The problem with the Abortion debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paddy1989
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradskii said:
I was discussing the problem of evil with @IWantGod a week or so back. His opinion was that acts that we consider to be evil, that God obviously could have prevented, must result in a greater good which we cannot fathom - we not being omniscient. Otherwise it opened up the claim that God was indifferent.
Click to expand...
Either case may be true (God has better plans or God is indifferent) or maybe God prefers not to interfere even though he cares or maybe God will interfere only if requested. But to claim to know what God wants is a bit ridiculous
 
Bradskii said:
Otherwise it opened up the claim that God was indifferent.
Click to expand...
But this would mean that we could be indifferent. Because regardless of whether we end up on Heaven or Hell or who he hurt or what we do, it’s all a part of God’s plan for the greater good that we don’t understand anyway. So I don’t quite buy it. 🤔
 
I think the problem is that in Western society we’ve removed all moral from abortion. Anyone can have an abortion for any reason without it being evil.
Obviously there will always be cases where women are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to abortion vs keeping the child. But in all other cases where it’s perhaps a question of vanity/ convenience or what have you, we MUST reinstate the moral stance of the Church.
 
I’m both hearing your point and challenging it. But let’s move to your examples.

By way of correction, it is impossible to know one is pregnant at 48 hours gestation. HCG can’t even be detected until at least 9 days gestation, and even those early detection tests are less reliable than waiting until a missed period.

But again - and this is my point that you’re missing even with your accident scenario - how you personally feel about somebody does determines neither their worth as a human being nor the acceptability of killing them.
 
blackforest said:
But again - and this is my point that you’re missing even with your accident scenario - how you personally feel about somebody does determines neither their worth as a human being nor the acceptability of killing them.
Click to expand...
I think that we’re talking past each other. The fact that a woman loses a child after a few days conception and suffers less anguish than if she loses a child the day before it is born shows that we value the few cells less than we value the fully formed baby.

They have less worth.

Does that mean a woman has the right to terminate an early pregnancy? Well, if she is a woman who would consider having an abortion, then having a very early abortion seems not to be a difficult choice.

Your problem is illustrated by the fact that you are always referring to ‘somebody’ when I don’t think anyone would use that term outside of a discussion on abortion to describe a few cells a few days old. The woman having the abortion doesn’t consider it to be ‘somebody’ (and neither do I).
 
TheMortenBay said:
I think the problem is that in Western society we’ve removed all moral from abortion. Anyone can have an abortion for any reason without it being evil.
Obviously there will always be cases where women are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to abortion vs keeping the child. But in all other cases where it’s perhaps a question of vanity/ convenience or what have you, we MUST reinstate the moral stance of the Church.
Click to expand...
I don’t have much of a problem with that. But you are up against your own church in proposing that some abortions are morally acceptable.
 
Bradskii said:
I think that we’re talking past each other.
Click to expand...
Our underlying assumptions are certainly different. You’re taking your own subjective feelings and applying them as some sort of universal truth, as evidenced by these two juxtaposed statements.
Bradskii said:
The fact that a woman loses a child after a few days conception and suffers less anguish than if she loses a child the day before it is born shows that we value the few cells less than we value the fully formed baby.

They have less worth.
Click to expand...
But those two statements can in no way be connected by a “therefore.”

Just because you feel like they have less worth doesn’t mean they have less worth.

There are unfortunately bigots who feel that minorities, disabled people, LGBTQ, etc. have less worth straight, white, able-bodied people. But intrinsic worth is what comes from being a human being and exists apart from individual opinions, tastes, and preferences.
Bradskii said:
Your problem is illustrated by the fact that you are always referring to ‘somebody’ when I don’t think anyone would use that term outside of a discussion on abortion to describe a few cells a few days old.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t consider it a “problem” so much as scientific accuracy. 🙂 A growing embryo is his/her own separate organism.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
you are up against your own church in proposing that some abortions are morally acceptable.
Click to expand...
Then you mistook my meaning. I meant that God forgives. If a person who is out of his mind and can’t find it in himself to live on commits suicide, do you think God doesn’t distinguish him from his neighbour who committed suicide for some selfish reason?
And that society in general accepts abortion doesn’t mean it’s right.
 
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
Bradskii:
t. But you are up against your own church in proposing that some abortions are morally acceptable.
Click to expand...
Would you please clarify?
Click to expand...
I read TheMortonBay as suggesting that although most abortions were unacceptable, some might be allowable. But see his response above.
 
blackforest said:
I wouldn’t consider it a “problem” so much as scientific accuracy. 🙂 A growing embryo is his/her own separate organism.
Click to expand...
No, it is the problem. We aren’t talking scientific accuracy. Nobody refers to a science textbook to work out if they are allowed to have an abortion.

And please note - I am NOT saying that if someone decides to do something then it is necessarily and therefore correct. What I am trying to do is illustrate what people think about a very early abortion and a very late one.

There is OBVIOUSLY a difference. I’m trying to get that accepted.
 
Bradskii said:
I read TheMortonBay as suggesting that although most abortions were unacceptable, some might be allowable.
Click to expand...
I was trying to be brief and open about a terribly difficult subject. But obviously my words could be (and were) misconstrued. I could also see it when I reread it myself this morning. 😅 I feel like Pope Francis, no other relation. 🤔
 
Then TheMortonBoy is mistaken.

Direct abortion is never permitted.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2271.htm

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
 
Bradskii said:
No, it is the problem. We aren’t talking scientific accuracy. Nobody refers to a science textbook to work out if they are allowed to have an abortion.
Click to expand...
Sure. Abortion is no doubt an emotional decision. On the other hand, we can’t just go making up terms and calling things anything we want based on how we’re feeling.
Bradskii said:
There is OBVIOUSLY a difference. I’m trying to get that accepted.
Click to expand...
I would definitely agree there’s a difference, albeit not a bioethical one. Late-term abortions are less safe, more painful physically with longer recovery, and, yes, likely more emotionally traumatizing. But legally speaking, mainstream pro-choice groups don’t want them treated differently. They’re OK with a delivered fetus/baby dying outside the womb, sacrificing him/herself to protect abortion at any phase for any reason.
 
Abortion debates exist in moral forms and legal forms. When discussing the matter, it is important to decide which is being discussed and stay on category.

If legality is being discussed, I think the most logical place to start is with the determination of personhood. When does personhood begin? For the ones arguing for anything before birth, the challenge will be to explain why this isn’t applied across the board.

Building on @Bradskii’s example, there are “natural” abortions that happen all of the time. When a fertilized egg fails to attach to the uterus wall, it dies. Scientifically, sure, this was individually a new organism. However, no one seems to be bothered when this happens, science (to my knowledge) is not trying to find methods to save these individuals, it is just thought of as part of the process. No funerals are held for these individuals. They are not legally persons.

When an egg does attach and further develops, these individuals are not legally “persons.” They are not claimed on a tax return, they are not issued a Soc Security number, etc. According to the State, they do not exist.

It would be difficult to categorize an act as murder, when there is not a legally recognized “person” to be killed.

In my opinion, any attempt alter the legality of abortions would begin with changing the definition of personhood. The reason why birth works so well is that it creates a defined point in time to make the designation.
 
Last edited:
However, if you injure a pregnant woman, in many states there is an added/more serious charge.
 
Another point to the daughter/stranger scenario…no one would fault you if you saved your daughter and left the stranger behind…there would be no moral question
 
Elf01 said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Nobody refers to a science textbook to work out if they are allowed to have an abortion.
Click to expand...
I think it would be the most reasonable basis for legislation.
Click to expand...
We aren’t discussing the legal aspects.

Edit: Well, not primarily.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top