Is abortion morally acceptable

[BobCatholic]

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.

Well, I am not powerless against the seculars. I simply use logic, science and rational thinking to show that abortion is morally wrong.

The #1 assumption that seculars use to say that abortion is OK is that the unborn child is not a human being. Scientifically speaking, this is not true. Science says that unborn children have 100% human DNA, and are of the genus homo sapiens. Thus they are human beings from a scientific perspective. I have yet to see any pro-abortion type try to refute this. They wish to dehumanize the unborn without any facts to back them up. Their pro-abortion stand is based on 100% blind faith.

Then we get into human rights. Are human rights for all? Or are they only for those of a certain age? Would a secularist argue that human rights are only for a certain group of humans and not for all humans? Since unborn children are human beings, what is the logical, or rational basis for denying them human rights simply because they are too young? If we can deny human rights based on age, we can do so to others, also based on age. Why not make the cutoff at 30 days like Peter Singer says? This so-called “ethicist” argues that within 30 days of birth, one may slaughter the munchkin.

And if one can be too young for human rights, one can also be too old for human rights. OK, all you old folks, into the suicide machines at the mandated age…

If one argues that unborn children lack certain abilities, then we can easily take those arguments and use them to deny human rights to the disabled. You can’t walk? Into the suicide machine you go. You can’t talk? Into the gas chamer you go. You’re mentally deficient? Well, your human rights are DOA.

What was that? Unborn children are not conscious? Then what about those who are in comas? What about those who are asleep? Or those who are temporarily knocked out? No human rights for you!

What was that? Unborn children do not look human and thus they can’t have human rights? This is Jim Crow thinking.

What about abortion in the case of rape or incest. So, your daddy commits a crime and you get to be put to death. That sounds fair. So instead of having only one victim of rape, we have two. One dead, one wounded twice. Without abortion, we have one victim wounded once. Yup. That’s a moral improvement - NOT!

See? If abortion is allowed, morally speaking, we have dehumanized the unborn and we can easily dehumanize others. Why not? If we can slaughter one group of human beings, why not others?

So let me close with this written in WW2:

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

and now I take this quote and make it applicable for today’s situation:

First they came for the early unborn children,
but I was already born and I did not speak up.
Then they came for the rest of the unborn,
but I was already born and I did not speak up.
Then they came for the disabled like Terri Schiavo,
but I was healthy so I did not speak up.
Then they came for the elderly,
but I was young so I did not speak up.
Then they came for the young babies, toddlers, young children,
but I was an adult and I did not speak up.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up for me.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

ISTM that two objections to it are:​

• 1. It mucks up women’s reproductive bits & pieces
• 2. It is fundamentally anti-social - because it treats the conceptus as something one can throw away. (I use that word deliberately - because ISTM that one can make a very good case against abortion even if one ignores what for Christians are the really decisive reasons, which are reasons derived from the Christian Faith. If God is supremely real, He cannot realistically be ignored in moral judgements for ever.)
  **If one adopts a pragmatic POV, does this not weaken the very notion of morals ? It’s compatible with making ad hoc judgements - but does it allow one to adopt a more or less consistent ethical standpoint ? I’m not saying pragmatists can’t be or aren’t moral people - but it seems difficult to have consistent moral principles on such a basis. **

**ISTM that to destroy the conceptus, is to take the first step to destroying other lives which one may at that time regard as worth not destroying; surrender the principle of love for one’s own offspring - & there is no reason to bother about others. So, even if purely out of self-preservation, abortion should be rejected; for the good of society, & our own self-respect. **

Abortion fits an idea of the human race which sees the self as alone important - this is an atomised outlook; very reasonably, “the other” is regarded as a threat to the self: & this is how some have argued in favour of abortion - they have seen the unborn as an enemy. I find this worrying because the same atomised notion of society is played out on our streets: people regard “the other” as a waste of space, an enemy. The “imperial self” takes over - & reconfigures the universe to fit around it. If, however, the universe is not meant to be reconfigured to revolve around the human ego, it is being vandalised if treated like that; which means trouble for the other human egos in the universe. If only I matter - what do I care who gets hurt by my having my will ? ISTM this is an immoral POV - & an anti-social one.

