Using logic and reason to oppose abortion...

[questioner4]

Okay, even though I've been questioning my faith for over a year, I am still firmly pro-life - although I believe 'traditional' pro-lifers go about it the wrong way. I believe thast abortion is wrong, because I oppose discrimination on all grounds. I believe it is being discriminatory to deny basic human rights to the smallest humans, simply because they are still dependant on the mother. It really would be nice to hear people oppose abortion on grounds other than the Bible.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Are you a 'non-traditional pro-lifer'? If you are Christian and pro-life, can you think of any non-Biblical reasons to oppose abortion?

[Cephus]

There is actually one very great distinction between abortion and appendectomy (apart from the obvious one of the appendix not being a living creature).

Anything that has nerve cells has pain, such is life. That hamburger you're eating suffered pain when they killed it before they cooked it. The fact that pain exists doesn't mean a damn thing.

There have been numerous alterations to the rules concerning abortion and a compromise has been made regarding the upper abortion limit regarding gestation. On the one hand, you have the dilemma of terminating a fully formed foetus and on the other you have the restriction of the woman in terms of opportunity to abort. The current limit set for abortion is not set solely on the basis of acceptability in respect to gestational age and development but also on the grounds of convenience and opportunity for the woman. The limit in many places for abortion is 24 weeks but a child born at only one week greater gestation has a good chance of survival today. In fact it has been known for babies as early as 22 weeks gestation to survive. To afford the premature infant human status along with the attached rights while denying the same to the unborn child seems an ethical absurdity. I for one fail to see the logic or reason in promoting the continuance of such an appalling situation.

The difference is that one has been born and one has not. Sorry, it is an artficial limit, but it is a limit that society has determined exists, just like having to wait until you're 21 to legally drink alcohol. You might not like it, but you can't deny that society has the right, and the ability to set such artificial limits on rights.

You're still arguing ethics and morality when the thread specifically says logic and reason.

[Curious]

Anything that has nerve cells has pain, such is life. That hamburger you're eating suffered pain when they killed it before they cooked it. The fact that pain exists doesn't mean a damn thing.

I am probably being a bit picky here but only specific nerves are associated with pain just as specific nerves are associated with movement. The hamburger you mention did not suffer pain as you state, although the cow almost certainly did.

The difference is that one has been born and one has not. Sorry, it is an artficial limit, but it is a limit that society has determined exists, just like having to wait until you're 21 to legally drink alcohol. You might not like it, but you can't deny that society has the right, and the ability to set such artificial limits on rights.

What you say is fair comment. Society has such a right however only because it says it has the right and has given itself the right to impose such legislation. You mentioned in an earlier post that no one has any rights by default and this is true. The woman has the right to abortion because society has given her that right, a right that you yourself admit she has no inherent claim to. Being a member of such a society I have every right to try to revoke this "right", as you have the right to attempt to preserve it.

You're still arguing ethics and morality when the thread specifically says logic and reason.

It is a little difficult to argue the case for or against abortion without at least touching on the ethics of it. I don't think that a reasoned discussion need necessarily completely ignore the ethical issues involved. I think you would agree that it would be ethically wrong to go around murdering ginger haired individuals whilst still being able to give a reasoned argument why such an action is ill-advised.
I concede I find it difficult to understand why a woman is perfectly at liberty to have an abortion whilst the same woman could be tried for murder had she gone into premature labour and subsequently killed the infant. The premature infant at this point would be less viable than the pre-natal one so it cannot really be an issue of viability that is the determining factor when deciding the upper limit. A terminally ill woman must fight tooth and nail in the courts to be allowed the right to die but a pregnant one is allowed to end the life of another without a second thought. I happen to think that is both illogical and unreasonable.

[Cephus]

I am probably being a bit picky here but only specific nerves are associated with pain just as specific nerves are associated with movement. The hamburger you mention did not suffer pain as you state, although the cow almost certainly did.

