Whats the nonreligious anti-abortion argument

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

jgh7

Whats the nonreligious anti-abortion argument

Post #1

Post by jgh7 »

I understand the religious arguments against abortion. It's basically something along the lines of God deeming a human life as sacred and a human life comes into existence at the moment of conception.

But whats the nonreligious argument against abortion? Is it pretty much the same thing? Actually, I'm going to horrify people even more and ask what the nonreligious argument is against killing a new born infant if one doesn't want to keep it.

I don't intend to paint myself as a monster, but just to understand the logic behind it. I will argue the side of it being no big deal just for the sake of making some sense behind my stance.

----My argument----

Most people don't think it a big deal for a sperm to die. Nor do they think it a big deal for a bug to be squished.

It's because these are lower life-forms that cant really think or recognize their existence, they live merely as a sort of pre-programmed entity. But I think science has equated a newborn baby to be very similar in that it merely has reflexes and pre-progammed instincts. Assuming it was carried out painlessly, what is wrong with killing this kind of lifeform?

Is the only response an appeal to emotion and outer appearances? The baby looks like a human, so it's horrible to kill it. In the same way it's horrible to kill cute animals rather than ugly animals. In the same way we rationalize it's no big deal to abort the fetus so long as it doesn't look like a human, but once it starts looking like a human it becomes bad to abort it, even though its level of thought is no different.

Or is there a more logical counterargument?

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #11

Post by bluethread »

Strider324 wrote:
Talishi wrote:
Nilloc James wrote: There appears to be little qualitative difference between killing an infant and killing a fetus.
Genesis 2:7 says when God gave his mudpie the breath of life, it became a living soul. Biblically, then, the difference between an infant and a fetus is that the former has a living soul.
Yeah but the theist response is simply "the bible only says that god breathed a soul into Adam. After that, every person has a soul, and we consider any fertilized egg to meet the definition of 'person' - despite how that conflicts with the bible itself."
Ya can't beat 'em - they have inscrutability on their side....
8-)
The theist response? What does that have to do with the OP? I presumed the OP was referring to theism in using the term "nonreligious". If that is not the case, and the OP was using religion to refer to an activity that follows from a belief, is the question about arguments that do not follow from want one believes? Is there an theistic argument that does not follow from theism?

Yahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:28 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Whats the nonreligious anti-abortion argument

Post #12

Post by Yahu »

jgh7 wrote: I understand the religious arguments against abortion. It's basically something along the lines of God deeming a human life as sacred and a human life comes into existence at the moment of conception.
How about the religious argument against making abortion illegal or at least against trying to impose Christian morality onto non-believers? That one is pretty easy to argue and considering my eldest brother is a major figure in the right to life movement, it make it even more fun considering we have VERY different views.

User avatar
amortalman
Site Supporter
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:35 am
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Whats the nonreligious anti-abortion argument

Post #13

Post by amortalman »

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

I have been of the opinion that abortion is the murder of a defenseless child but that was when I was a Christian. It just made sense to me that if you just let an unborn child live and grow he or she would become a person.

I also held this view after I de-converted. But I can see that my belief was heavily influenced by my Christian beliefs. Now, I'm coming around to the opinion that we should respect and treasure life whether it's human or animal. There are circumstances that warrant abortion, but the wholesale aborting of unborn children because the pregnancy is inconvenient shows a disrespect for life. If at all possible, let the "fetus" grow. He or she might become the scientist who discovers the cure for cancer. That life has tremendous potential for the betterment of mankind.

Personally, if I find a bug in my house I take it outside, if possible, and let it go. I look at the defenseless bug and realize that I have the power of life and death over it and that the life it has is so far beyond mankind's capability to create, that it seems obscene to destroy it. Of course, I see the need to keep insect or animal pests under control and I've used means to do that. But to show respect for life if I see a solitary bug where it shouldn't be I show mercy. Crazy? Maybe. But that's just me.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Whats the nonreligious anti-abortion argument

Post #14

Post by shnarkle »

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

Taking religion and gods out of the equation leaves us with the fact that there is no essential difference between bugs and people. We're all made up of the same stuff so given that there is no objective standard of morality, reason, pragmatism etc. it makes little difference who lives or dies. There is no purpose to life. We know from the facts presented by the sciences, especially evolution; that there is no forward thinking when it comes to life here on earth. Therefore it makes no difference what our reasons may be for killing anyone.

However, the argument that states that this newborn could very well have a miserable life so we should kill it, while it has a certain logic to it; the same could be said for the rest of us if we don't kill it. In other words, that meaningless collection of cells that doesn't know its potential left hand from its right could very well have the cure for AIDS, or cancer preprogramed within the cells that are destined to become its brain.

I'm all for private property rights as well, but just because no one knows what could potentially be beneficial to humanity doesn't mean that anyone who does should be discriminated against. For example, the farmer who gets so much pleasure from sowing seeds in the ground and watching it all grow up till just before it's time to harvest should be well within his rights to plow that entire field into the ground, rake it up and burn it just for his own pleasure, regardless of whether the rest of the planet is starving to death.