**So politics (in some sense) can’t be irrelevant: not unless human beings do not need one another; but it takes two human beings - not one - for conception to happen. Abortion facilities are provided by society - that implies that abortion, to be “safe”, needs society; but if it is anti-social, that makes no sense - & contradictions have consequences; even if one wants them not to. **

****If abortion is immoral, it is inconsistent to use moral arguments for it; it would be more honest - so to speak - to ignore moral considerations, and to get rid of those of the unborn whom one considers to be sub-human, unproductive, worthless, etc. I think that is the logic inherent in a pragmatic, ****utilitarian, ****approach to life. ****##

 

[Ham1]

Ok, as to your first comment…the value is clearly based not on developmental characteristics but on the “worthiness” as judged by the parent. If two women are 16 weeks pregnant and one wants to abort and the other cherishes her child, the only difference between the two is the judgement of the mother. Singer would not argue that the mother who wants her baby has a baby that is worth nothing. It is worth something precisely because she desires it. Your philosophy and Singer’s agree on this point. My point is that it becomes extremely problematic to contruct an ethical system with such a subjective principle. I’d appreciate if you would respond to the question I posed to you (not to Singer): “At what age then, does the child have value independant of his parent?”

To the second point, it is extraordinarily odd for you to be bothered by the rightful autonomous decision of another person. You claim to be bothered by selfishness, but in a utilitarian secular ethics, to not be selfish would be stupid (if not impossible). A utilitarian should act in his own self interest. If that self interest necessitates abortion why should it trouble you? Are you troubled also when a mother selfishly chooses to give birth to her child? Both the mother who aborts and the mother who gives birth are choosing morally (in your view) in their own self interest. Why should one bother you and the other not? No, your rationale of “selfishness” causing your distaste for abortion doesn’t ring true. It must be something other than selfishness that is causing your unease.

Ribo,

Where have you gone?

 

[ribozyme]

ribozyme –

You may be interested in a somewhat famous article entitled “Why Abortion is Immoral” by Don Marquis. In it, Marquis argues – from an entirely non-religious standpoint – that the vast majority of abortions are gravely wrong. (Here’s the JSTOR link, if you have access: links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-362X%28198904%2986%3A4%3C183%3AWAII%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T ).

Briefly, Marquis argues that killing is wrong because of the effect it has on the victim; namely, it deprives the victim of all the experiences and enjoyments of his future. The terminally ill may be despondent because they are unable to do what they had hoped they would do in the future; the death of the young is terrible because they are deprived of their whole future, whereas the death of the old is not so awful because they have already lived most of their lives.

Marquis argues that murder is one of the worst crimes because it is a severe deprivation of one’s future. If we accept that killing is wrong, at least, because it deprives someone of a valuable future, then we must also hold abortion to be wrong. It does the same thing.

(I don’t agree with Marquis on a number of points but the article makes for a good read.)

I will read that article and I thank you…

I will also attempt to address several of what I see as flawed arguments against abortion (and I even think they are flawed even if one is allowed recourse to Catholic doctrine) later. Most of these deal with personhood.

 

[ribozyme]

Ok, as to your first comment…the value is clearly based not on developmental characteristics but on the “worthiness” as judged by the parent. If two women are 16 weeks pregnant and one wants to abort and the other cherishes her child, the only difference between the two is the judgement of the mother. Singer would not argue that the mother who wants her baby has a baby that is worth nothing. It is worth something precisely because she desires it. Your philosophy and Singer’s agree on this point. My point is that it becomes extremely problematic to contruct an ethical system with such a subjective principle. I’d appreciate if you would respond to the question I posed to you (not to Singer): “At what age then, does the child have value independant of his parent?”

