their vote on a candidate based on their pro-life stance. I am merely stating this so politicians do not exploit your faith, and I hope I would encourage people to look at the entire platform of a given candidate.

I can same the about left-wing politicians who adopted a pro-choice stance to get feminist voters, but generally, the religious pro-life supporters outnumber the pro-choice supporters so I do not think appealing to the pro-choice side is an effective strategy to get votes.

I am sorry for the digression about politics, but politics is irrelevent to the issue whether abortion is morally acceptable.

The main point here is that I dislike abortion, but I now find myself powerless to argue that it is morally wrong when I discuss this with my fellow secular humanists. My dislike about abortion does not reflect utilitarian ethics, but it is merely my subjective opinion.

 

[Della]

The thrust of your argument is that people are going to do it anyway, so why not let them. Let’s try that with another issue, such as driving drunk. Why should it be against the law to drive drunk when people are going to do it anyway? Or why should it be against the law for people to rob convenience stores or jay walk or kill others when the whim takes them? Why have any laws at all?

The morality of abortion has nothing to do with whether or not women will get them law or no law. It has everything to do with a society that tells women it’s all right for their boyfriend or husband or employer to force her into getting an abortion because they will not support her and her child if she doesn’t. It tells women that the natural fruit of their bodies is a burden and an outright evil because it “holds her back” when it isn’t the baby that does that but those around her who will not lift a finger to help her or outright punish her for having her child.

Maybe you should ask your secular humanist friends some of those pertinent questions.

 

[Orogeny]

I am opposed to the pro-life movement in America, not because I necessary like abortion (as I am personally abhored by it),

What is it about abortion that you find abhorrent?

but because even if abortion is rendered illegal, it will not completely deter abortion. So my objection is based on pragmatics.

I’m sorry, but that is a silly bit of logic. If that were the standard, we wouldn’t have any laws. Murder is against the law, but it doesn’t stop it from happening. I have yet to hear for anyone calling for murder to be legalized.

Abortion is murder. Even though women will continue to have abortions if abortion is made illegal, many won’t. What is the value of one single life?

The main point here is that I dislike abortion, but I now find myself powerless to argue that it is morally wrong when I discuss this with my fellow secular humanists. My dislike about abortion does not reflect utilitarian ethics, but it is merely my subjective opinion.

I’m curious about this statement. Why do you hold that opinion? Why do you dislike it?

Peace

Tim

 

[JMJDevotee]

The thrust of your argument is that people are going to do it anyway, so why not let them. Let’s try that with another issue, such as driving drunk. Why should it be against the law to drive drunk when people are going to do it anyway? Or why should it be against the law for people to rob convenience stores or jay walk or kill others when the whim takes them? Why have any laws at all?

The morality of abortion has nothing to do with whether or not women will get them law or no law. It has everything to do with a society that tells women it’s all right for their boyfriend or husband or employer to force her into getting an abortion because they will not support her and her child if she doesn’t. It tells women that the natural fruit of their bodies is a burden and an outright evil because it “holds her back” when it isn’t the baby that does that but those around her who will not lift a finger to help her or outright punish her for having her child.

Maybe you should ask your secular humanist friends some of those pertinent questions.

Nicely put!!!

Pax Vobiscum

 

[ribozyme]

The thrust of your argument is that people are going to do it anyway, so why not let them. Let’s try that with another issue, such as driving drunk. Why should it be against the law to drive drunk when people are going to do it anyway? Or why should it be against the law for people to rob convenience stores or jay walk or kill others when the whim takes them? Why have any laws at all?

The morality of abortion has nothing to do with whether or not women will get them law or no law. It has everything to do with a society that tells women it’s all right for their boyfriend or husband or employer to force her into getting an abortion because they will not support her and her child if she doesn’t. It tells women that the natural fruit of their bodies is a burden and an outright evil because it “holds her back” when it isn’t the baby that does that but those around her who will not lift a finger to help her or outright punish her for having her child.

Maybe you should ask your secular humanist friends some of those pertinent questions.

No, the political ramifications of abortion was merely a digression. It was not the thrust of the argument. I am mainly interested in the question whether abortion is morally acceptable.

I will define abortion as the termination of a human (as in species) who is in the womb. I do not know if making abortion illegal would render chemical abortion and IUD’s illegal. People will use those methods if surgical abortion is illegal.

 

[BlestOne]

I used to think… as long as I never have an abortion, these laws won’t affect me. Or, I don’t think a bunch of men sitting in DC should make decisions about what I can or can’t do with my body. I hate abortion too… I can’t think of one single instance where I would seek one out, but does that make it ok for me to advocate laws that allow murder of innocent citizens? No it doesn’t…I am the first one to point out my faulty reasoning above.

First, if it is legal, does not make it moral.

