Justifying abortion

[tmellin]

Method #1: “Choosing to believe that a baby is sub-human”
The only seemingly logical way for abortion not to be human sacrifice is to view a baby in her mother’s womb as sub-human. This is often the system soldiers use in battle: a sub-human individual is easier to kill than one who is just like yourself.

“I’m not carrying a baby,” a philosophically pro-abortion woman might say, “I’m carrying a sub-human organism that I don’t want in my body.”

Refutation: Human identity is scientifically defined by the DNA that forms in the fertilized egg, not by individuals’ choices to believe or not believe that human life yet exists. Any morally relativistic notion of humanity makes human status conditional upon the choices of others!? Humanity is genetically inherited, not “granted” by others deemed human by others, who were deemed human by… Can our status as “human” be revoked if our parents (or others) later decide that we are not human!?

Method #2: “Humans as the property of others”

Even when one accepts abortion as the destruction of human life that it is, it can still be argued that there is a period of time during which a human is the property of another, to be disposed of at will. In slavery, this time period was life-long. For abortion, there is argument about the time period, some saying “until birth”, others preferring 3 or 6 months. Human sacrifice of children often occurred with the understanding that parents could choose their children for destruction well into their teenage years.

“Because the baby’s life comes from (or came from) me, I have the right to end the baby’s life at will.”

Refutation: (I’ll wait for others to post a refutation to this one)

Method #3: “Human sacrifice benefits an individual or society”

“My life will be better if I avoid having a human being depending on me, so it’s OK to destroy the human being.” This is the attitude: “I wish he/she were dead!” carried through to action: first degree murder.
OR
“Since pregnant woman X doesn’t want to have a dependant, the human being growing in her will likely be a ‘drain on’ (or danger to) society if allowed to continue development into adulthood.” This is akin to capital punishment before the commission of any crime.
OR
“We imagine (with statistical support) that the mother-unwanted human being would have a life of suffering and hardship, so it’s better to end the life now (through the intense but brief suffering of dismemberment).” This is “pre-emptive” euthanasia, thought to “benefit” the child.​

Often abortion is justified using a “cocktail” of these three methods (or others). How do you think a defense attorney would do in defending his client’s actions by making this argument to the jury?

“We recognize that there was a destruction of life here, however it was morally justified, and arguably necessary:
A sub human organism that was the property of my client could have turned into a human being and grown into adulthood, emotionally and financially burdening my client. Since my client would likely not have raised the child well, the child would likely have suffered and become a danger to society. By terminating the sub-human organism now, my client is making things better for herself, better for others–including the sub-human organism–and saving everybody a lot of money in the process.”

The elements of this argument are Satanic. (NOTE for non-Catholics: My naming Satan as the source of these elements is a Catholic way of saying the functional equivalent of: “they are in opposition to moral absolutes.”)

 

[FightingFat]

You know the violin player argument?

 

[Sair]

As always, the issues involved in the choice a woman makes to keep or terminate a pregnancy are far more complex than the black-and-white moralisers allow.

It simply isn’t the case - despite the picture painted by many anti-choicers - that there are hordes of women happily trooping off to the abortion clinic because they want to indulge in a little foetus-killing just to pass the time. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the hardest decisions a woman, or a couple, can make, and unless you can see inside their heads and know their concerns intimately, you cannot presume to be in a position to judge them for their actions.

Here’s a little food for thought that I stumbled across recently:

secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=its-a-ba-by

 

[mapleoak]

As always, the issues involved in the choice a woman makes to keep or terminate a pregnancy are far more complex than the black-and-white moralisers allow.

It simply isn’t the case - despite the picture painted by many anti-choicers - that there are hordes of women happily trooping off to the abortion clinic because they want to indulge in a little foetus-killing just to pass the time.

Most forms of murder are not performed by those happily engaged in the fun activity of killing people as a pastime. Abortion is no different. Does not make it anything less than always and everywhere an abomination and grave moral disorder.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the hardest decisions a woman, or a couple, can make, and unless you can see inside their heads and know their concerns intimately, you cannot presume to be in a position to judge them for their actions.

Is this the same standard for all forms of murder?
Now if we look at your use of the phrase “terminate a pregnancy” as opposed to “kill an innocent human being” it is easy to see where your confusion lies. The following is an equally absurd illustration: If the roller coaster seat is occupied by someone and therefore no more room available, shooting that person would not be killing an innocent human being, rather the phrase “freeing up room” would seem more appropriate.

 

[Lemonpoptart]

Oye. I just posted about this.

If it’s not a baby, then your not pregnant. It’s not a blob, it’s a baby.

What part of “Thou Shalt Not Kill” do people not get?

Anyone who wants to argue, let me go ahead and say this now: “If your Mom had been Pro Choice, you wouldn’t be here to argue with me.”

 

[manualman]

As always, the issues involved in the choice a woman makes to keep or terminate a pregnancy are far more complex than the black-and-white moralisers allow.

It simply isn’t the case - despite the picture painted by many anti-choicers - that there are hordes of women happily trooping off to the abortion clinic because they want to indulge in a little foetus-killing just to pass the time. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the hardest decisions a woman, or a couple, can make, and unless you can see inside their heads and know their concerns intimately, you cannot presume to be in a position to judge them for their actions.

I’ve never come across a pro-lifer who thinks that abortion consists of women happily trooping to the clinic. Virtually anyone who has ever spent time watching a clinic entrance from a public sidewalk knows that the vast majority of women seeking an abortion are miserable about it and are often accompanied by a man practically yanking on her arm.

But your final sentence above is nonsense. It is precisely when you are not personally emotionally affected that you are able to reason moral principles without bias sinking in.

By your logic, no one can judge anyone for ANY atrocity. Life isn’t like the movies. Evil doesn’t come in the form of Darth Vader (or more precisely, the evil emperor): an utterly inhuman monster with no redeeming qualities. Even Hitler and Stalin had mothers. Many Bosnians and Serbians were fairly friendly neighbors before the butchery started. Humans commit unspeakable evil when they fail to prepare themselves to act on principle instead of emotion.

We’ve become a Disney culture. We think we are entitled to a life without complications or suffering, but that’s all a lie. Life includes BOTH joy and sorrow. We’ve had it so easy for so long we’ve forgotten how to live virtue when it is hard. What you say has a major element of truth in it: it’s easy to be pro-life when you aren’t faced with a crisis pregnancy. Its much harder when it’s you. But that doesn’t mean we can afford as a society to license the ‘escape’ instead of expecting virtue. Think about where THAT leads.

 

[Georgia]

There is no real justification of the gravest evil. It is a rationalization that takes place.

I know that people often do not want a child, but I cannot begin to fathom why, with the backlogs of years before adoption, they do not let the child go to a family that is aching for a baby. They are legion.

Life is the most precious resource and it should be adored.

 

[Primox]

I tend to think the problem is black and white. Those who regard an unborn baby as sub-human or not whole at such and such a time, will think highly on abortion when they feel it’s the appropriate action to take. Those who view an unborn baby as human life anywhere on the continuum of life in general (from conception onward) will have great difficulty justifying abortion by moral reasoning or circumstance.