To the second point, it is extraordinarily odd for you to be bothered by the rightful autonomous decision of another person. You claim to be bothered by selfishness, but in a utilitarian secular ethics, to not be selfish would be stupid (if not impossible). A utilitarian should act in his own self interest. If that self interest necessitates abortion why should it trouble you? Are you troubled also when a mother selfishly chooses to give birth to her child? Both the mother who aborts and the mother who gives birth are choosing morally (in your view) in their own self interest. Why should one bother you and the other not? No, your rationale of “selfishness” causing your distaste for abortion doesn’t ring true. It must be something other than selfishness that is causing your unease.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments as I agree with most of what you say…

You are indeed correct that Singer judges the value of a fetus based on the parent’s desires. Singer argues that the fetuses do not have the characteristics of a person, so they are not entitled to any special ontologically protection. Singer indeed argues that is is morally wrong to kill a fetus if it is against the wishes of the parent. In Practical Ethics, I think he compares infanticide to killing someone’s animal; it is wrong to do it without the consent of the owner of the animal, but the owner is free to kill their own animal.

You are also correct that utilitarians have a right to act in their self-interest. But, of course, there are limits. Nike, indeed, has a right to act in their own interests (i.e. making a lot of money). But, as it is common knowledge, Nike utilizes sweatshop labor to maximize their profits because they do not have to pay foreign workers much money and factory safety laws are less stringent overseas. The relevant question is: “Is this moral in utilitarian ethics?” Of course, the answer is no because Nike’s policies do not maximize the principle of utility (i.e. a principle which acknowledges that humans seek happiness and have an aversion towards pain) as their policies do not give their workers enough money to evade poverty.

It does not seem that abortion is immoral under utilitarian ethics (but I will have to read the Marquis paper next), unlike sweatshops. I will retain my statement that abortion reflects humanity’s selfishness. I think that the mentality of people who choose to undergo an abortion is similar to the attitude of Scott Peterson when he killed his wife. It seems likely that he killed his wife because he did not want to take care of that child. Indeed that is quite selfish. It seems that many abortions are conducted because the parents merely deem the child as an inconvience.

 

[Ham1]

I appreciate your thoughtful comments as I agree with most of what you say…

You are indeed correct that Singer judges the value of a fetus based on the parent’s desires. Singer argues that the fetuses do not have the characteristics of a person, so they are not entitled to any special ontologically protection. Singer indeed argues that is is morally wrong to kill a fetus if it is against the wishes of the parent. In Practical Ethics, I think he compares infanticide to killing someone’s animal; it is wrong to do it without the consent of the owner of the animal, but the owner is free to kill their own animal.

You are also correct that utilitarians have a right to act in their self-interest. But, of course, there are limits. Nike, indeed, has a right to act in their own interests (i.e. making a lot of money). But, as it is common knowledge, Nike utilizes sweatshop labor to maximize their profits because they do not have to pay foreign workers much money and factory safety laws are less stringent overseas. The relevant question is: “Is this moral in utilitarian ethics?” Of course, the answer is no because Nike’s policies do not maximize the principle of utility (i.e. a principle which acknowledges that humans seek happiness and have an aversion towards pain) as their policies do not give their workers enough money to evade poverty.

It does not seem that abortion is immoral under utilitarian ethics (but I will have to read the Marquis paper next), unlike sweatshops. I will retain my statement that abortion reflects humanity’s selfishness. I think that the mentality of people who choose to undergo an abortion is similar to the attitude of Scott Peterson when he killed his wife. It seems likely that he killed his wife because he did not want to take care of that child. Indeed that is quite selfish. It seems that many abortions are conducted because the parents merely deem the child as an inconvience.

This still in no way explains your dislike of abortion. Abortion for you (as you have stated) is moral. Therefore, you cannot call it selfish in some pejorative sense. It is in the individual’s self interest which makes the act therefore moral and good. Why would negatively call that act selfish? To reiterate my point from earlier, in your ethical system there is no more reason to call the woman who aborts selfish, than to call the woman who cherishs and keeps her child selfish. Both acts are equal moral acts in the eyes of utilitarianism. It is unfair and illogical for you to call one of them “selfish.” Your argument doesn’t hold up. It is thus reasonable to conclude that either, you are not uncomfortable with abortion or your discomfort stems from something else - perhaps an act that you know deep in your bones to be immoral.

Do you agree that a child newly born could be morally killed by the parent? If not, at what moment does the child suddenly become “protected” by no longer being evaluated soley by the desire or lack thereof by the parent for the child’s continued existence? For instance, you are young. Do you have intrinsic worth, or is your value determined by your parents desire that you live? At what point did you gain intrinsic worth.