Second, Because it is legal, there will be some way for my tax dollars to pay for it even if I don’t think I would ever have one, I am promoting murder if I don’t object to my tax dollars being spent on abortions.

Third, My not wanting a bunch of men in DC to make decisions about my body has nothing to do with it, that is my personal rebellious nature…it doesn’t mean diddly!

Fourth, We ALL need to protect the most vunerable in our society, and who is more vunerable than the child in a womb? They can’t speak for themselves, and the very person who is supposed to care for them wants to kill them.

Just because people will do it anyway is not a reason to accept abortion. That is like saying people will steal so when you get mugged and they steal all your money you can’t do anything about it…How much more important is a child than money?

Personally, if the only place you could get an abortion was Canada and Mexico…great! Do you know how many lives this would save because it wasn’t convenient? That is the reason so many are having abortions now you know…because a child isn’t convenient at this time…well then why did you have sex if you know that pregnancy is a possible outcome of having sex…then to ensure you don’t have a child, you shouldn’t have sex.

 

[JMJDevotee]

No, the political ramifications of abortion was merely a digression. It was not the thrust of the argument. I am mainly interested in the question whether abortion is moral.

I will define abortion as the termination of a human (as in species) who is in the womb. I do not know if making abortion illegal would render chemical abortion and IUD’s illegal. People will use those methods if surgical abortion is illegal.

Is murder moral? That is the only question you need to ask. And if you define abortion as the termination of a human, then it is murder of a human.

Pax Vobiscum

 

[BlestOne]

Is murder moral? That is the only question you need to ask. And if you define abortion as the termination of a human, then it is murder of a human.

Pax Vobiscum

Amen!!! There you go…simple huh?

 

[JimG]

It’s true that abortion has now become embroiled in political debate and is a source of division within the country.

Historically, that came about not because politicians sought out the issue. It’s not the sort of issue that politicians like to discuss, no matter what their position.

Having lived prior to the abortion wars, it is somewhat amazing to me that things worked out this way, and surprising that it became a Democrat vs Republican issue.

Prior to 1973, every state had its own laws regulating abortion, and, contrary to what one might think now, there was not much agitation about the issue one way or the other. Yes, there were some illegal abortions in spite of state regulations, but they were by no means very numerous compared to today’s abortion rates. And illegal abortions were performed for the most part, not in some back alley, but by licensed MD’s. The 1973 decision merely allowed them to go public.

All these abortions laws were decided by state legislatures. NARAL’s original name was the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.

Now, NARAL and other abortion rights activists could have lobbied for change within the State legislatures. But they decided a more direct and promising route might be through the Courts. They sought out a plaintiff and found Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe v Wade. The case was pretty much a fake, but it was sufficient to get a hearing in the USSC. The result was that every abortion law, every abortion regulation, passed by the peoples’ elected representatives in 50 states, was rendered invalid.

Roe in theory applied a trimester theory to abortion regulation. But it’s companion case, Doe v Bolton, made it clear that any law prohibiting abortion, even in the 3rd trimester, must have a “health” exception. And further that “health” could essentially mean whatever the doctor—the abortionist—decided: medical reasons, mental health reasons, family reasons; it was pretty open ended. So the two decisions essentially came down to abortion on demand. That’s what started the pro-life movement in the U.S.

Why did the Democratic party jump in on the pro-choice side? Mainly because of intense lobbying by traditional democratic interest groups, primarily the feminist movement which was at that time pretty much allied with the radical left. There was up to then no inherent reason for Democrats to be pro-abortion, and in fact many were pro-life, such as the first Governor Bob Casey of Illinois.

Norma McCorvey has since joined the pro-life movement, and even filed a brief with the USCC to have the original Roe overturned, seeing that she was the plaintiff. But that was dismissed as irrevelant.

Here is a recent interview she had with Father Frank Pavone.

 

[ribozyme]

What is it about abortion that you find abhorrent?I’m sorry, but that is a silly bit of logic. If that were the standard, we wouldn’t have any laws. Murder is against the law, but it doesn’t stop it from happening. I have yet to hear for anyone calling for murder to be legalized.

Abortion is murder. Even though women will continue to have abortions if abortion is made illegal, many won’t. What is the value of one single life? I’m curious about this statement. Why do you hold that opinion? Why do you dislike it?

Peace

Tim

Ok, prohibition did not stop the abuse of alcohol significantly though. It is unknown whether rendering abortion illegal would significantly stop abortion.

I do not know why I necessarily dislike it. I do not say “good riddance” when an abortion is performed. Maybe Professor Singer is correct; maybe I dislike abortion because of my speciest interests. Something abhors me about killing members of my species, especially if they have the potential to grow into rational beings.

 

[JimG]

Something abhors me about killing members of my species, especially if they have the potential to grow into rational beings.

That sounds like a decent humanitarian instinct to me. Nothing specieist about it. Unless “humanitarian” is a bad word from Prof. Singer’s point of view.