The State used to claim that they had a vested interest in an unborn citizen, it won't be that long before we will see that they no longer have vested interest in you or me. You've been warned.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Whats the nonreligious anti-abortion argument

Post #15

Post by shnarkle »

Yahu wrote:
jgh7 wrote: I understand the religious arguments against abortion. It's basically something along the lines of God deeming a human life as sacred and a human life comes into existence at the moment of conception.
How about the religious argument against making abortion illegal or at least against trying to impose Christian morality onto non-believers? That one is pretty easy to argue and considering my eldest brother is a major figure in the right to life movement, it make it even more fun considering we have VERY different views.
Let me just tweek that idea to see how this argument works. How about the religious argument for making slavery illegal or at least for trying to impose Christian morality onto non-believers? Is that one just as easy to argue? The problem lies with how we define a person, and who is privileged to warrant this title. A slave doesn't warrant the same rights as a fully recognized human being neither does a human being that isn't born.

Who are you to tell me that I can't own a slave? Who are you to tell me that I can't be a slave? This is my personal property and you have no right to deprive me of my personal property. At the very least this country needs to bring back voluntary slavery. We already have legal precedent with the IRS, not to mention being forced to work for those who are lucky enough to be part of the privileged class, e.g. blacks, LBGT, women, Muslims, etc..

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Whats the nonreligious anti-abortion argument

Post #16

Post by Neatras »

shnarkle wrote:
Let me just tweek that idea to see how this argument works. How about the religious argument for making slavery illegal or at least for trying to impose Christian morality onto non-believers? Is that one just as easy to argue?
Ahahahaha! That's... Oh, you're serious.

The answer is no, it's not that easy to argue. Mostly because Christians by and large filled in both sides of the quarrel when it came to opposing slavery or allowing it. There were probably as many people in favor of it as there were against it, or otherwise they weren't vocal in the least. How Christian of them.

Maybe if your holy book didn't discuss the treatment of slaves and exactly how far their abuse could be, your argument would hold more water. You don't have religious grounds to try and insinuate that Christianity is so noble, because that's not what history or theology supports. Imposing your Christian morality onto non-believers would be just as valid if you were trying to reinstate slavery. Because it ultimately is allowed. That's the fun part of Christianity, it supports both sides, and does so in a way that it's always on the right side of history.

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: Whats the nonreligious anti-abortion argument

Post #17

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[quote="jgh7"]

Are you sure you understand the argument against abortion? I am not religious, nor would I use religious text to argue for or against abortion. But morally and logically you can not defend abortion for several reasons.

1. If you don't want a child, you can use prevention
2. A decision to terminate life or end a life process can never be a moral one
3. To start something you don't finish can never be right. Either the starting was wrong or the finish was. If the starting was right, there is no argument to support the ending
4. If we can justify us living, can we justify preventing someone else from living?
5. We don't know when life enters in to a fetus. There is a lot of indication that it is fairly early.
6. Who don't love babies?
7. The creation process includes more than just the woman, others take part who also should have a right to choose.

In regard to your argument about sperm dying, it does nothing to defend abortion. For you can not abort sperm. You abort a fetus, and this is a sperm and a egg which has developed into a living thing. Heartbeats and brain activity occur in a fetus quite early, so to claim that it is just sperm you kill is a gross misrepresentation of truth.

You ask what is wrong with killing this kind of lifeform. But to answer that question you have to look at what is wrong with killing any kind of lifeform, and what can justify terminating it. Good luck finding one which is moral. I seriously doubt you will find one.

And no the only reason is not appeal, emotion and appearance, in fact that may be one of lesser reasons. The main reason abortion is wrong is because it prevents a life process which has started, and may in fact terminate a living human being who will not get the same opportunity for growth and existence we have, and if we can defend that we should have it, then why shouldn't this new life or life to be?

I will let the religious debate from their point of view, but this is an area I agree with religion in, and I think their argument is quite logical.

Ask yourself instead, what is wrong with or so hard about using a condom and pills to prevent pregnancy before abortion can become a option?

Abortion is often even a costly and dangerous procedure.

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: Whats the nonreligious anti-abortion argument

Post #18

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 15 by shnarkle]

No slavery is NOT moral whether done by Christians or Atheists :)

But slavery is closer related to underpaid labor than to abortion, though it is true that many slaves were killed, but then I don't think the word slavery is sufficient. Then we are talking about murder.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Whats the nonreligious anti-abortion argument

Post #19

Post by shnarkle »

Neatras wrote:
shnarkle wrote:
Let me just tweek that idea to see how this argument works. How about the religious argument for making slavery illegal or at least for trying to impose Christian morality onto non-believers? Is that one just as easy to argue?
Ahahahaha! That's... Oh, you're serious.