 

[ribozyme]

This still in no way explains your dislike of abortion. Abortion for you (as you have stated) is moral. Therefore, you cannot call it selfish in some pejorative sense. It is in the individual’s self interest which makes the act therefore moral and good. Why would negatively call that act selfish? To reiterate my point from earlier, in your ethical system there is no more reason to call the woman who aborts selfish, than to call the woman who cherishs and keeps her child selfish. Both acts are equal moral acts in the eyes of utilitarianism. It is unfair and illogical for you to call one of them “selfish.” Your argument doesn’t hold up. It is thus reasonable to conclude that either, you are not uncomfortable with abortion or your discomfort stems from something else - perhaps an act that you know deep in your bones to be immoral.

I am not arguing that the* act* is immoral in itself, as I admitted that it is not based on my own current understanding of morality. I am saying that the mentality not the act itself is a reflection of the evil that humanity is capable of committing (e.g. the murder of Laci Peterson) in their own selfish interests.

From analysing the issue, emotionally I dislike abortion, but when I examine the issue without recourse to my emotions, I find it morally acceptable in utilitarian ethics. For example, I emotionally find zoophila disgusting, and I would not personally endorse it, but I do agree with Singer that, from a utilitarian perspective, there is nothing immoral about zoophila unless the animal is being hurt. But I argue against organizations such as NAMBLA because it opens the door for child predators to decieve and abuse children to their own benefit.

 

[buffalo]

Laws are made for the common good. When we create good laws it civilizes us more. It doesn’t matter if some find ways to break it.

 

[JimG]

Well, of course abortion is not immoral from a utilitarian perspective. To be consistent, neither would pedophilia be. If the child meets Singer’s criteria of personhood, then consensual pedophilia would be ok; if the child does not meet the utilitarian standards of personhood, then he is merely owned by the parent, so the parent’s permission would need to be obtained. It would be a commercial transaction with no ethical considerations required.

But I am surprised that this statement does not worry you:

In Practical Ethics, I think he compares infanticide to killing someone’s animal; it is wrong to do it without the consent of the owner of the animal, but the owner is free to kill their own animal.

Under utilitarian ethics, your inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are in no way inalienable.

Indeed your rights to your very own life are precarious, being subject to someone else defining your personhood away.

The fact that Singer’s “ethics” are implicitly approved by academia–note he is chair of a university department–ought to scare the daylights out of all of us. Under his ethics, none of us is safe.

 

[Ham1]

I am not arguing that the* act* is immoral in itself, as I admitted that it is not based on my own current understanding of morality. I am saying that the mentality not the act itself is a reflection of the evil that humanity is capable of committing (e.g. the murder of Laci Peterson) in their own selfish interests.

From analysing the issue, emotionally I dislike abortion, but when I examine the issue without recourse to my emotions, I find it morally acceptable in utilitarian ethics. For example, I emotionally find zoophila disgusting, and I would not personally endorse it, but I do agree with Singer that, from a utilitarian perspective, there is nothing immoral about zoophila unless the animal is being hurt. But I argue against organizations such as NAMBLA because it opens the door for child predators to decieve and abuse children to their own benefit.

I noticed that you did not respond at all to my second paragraph. It shows how the utilitarian concept of value is flawed and ultimately doesn’t bind to experience. When did you start to have “value”?

“The mentality is a reflection of evil.” This makes no sense. You cannot, as a follower of Singer and a utilitarian see abortion as troubling anymore than you can see “loving your own child” as troubling. You keep stating that abortion is moral in your ethical system. It should not bother you, unless of course, it is your very ethical system that you find bothersome. This I could accept as it is a system that is very problematic. Why do you emotionally dislike abortion? Is this not totally unreasonable? Is it just a taste, such as “I don’t like shellfish.” Or is it more meaningful?

 

[ribozyme]

Well, of course abortion is not immoral from a utilitarian perspective. To be consistent, neither would pedophilia be. If the child meets Singer’s criteria of personhood, then consensual pedophilia would be ok; if the child does not meet the utilitarian standards of personhood, then he is merely owned by the parent, so the parent’s permission would need to be obtained. It would be a commercial transaction with no ethical considerations required.