There isn't much difference between the hamburger and the cow it came from, any more than there is a difference between a salad and the lettuce it was made from. They've change shape, certainly, but otherwise they are chemically identical.

Of course, it's easy to quibble about things like this and miss the whole point. The cow feels pain, are you now going to demand we outlaw steak?

What you say is fair comment. Society has such a right however only because it says it has the right and has given itself the right to impose such legislation. You mentioned in an earlier post that no one has any rights by default and this is true. The woman has the right to abortion because society has given her that right, a right that you yourself admit she has no inherent claim to. Being a member of such a society I have every right to try to revoke this "right", as you have the right to attempt to preserve it.

The only thing that can impose legislation or decide rights is a society. Every "right" that has been decided to exist came solely from the society under which individuals live, it would be silly to say otherwise. And yes, if you wish to try to change the law, feel free, that's your right as a citizen of the United States (and other countries for the most part), but until you actually manage to do so, the law of the land stands.

It is a little difficult to argue the case for or against abortion without at least touching on the ethics of it. I don't think that a reasoned discussion need necessarily completely ignore the ethical issues involved. I think you would agree that it would be ethically wrong to go around murdering ginger haired individuals whilst still being able to give a reasoned argument why such an action is ill-advised.

There's no such thing as objective ethics though. You can only say what *YOU* think, but you cannot demonstrate that your thoughts are any more or less valid than anyone else's. Whether or not killing redheads is ethically wrong, it is legally wrong (thus making it murder) and thus the ethics of it really don't matter. There are plenty of logical reasons why it's not a good idea, but if you are going to rely on ethics, whose are you going to use? Yours? Why?

I concede I find it difficult to understand why a woman is perfectly at liberty to have an abortion whilst the same woman could be tried for murder had she gone into premature labour and subsequently killed the infant. The premature infant at this point would be less viable than the pre-natal one so it cannot really be an issue of viability that is the determining factor when deciding the upper limit. A terminally ill woman must fight tooth and nail in the courts to be allowed the right to die but a pregnant one is allowed to end the life of another without a second thought. I happen to think that is both illogical and unreasonable.

Because as a society, we grant rights to an individual who has been born that we do not grant to an individual who has not been born, the same as we grant rights to individuals who are 18 years old, but not to those 17 years and 364 days old. I'll agree with you on the right to die, but again, we're talking about societal dictates that have decided individuals that meet criteria X will have Y rights and responsibilities and those outside of criteria X will not.

[Curious]

Of course, it's easy to quibble about things like this and miss the whole point. The cow feels pain, are you now going to demand we outlaw steak?

No, but if I felt strongly enough I would suggest it.

There's no such thing as objective ethics though. You can only say what *YOU* think, but you cannot demonstrate that your thoughts are any more or less valid than anyone else's. Whether or not killing redheads is ethically wrong, it is legally wrong (thus making it murder) and thus the ethics of it really don't matter. There are plenty of logical reasons why it's not a good idea, but if you are going to rely on ethics, whose are you going to use? Yours? Why?

I think a moral absolutist would disagree with you on the first point but since I am not one I will let that pass. On the point of killing redheads, the statement that the ethics of it don't really matter is in fact untrue. While it is true that you shouldn't do it because it is against the law, it is against the law because it is ethically wrong in the opinion of those that pass the law. Laws are often built upon ethics.

Because as a society, we grant rights to an individual who has been born that we do not grant to an individual who has not been born, the same as we grant rights to individuals who are 18 years old, but not to those 17 years and 364 days old. I'll agree with you on the right to die, but again, we're talking about societal dictates that have decided individuals that meet criteria X will have Y rights and responsibilities and those outside of criteria X will not.

I understand your point concerning rights but such laws are inconsistent. Why is it legal for a woman to have an abortion but illegal to surrogate until which time the embryo or foetus can be used for harvesting of tissues. Obviously this is a grotesque scenario but my point is that if the foetus has no rights then why should it be illegal for the foetus to be used for any purpose that the woman deems fit? Perhaps it is because this might lead to more, not less abortions, but if society deems abortion as ethically acceptable in principle this should pose no real dilemma.
I will also add that society once embraced slavery but this did not stop certain individuals from attempting to change the opinion of others concerning it.