The answer is no, it's not that easy to argue. Mostly because Christians by and large filled in both sides of the quarrel when it came to opposing slavery or allowing it. There were probably as many people in favor of it as there were against it, or otherwise they weren't vocal in the least. How Christian of them.
Well, all that proves is that Christians know how to construct a logical argument, or at least the ability to snow the opposition when it comes to debate. I'm not presenting both sides of the argument though which should make things easier for anyone who is looking to debate the issue.
Maybe if your holy book didn't discuss the treatment of slaves and exactly how far their abuse could be, your argument would hold more water.
You don't have religious grounds to try and insinuate that Christianity is so noble, because that's not what history or theology supports.
I'm not presenting an argument on religious grounds. Did you even bother to read the OP? They aren't looking for a religious argument. I was responding to Yahu's point with regards to the OP, and I was simply asking him a question to see if it still made sense to him. The rest of my post had nothing to do with religion at all.
Imposing your Christian morality onto non-believers would be just as valid if you were trying to reinstate slavery. Because it ultimately is allowed. That's the fun part of Christianity, it supports both sides, and does so in a way that it's always on the right side of history.
Well, if you had bothered to read what I posted, it had nothing to do with Christianity. What I was speaking to was personal property rights which is what the abortion issue is about, e.g. "it's a woman's right to do with her body what she wants to" I simply pointed out that the same holds true for slavery with no connection whatsoever for any religion. Slavery predates Christianity by millennia so rather than accuse me of presenting a religious argument when I'm not, how about refuting, or at least addressing what I actually posted? Not only did I present a non religious anti abortion argument, I extended the logic to other issues as well. Here's what I posted in case you may have changed your mind and might actually want to debate the issue:

Taking religion and gods out of the equation leaves us with the fact that there is no essential difference between bugs and people. We're all made up of the same stuff so given that there is no objective standard of morality, reason, pragmatism etc. it makes little difference who lives or dies. There is no purpose to life. We know from the facts presented by the sciences, especially evolution; that there is no forward thinking when it comes to life here on earth. Therefore it makes no difference what our reasons may be for killing anyone.

However, the argument that states that this newborn could very well have a miserable life so we should kill it, while it has a certain logic to it; the same could be said for the rest of us if we don't kill it. In other words, that meaningless collection of cells that doesn't know its potential left hand from its right could very well have the cure for AIDS, or cancer preprogramed within the cells that are destined to become its brain.

I'm all for private property rights as well, but just because no one knows what could potentially be beneficial to humanity doesn't mean that anyone who does should be discriminated against. For example, the farmer who gets so much pleasure from sowing seeds in the ground and watching it all grow up till just before it's time to harvest should be well within his rights to plow that entire field into the ground, rake it up and burn it just for his own pleasure, regardless of whether the rest of the planet is starving to death.

The State used to claim that they had a vested interest in an unborn citizen, it won't be that long before we will see that they no longer have vested interest in you or me. You've been warned.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Whats the nonreligious anti-abortion argument

Post #20

Post by shnarkle »

Hector Barbosa wrote: [Replying to post 15 by shnarkle]

No slavery is NOT moral whether done by Christians or Atheists :)

But slavery is closer related to underpaid labor than to abortion, though it is true that many slaves were killed, but then I don't think the word slavery is sufficient. Then we are talking about murder.
By the same token one could just as easily argue that abortion isn't sufficient either. If it is sufficient for abortion then it is also just as sufficient for slavery. It all boils down to how you define a person. A legal system that defines a person as property is going to allow people to do what they want with their property

Slavery doesn't necessarily have anything to do with wages. In most cases slavery has to do with property rights or involuntary labor. In the case of property, one could argue that if two people wanted to voluntarily enter into a slavery agreement, who's business is it of anyone else?

As for your point of underpaid labor, this is close to what we would call a public servant in many cases throughout history. I think that there's a lot of negative baggage associated with slavery because of the horrid treatment slaves have endured throughout history. However, there are notable exceptions. For example, even here in the Us, the Cherokee were incredibly successful slave owners. They not only took excellent care of their slaves, they taught them to read, right etc. They were so successful that the locals eventually couldn't compete so they were run out. Other slave owners were also not opposed to educating their slaves and this is one of the reasons that slaves began to feel the need to escape. They learned how to read and one of the most common books back then was the bible. They began to identify with the bondage of Israel in Egypt so much so that they saw themselves as God's chosen people that God would eventually set free as well.

People today really don't recognize slavery when it's staring them right in the face. To be forced to work for someone else is an essential feature of slavery, but when some bakery can't refuse to bake cake for a homosexual without being sued, something's wrong. I'm not defending this bakery. I'll bake a cake for anyone who's got money. The point is that nobody should be forced to work against their will. The woman who supports PETA shouldn't have to wait on the scientist who is experimenting on animals. The holocaust survivor shouldn't have to wait on the Nazi who gassed his family, etc.

Post Reply