But I am surprised that this statement does not worry you:

Under utilitarian ethics, your inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are in no way inalienable.

Indeed your rights to your very own life are precarious, being subject to someone else defining your personhood away.

The fact that Singer’s “ethics” are implicitly approved by academia–note he is chair of a university department–ought to scare the daylights out of all of us. Under his ethics, none of us is safe.

I do not think Singer is an evil person who wants to define all of humanity’s personhood away. I see him as a compassionate egalitarian philosopher who cares of the well-being of humanity. I think his egalitarian approach makes his ethics attractive, even if he reaches some undesirable conclusions.

 

[JimG]

I do not think Singer is an evil person who wants to define all of humanity’s personhood away.

It doesn’t matter whether he is an evil person or not. His philosophy of ethics is an imminent danger to all of us.

This is perhaps something he might better understand when he is an old man in a nursing home, desperately hoping that his children who were nurtured on utilitarian philosophy do not decide to do away with him against his will.

 

[ribozyme]

“The mentality is a reflection of evil.” This makes no sense. You cannot, as a follower of Singer and a utilitarian see abortion as troubling anymore than you can see “loving your own child” as troubling. You keep stating that abortion is moral in your ethical system. It should not bother you, unless of course, it is your very ethical system that you find bothersome. This I could accept as it is a system that is very problematic. Why do you emotionally dislike abortion? Is this not totally unreasonable? Is it just a taste, such as “I don’t like shellfish.” Or is it more meaningful?

Perhaps you are indeed correct. Maybe it is merely a subjective preference, like the perception of taste. I think that most abortions are motivated for pecuniary reasons because it would be difficult to support a child.

 

[Alterum]

I will read that article and I thank you…

I will also attempt to address several of what I see as flawed arguments against abortion (and I even think they are flawed even if one is allowed recourse to Catholic doctrine) later. Most of these deal with personhood.

In Marquis’ case, “personhood” is irrelevant. Abortion is always depriving someone of her future, because indeed there will be someone with a valuable future unless she is aborted. Whether the aborted fetus is a “person” is inconsequential; she will be, if she is not aborted.

 

[ribozyme]

In Marquis’ case, “personhood” is irrelevant. Abortion is always depriving someone of her future, because indeed there will be someone with a valuable future unless she is aborted. Whether the aborted fetus is a “person” is inconsequential; she will be, if she is not aborted.

I have not read it yet (I am reading some chapters of Molecular Biology of the Cell now). It seems that Marquis’ argument undercuts the argument that I was intending to use in this thread (I did not articulate my argument for abortion to be morally acceptable, yet) and Singer’s argument.

A brief version of this argument is found here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=122231

grunts. How predictable it is for me not to come up with an alternative consistent system that emphasizes humanity’s ontological worth within a secular morality system. The Catholic Church does it so easily; they state that humanity is created in the image of God and that God commands us to treat humanity with dignity. Of course, a secular moral system cannot use recource to a deity. But what does the secular point of view say about humanity’s worth:

From here: equip.org/free/DD801.htm

Quote:
“When we reject belief in a god,” he writes, “we must give up the idea that life on this planet has some preordained meaning. Life as a whole has no meaning. Life began [in] a chance combination of molecules; it then evolved through chance mutations and natural selection. All this just happened; it did not happen for any overall purpose.”

Well, I see life as a natural phenomenon… The formation of life might have been a rare event, but like all other observed events, it was natural. Nice is nothing special; it is merely a natural phenomenon that is pointless. Acknowledge that, we have to acknowledge that humanity has no innate ontological worth as we are merely the products of evolution, a natural phenomenon. However, we have to create a false sense of ontological worth.

…

Although I find abortion distasteful, I will say this though. Singer is being consistent; in contrast, I was not being consistent during most of the duration of this thread. Posters in this thread correctly pointed out the vacuousness of my concept of “potentiality”. I will also add that under a secular moral system, abortion is morally acceptable as there is no intrinsic value to human life. Utilitarianism does not assign intrinsic value, but it is based on characteristics. So I should accept that abortion is morally acceptable to be consistent. Of course, I will not be a stauch pro-choice activist as I do not see abortion as a laudable action, but this is a natural consequence for a secular moral system.