 

[JMJDevotee]

And let us not forget that it is not the only murder that is immoral but the attitude behind it. The blatant disregard for life itself. One woman’s choice does not just affect her life.

I look at my 4 kids, 15, 14, 13 & 4 today and find so much joy in their growing up. I also find great saddness, almost unbearable. I had an abortion in 1996 (I was not Catholic at the time). My child would be 10 years old now. I was a victim of date rape and thought that justified my choice. I was so wrong. I grieve every October 12, the anniversary of my abortion. I though that bc I was a single mom with 3 kids, (I had been in a very abusive marriage and was saved by the grace of God), worked 2 jobs and went to school that I would not have the strength to carry that “burden”. I never thought to count on God to be there for me bc He allowed my “Christian” husband to hurt me so.

I almost had a nervous breakdown in 1997 bc of the guilt I felt. I still have not shared my story with my parents or siblings. I have not told my kids. I hope I never have to tell them. My DH knows. I spent many years in therapy. When I converted in 1994, my priest was so very gracious and loving druing my Confession. He even gave me a life long penance, to share my story with others who may face the same choice. So I do. For my own penance, every anniversary/Christmas I buy an age appropriate toy and offer it to some toy drive in memory of my child.

I know that my child’s life counted for something and I wasted it. I know I would never had considered it had society not pushed the “It’s all about me” selfishness.

Life is never, ever just about one person. Every action, no matter how big or small, affects another human being.

Pax Vobsicm

 

[JimG]

I think that the prevalence of both abortion and contraception over the past 40 years or so has been very hurtful to women. It has allowed them to be treated as objects rather than persons. This was not the case in the years I was growing up.

 

[Donna_P]

I will not intend to convince people of accepting that abortion is morally acceptable; but I do think that abortion is morally acceptable. I think the tolerence of abortion is a natural consequence of adhering to a secular ethical system like utilitarianism.

I must add that I think it is inconsistent for a Catholic to think that abortion is morally acceptable, so I will not attempt to argue that it is consistent with the teachings of the Magisterium. I am opposed to the pro-life movement in America, not because I necessary like abortion (as I am personally abhored by it), but because even if abortion is rendered illegal, it will not completely deter abortion. So my objection is based on pragmatics. What will prevent one who really wants an abortion to get it illegal, or in Mexico and Canada? I think that the right wing politicians adopted a pro-life stance to appeal to religious people (and once they are in office, they can get money from corporate lobbists). Because of this and other reasons listed above, I think one should not base their vote on a candidate based on their pro-life stance. I am merely stating this so politicians do not exploit your faith, and I hope I would encourage people to look at the entire platform of a given candidate.

I can same the about left-wing politicians who adopted a pro-choice stance to get feminist voters, but generally, the religious pro-life supporters outnumber the pro-choice supporters so I do not think appealing to the pro-choice side is an effective strategy to get votes.

I am sorry for the digression about politics, but politics is irrelevent to the issue whether abortion is morally acceptable.

The main point here is that I dislike abortion, but I now find myself powerless to argue that it is morally wrong when I discuss this with my fellow secular humanists. My dislike about abortion does not reflect utilitarian ethics, but it is merely my subjective opinion.

Dear Ribozyme,

May God be with you.

It is never OK to kill another innocent person. It is never moral. Period.

God bless you.

 

[ribozyme]

Is murder moral? That is the only question you need to ask. And if you define abortion as the termination of a human, then it is murder of a human.

Pax Vobiscum

Then what is a “human” in the ethical sense? What makes one a “human”? I only ask this to avoid any biological distinctions.

The morality of abortion has nothing to do with whether or not women will get them law or no law. It has everything to do with a society that tells women it’s all right for their boyfriend or husband or employer to force her into getting an abortion because they will not support her and her child if she doesn’t. It tells women that the natural fruit of their bodies is a burden and an outright evil because it “holds her back” when it isn’t the baby that does that but those around her who will not lift a finger to help her or outright punish her for having her child.

I am sorry I did not read this carefully when I first read your post. You have said it quite elegantly, but I will say that you have failed to show that abortion is not “morally acceptable”.

My complement to your post is directed that you eloquently showed that most abortions reflect the selfishness of humanity, and is the primary reason why I adhor abortion. It shows that people care about their finacial assets than the well being of a person. I think the pro-choice movement reflects this selfish sentiment too, but I also dislike the pro-life movement because it seems that conservative politicians sees them as votes.

I like Peter Singer mainly because he donates 20% of his salary to Oxfam and Unicef and I think he cares about the welfare of humanity.

 

[Ham1]

A few comments…

Couldn’t one make a case that abortion is immoral because it would appear scientifically that an unborn child is a sentient human being? If we allow the unborn child to be lawfully killed, shouldn’t we then also allow for killing of children who are young? In the secular ethic where does one draw the line? It would seem that any point where the line is drawn to divide ethical from unethical killing will be relatively arbitrary. If it is truly arbitrary then what does that say about the ethical system itself?