[Cephus]

Of course, it's easy to quibble about things like this and miss the whole point. The cow feels pain, are you now going to demand we outlaw steak?

No, but if I felt strongly enough I would suggest it.

So you only care about certain things that feel pain? If it benefits you, then it doesn't matter if it is injured or killed, but otherwise, it's up to your feelings, not your rationality, to determine which is which?

I think a moral absolutist would disagree with you on the first point but since I am not one I will let that pass. On the point of killing redheads, the statement that the ethics of it don't really matter is in fact untrue. While it is true that you shouldn't do it because it is against the law, it is against the law because it is ethically wrong in the opinion of those that pass the law. Laws are often built upon ethics.

Moral absolutists have problems of their own, but that's neither here nor there. And laws are formed by a bunch of people getting together (or having their representatives get together) and putting ideas into law. This may or may not have anything to do with ethics, I can think of a lot of reasons not to kill redheads that has nothing whatsoever to do with morality or ethics.

I understand your point concerning rights but such laws are inconsistent. Why is it legal for a woman to have an abortion but illegal to surrogate until which time the embryo or foetus can be used for harvesting of tissues. Obviously this is a grotesque scenario but my point is that if the foetus has no rights then why should it be illegal for the foetus to be used for any purpose that the woman deems fit? Perhaps it is because this might lead to more, not less abortions, but if society deems abortion as ethically acceptable in principle this should pose no real dilemma.

We're back to the same explanation you've been given time and time again. Why don't we harvest tissue from fetuses grown specifically for that purpose? Because in a lot of areas, the people have seen fit to make it illegal. It's not particularly rational, there are people who specifically get pregnant to provide donor tissue for their other children and I don't really see anything wrong with that. I also see nothing whatsoever wrong with stem cell research, but Bush and people like him are acting emotionally, not rationally, in rejecting it.

I will also add that society once embraced slavery but this did not stop certain individuals from attempting to change the opinion of others concerning it.

Which is fine. We have such a thing as free speech in this country, you are welcome to talk to anyone about just about any subject you like, you are welcome to try to change people's minds, what you are not welcome to do is abrogate people's rights while they are still in force under the law. There are an awful lot of anti-abortion advocates that go way, way over the line.

[Curious]

So you only care about certain things that feel pain? If it benefits you, then it doesn't matter if it is injured or killed, but otherwise, it's up to your feelings, not your rationality, to determine which is which?

This is rapidly getting out of context. My point here was that there is a distinct difference between an abortion and an appendicectomy where you said there was non. An appendicectomy would be more of a parallel if performed without anaesthetic and the recipient was left to bleed to death on the operating table.

... This may or may not have anything to do with ethics, I can think of a lot of reasons not to kill redheads that has nothing whatsoever to do with morality or ethics.

Even ignoring the present morality of the action, such reasoning, if beneficial, would eventually filter down into the societal mores. It would be seen as unethical or immoral to kill the redheads even without the usual sentiment. Laws affect morality and morality affects laws so it seems difficult to completely separate the two. As humans, we have morals and ethics so it would be illogical to discount these as factors.

We're back to the same explanation you've been given time and time again. Why don't we harvest tissue from fetuses grown specifically for that purpose? Because in a lot of areas, the people have seen fit to make it illegal. It's not particularly rational, there are people who specifically get pregnant to provide donor tissue for their other children and I don't really see anything wrong with that. I also see nothing whatsoever wrong with stem cell research, but Bush and people like him are acting emotionally, not rationally, in rejecting it.

Then it would seem that using emotive arguments in the opposition of abortion is logical as the purpose of the argument is to convince those in a position to effect change.