I am not promoting abortion, but I am saying that it is morally acceptable under utilitarian ethics. If anyone disagrees with the conclusion, I would appreciate your imput.

Of course, I dismissed the ontological value and dignity of humanity. By doing I have to dismiss this in myself. I do not see myself as anything special.

 

[marci]

I didn’t read through all of the posts, but I read something on one of them about the argument against abortion because the denial of potential was considered not valid by the OP.

Story # 1: Medical ethics class: Professor presents students with this scenario; “Pregnant patient presents with TB and syphilis. The husband also has TB and syphilis. The couple have several children with moderate to severe disabilities. What do you advise?” The students are asked to write down their comments and pass them to the front. After reading the comments the professor says “95% recommend terminating the pregnancy. Congradulations, you just terminated Beethoven.”

I don’t know about anyone else, but I find the argument against abortion due to the “potential” issue a valid one.

Story # 2: Mother Theresa once said, “Once I was praying to God, asking him, why won’t You send someone to cure AIDS?
And God said to me, ‘I did and you aborted him’.”

Now, since story # 2 is a religious argument why abortion is harmful to humanity, the OP may not want to discuss it. However, I wanted to relay the story because I personally know of people I have converted to the pro-life cause based upon those two stories.

Nothing but pain and suffering will befall a nation which cares so little for the most helpless and innocent among us.

 

[ribozyme]

I didn’t read through all of the posts, but I read something on one of them about the argument against abortion because the denial of potential was considered not valid by the OP.

Story # 1: Medical ethics class: Professor presents students with this scenario; “Pregnant patient presents with TB and syphilis. The husband also has TB and syphilis. The couple have several children with moderate to severe disabilities. What do you advise?” The students are asked to write down their comments and pass them to the front. After reading the comments the professor says “95% recommend terminating the pregnancy. Congradulations, you just terminated Beethoven.”

I don’t know about anyone else, but I find the argument against abortion due to the “potential” issue a valid one.

I think Dawkins dismantled that argument. So what if we abort Hitler? Isn’t that good?

 

[JimG]

So what if we abort Hitler? Isn’t that good?

The point about Hitler is that his dangerous ideas were written, published, and advocated long before he ever gained political power. His ideas were put forth in writings and speeches before they were ever put into practice. He also didn’t think that people were entitled to life simply by reason of being human beings. They had to be of the right stock. They had to be “worthy of life.” (Sounds a little like Singer: Our right to our own life is conditional, not absolute.) But eventually, people did put them into effect, and millions died.

I think the American founders got it right: Our rights are unalienable. They are predicated upon our being human beings, not upon some abstract notion of personhood.

 

[marci]

I think Dawkins dismantled that argument. So what if we abort Hitler? Isn’t that good?

Why didn’t we just assasinate him before he was able to send millions to the gas chamber for that matter. But, seriously, if it’s numbers your after, how many more lives could be saved through cures for cancer and AIDS (just to name two diseases)
It seems reasonable to me that saving all of those lives would outnumber ten fold the lives that have been lost to all the wars ever waged.

So what is the better wager? Which one will give you better odds? I’ll go with cures for diseases and inventions that would elevate mankind. Even it that means a Hitler thrown in here and there.

As far as the morality of abortion argued from the utilitarian thought, what difference does it make? In my opinion it is impossible to argue morality without a basis in Divinity. Otherwise, ethics and morals are subjective. What I think is right is right because I think so, and what I think is wrong is wrong because I think so. What right does society have to place restrictions on me? If I deny the premise upon which society basis it’s ethical/moral restraints on my behavior, then I should not have to adhear to those restraints because I, personally, do not find them objectionable.

No organized society can survive under these conditions. So laws are made based upon the collective morals/ethics of the people. All of which basically come under the “Golden Rule” rather then “live and let live”

 

[FredM]

Society has the right to pass laws to protect the innocent and those unable to protect themselves.

If we have laws against murder it should include all abortions (excepting only rare cases in which double effect would apply).

Perhaps abortionists that have yet to be convinced by prayer and reason would be deterred if they went to jail. Personnally I support capital punishment in very select cases and I would certainly include abortionists. A doctor that performs abortions is a contract for hire murderer.

Fred