On the political point, we should take seriously the power of law to shape behavior. The argument that all the women who want abortions would go have them anyway rings hollow. Before Roe V Wade, there were far far fewer abortions than we have today. Overtime, opinions can be changed by law. If abortion were outlawed, then it is reasonable to think that people would become more accepting in time.

Perhaps you find abortion distasteful because it is unethical? I’m sure you have similar distaste for murder, child abuse, rape, etc. Why the aversion? Because you know in your gut that these things are just not right because they involve the treatment of human beings as worthless objects. The only way abortion becomes acceptable is if the unborn child IS a worthless object. But we know from experience that these worthless objects can also be prized gifts to willing parents. Is the very worth of the tiny person based on whether he or she is “wanted”. You can’t accept that the unborn child is a worthless object, because you know that it is not.

We also know from experience that these tine children can grow into members of society who change the world. Who knows what kind positive influence the millions lost could have had on our world?

 

[ncgolf]

I am opposed to the pro-life movement in America, not because I necessary like abortion (as I am personally abhored by it), but because even if abortion is rendered illegal, it will not completely deter abortion. So my objection is based on pragmatics.

Based on your logic you should also be against MADD … Mothers against Drunk Drivers too… Let me ask you this then … lets say we outlaw abortion and no one does it but we legislate killing babies after 1 day … just so people can see them and decide then, after they see the goods. Would you find that morally acceptable or would it abhor you? Where does abhorance of a behavior elicit a response from you … a response being something like condemnation.

Catholics see abortion as against a moral absolute so it can never be found to be morally acceptable. One way to test this is to try to make a good out of the action. For example, rape, try to find a situation where rape becomes a morally acceptable behavior. You can’t.

 

[ribozyme]

A few comments…

Couldn’t one make a case that abortion is immoral because it would appear scientifically that an unborn child is a sentient human being? If we allow the unborn child to be lawfully killed, shouldn’t we then also allow for killing of children who are young? In the secular ethic where does one draw the line? It would seem that any point where the line is drawn to divide ethical from unethical killing will be relatively arbitrary. If it is truly arbitrary then what does that say about the ethical system itself?

The problem is that a fetus is not “a sentient human being”. If it is “a sentient human being” then it would unequivocally be immortal.

Perhaps you find abortion distasteful because it is unethical? I’m sure you have similar distaste for murder, child abuse, rape, etc. Why the aversion? Because you know in your gut that these things are just not right because they involve the treatment of human beings as worthless objects. The only way abortion becomes acceptable is if the unborn child IS a worthless object. But we know from experience that these worthless objects can also be prized gifts to willing parents. Is the very worth of the tiny person based on whether he or she is “wanted”. You can’t accept that the unborn child is a worthless object, because you know that it is not.

I already said that my aversion to abortion is that it reflects the selfishness of humanity, not because it is immoral.

We also know from experience that these tine children can grow into members of society who change the world. Who knows what kind positive influence the millions lost could have had on our world?

I do not find this argument compelling against abortion. A similar argument was addressed in Dawkins’ book The God Delusion.

 

[ribozyme]

Based on your logic you should also be against MADD … Mothers against Drunk Drivers too… Let me ask you this then … lets say we outlaw abortion and no one does it but we legislate killing babies after 1 day … just so people can see them and decide then, after they see the goods. Would you find that morally acceptable or would it abhor you? Where does abhorance of a behavior elicit a response from you … a response being something like condemnation.

Catholics see abortion as against a moral absolute so it can never be found to be morally acceptable. One way to test this is to try to make a good out of the action. For example, rape, try to find a situation where rape becomes a morally acceptable behavior. You can’t.

No, I find it hard to enforce morality on the public. Enforcing laws against drunk driving is easier than laws against abortion.

I also mentioned some ways how one can get around this law:

I will define abortion as the termination of a human (as in species) who is in the womb. I do not know if making abortion illegal would render chemical abortion and IUD’s illegal. People will use those methods if surgical abortion is illegal

 

[Em_in_FL]

"ribozyme:

Then what is a “human” in the ethical sense? What makes one a “human”? I only ask this to avoid any biological distinctions.

The problem is that a fetus is not “a sentient human being”. If it is “a sentient human being” then it would unequivocally be immortal.

A “human being” is defined biologically and morally the same way… by it’s DNA.

How do you distinguish a “human being” from any other living creature on the face of this earth? By it’s DNA.

At the moment of conception, a new and unique set of DNA is formed… totally unique… none like it has ever been before.
At that exact moment… a new “human being” is defined.

Any purposful act by one human being to end the existance of another human being is murder. Murder is immoral.