...We have such a thing as free speech in this country, you are welcome to talk to anyone about just about any subject you like, you are welcome to try to change people's minds, what you are not welcome to do is abrogate people's rights while they are still in force under the law. There are an awful lot of anti-abortion advocates that go way, way over the line.

I agree with you completely on this point.

[Cephus]

This is rapidly getting out of context. My point here was that there is a distinct difference between an abortion and an appendicectomy where you said there was non. An appendicectomy would be more of a parallel if performed without anaesthetic and the recipient was left to bleed to death on the operating table.

But the recipient is the woman, not the fetus. The fetus is analogous to the appendix, which is thrown in the bio-waste container and disposed of.

Even ignoring the present morality of the action, such reasoning, if beneficial, would eventually filter down into the societal mores. It would be seen as unethical or immoral to kill the redheads even without the usual sentiment. Laws affect morality and morality affects laws so it seems difficult to completely separate the two. As humans, we have morals and ethics so it would be illogical to discount these as factors.

It all depends, it may or may not ever be seen as immoral. Is speeding "immoral"? Or is it just considered against the law? Jaywalking? Cheating on your taxes? Some people might actually incorporate these things into their moral views, but for most, they don't make much of a difference at all. I don't know of a lot of people who jaywalk and then think they're going to hell.

Then it would seem that using emotive arguments in the opposition of abortion is logical as the purpose of the argument is to convince those in a position to effect change.

I'd say it's a poor excuse when you have no other reason. If you have to stoop to only using hyper-emotional arguments, then you must not have any rational ones.

[Curious]

But the recipient is the woman, not the fetus. The fetus is analogous to the appendix, which is thrown in the bio-waste container and disposed of.

The woman is only the recipient of the termination of pregnancy while the foetus is the recipient of the termination. I think my analogy was closer to the truth as the abortion has a far greater effect on the foetus than it does on the woman.
You could say that the Nazi concentration camps were analogous to abatoirs or analogous to summer camp. Both bear some comparison but one is probably nearer the truth than the other.

It all depends, it may or may not ever be seen as immoral. Is speeding "immoral"? Or is it just considered against the law? Jaywalking? Cheating on your taxes? Some people might actually incorporate these things into their moral views, but for most, they don't make much of a difference at all. I don't know of a lot of people who jaywalk and then think they're going to hell.

Not only those believing in hell are moral. Many atheists are moral and don't base their actions for fear of divine retribution. Jaywalking is immoral not because it is jaywalking, but because it is against the law. It is a behaviour that is seen as unacceptable and therefore made illegal. It is immoral to break the laws of society from a social perspective but from a personal one it might be thought more moral to break certain laws that are deemed unfair. I suppose it depends on whether you view morality as being either absolute or subjective.

I'd say it's a poor excuse when you have no other reason. If you have to stoop to only using hyper-emotional arguments, then you must not have any rational ones.

I wouldn't say I had been overly emotional in my opposition to abortion. The purpose of a debate is to convince, not necessarily to be correct. Since abortion is such an emotive argument, and since humans are emotional creatures, more often driven by emotion than reason, it seems entirely reasonable to use this to it's best advantage. I have highlighted certain aspects of abortion which I believe show how grotesque such an operation is but this does not amount to my being emotional. If you believe that my arguments have been emotive, then the emotion is your own and not mine. Why exactly do you think that is?

[Cephus]

The woman is only the recipient of the termination of pregnancy while the foetus is the recipient of the termination. I think my analogy was closer to the truth as the abortion has a far greater effect on the foetus than it does on the woman.

Only if you want to also assume that an appendectomy has a far greater effect on the appendix than it does on the patient. The fetus is a by-product of a medical procedure, nothing more. Stop assuming that there's this great metaphysical value to a lump of tissue.

Not only those believing in hell are moral. Many atheists are moral and don't base their actions for fear of divine retribution. Jaywalking is immoral not because it is jaywalking, but because it is against the law. It is a behaviour that is seen as unacceptable and therefore made illegal. It is immoral to break the laws of society from a social perspective but from a personal one it might be thought more moral to break certain laws that are deemed unfair. I suppose it depends on whether you view morality as being either absolute or subjective.

There is no case that can be made for morality being absolute, sorry. I don't think you can find one single moral statement that holds true across all cultures and all times, absolutely everything is up for grabs to some degree.

I wouldn't say I had been overly emotional in my opposition to abortion. The purpose of a debate is to convince, not necessarily to be correct.

If you cannot demonstrate your argument to be correct, then why make it? Or are you trying to mislead your audience?

Since abortion is such an emotive argument, and since humans are emotional creatures, more often driven by emotion than reason, it seems entirely reasonable to use this to it's best advantage. I have highlighted certain aspects of abortion which I believe show how grotesque such an operation is but this does not amount to my being emotional. If you believe that my arguments have been emotive, then the emotion is your own and not mine. Why exactly do you think that is?

Abortion isn't necessarily an emotional argument, it's just been made that way by people who "feel" rather than think. Anti-abortionists aren't interested in the logic or rationality or reality behind the need for abortion, they're just too busy "feeling" for the "babies", kind of like the hyper-environmentalists "feel" for the trees. The point of this thread was to get past all the "feeling" and find out if there is any real logical and reasonable reason to oppose abortion, and so far, I'm not seeing it. You're not here to "feel", you're here to tell us why, on a purely scientific, sociological or psychological basis, why abortion is wrong. So far, you've just given personal reasons why *YOU* don't like abortion, but you haven't told us why anyone else should agree with you.

[Curious]

Only if you want to also assume that an appendectomy has a far greater effect on the appendix than it does on the patient. The fetus is a by-product of a medical procedure, nothing more. Stop assuming that there's this great metaphysical value to a lump of tissue.

If the foetus is extant prior to and sebsequent to the procedure it cannot be reasonably described as a by-product of the procedure, this would be comparable to suggesting that the car was a by-product of the crash.

There is no case that can be made for morality being absolute, sorry. I don't think you can find one single moral statement that holds true across all cultures and all times, absolutely everything is up for grabs to some degree.

I never suggested that morality is absolute, that is the point of my argument, to change subjective morality. I find it strange that you claim that the woman has a right to do as she pleases with her own body and claim there is no case for absolute morality. How does "ownership" give rights of freedom? If I own a gun I am not free to shoot you and your family.

If you cannot demonstrate your argument to be correct, then why make it? Or are you trying to mislead your audience?

Demonstrating correctness and being correct are not the same thing. I am trying to be honest with the audience rather than misleading them, otherwise I would not say that I was not necessarily correct.

Abortion isn't necessarily an emotional argument, it's just been made that way by people who "feel" rather than think. Anti-abortionists aren't interested in the logic or rationality or reality behind the need for abortion, they're just too busy "feeling" for the "babies", kind of like the hyper-environmentalists "feel" for the trees. The point of this thread was to get past all the "feeling" and find out if there is any real logical and reasonable reason to oppose abortion, and so far, I'm not seeing it. You're not here to "feel", you're here to tell us why, on a purely scientific, sociological or psychological basis, why abortion is wrong. So far, you've just given personal reasons why *YOU* don't like abortion, but you haven't told us why anyone else should agree with you.

People should agree with me if they find it abhorrent given all the facts. You make a wild accusation that feelings should be disqualified from the argument when other laws are passed for exactly that reason. How is it logical or reasoned to allow empassioned arguments against slavery or take into account the gruesome details of a murder and deny the same when discussing abortion. From a purely scientific, sociological or psychological perspective could you adequately show that you should not be executed because Ms. X would find this preferable? Like myself, you hold no particular significance to anyone apart from your own small circle of supporters. If Ms. X had a vote in the senate, it would be consistent to give more weight to her wishes than your own. Logic is fine as long as it is consistent, which in the case of abortion it isn't.