Using logic and reason to oppose abortion...

questioner4 · Post by **questioner4** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 4:51 pm

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?

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:13 pm

It is my view that abortion is a safe and effective means of birth control.

I think your discrimination view is untenable. It would imply that frozen embryos have a right to be born. And even smaller humans, eggs and sperm, would have rights too. And what about phagocytes (free-moving cells that form part of our immune system)?

I also feel that the "pro-life" movement isn't concerned about preventing abortion. They want to use pregnancy as a punishment for women having sex. If they were against abortion they would be going whole-hog for sex-ed and condom use. Typically the people against abortion are against those things too.

Also, there is no biblical case against abortion. Christian opponents to abortion are embodying a political rather than religious doctrine.

DanZ

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:20 am

I'll say up front abortion is a tough issue for me.

I have a hard time not seeing it as 'violence.' I also have a hard time not seeing the fact that so many abortions are performed in the U.S. as I sign that our culture does not encourage responsibility with regards to sexuality, and is too willing to 'take the easy way out.'

On the other hand, I can't support making it illegal. Even though I know there are people who take a casual attitude towards abortion and do use it as 'birth control' instead of other less drastic means, I also know that many people agonize over the decision to have an abortion, often because they are in difficult life circumstances. I can't see having government tell these people 'no, you can't have an abortion; we know better than you what is goo for you.'

Is abortion a safe method of birth control? I would like to see some honest data on this. I certainly have heard the charges and counter-charges regarding the possible side effects of having an abortion, especially multiple abortions, but because I don't put too much credence in data provided by those on the extremes of the issue, I am not really sure what to believe. If juliod has some data to support the 'safety', I would appreciate seeing it.

juliod wrote:I also feel that the "pro-life" movement isn't concerned about preventing abortion. They want to use pregnancy as a punishment for women having sex. If they were against abortion they would be going whole-hog for sex-ed and condom use. Typically the people against abortion are against those things too.

I partially agree, but think this is somewhat of an unfair characterization of the 'religious right' position, even though I don't agree at all with their approach to the issue. I think most conservative Christian pro-lifers honestly believe the unborn deserve the same protection as the born, and thus consider abortion murder. I also think they believe that people can and should follow 'conservative Christian sexual mores,' which means no premarital sex, etc. They think that if everyone did this, then there wouldn't be a problem, and in some sense, they are right. The problem is, they can't see that a person need not subscribe to these mores in order to be a responsible, or even a religious, adult.

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:34 am

Abortion is in direct violation of the Hypocratic Oath.

Look it up.

Also euthanasia.

Look it up as well.

That is from outside of the Bible I believe . . .

Now for answers to spinnnnnn!

It is my view that abortion is a safe and effective means of birth control.

It is not very safe and it certainly has nothing to do with curbing the licentiousness that got the woman pregnant to begin with. It is also 100% lethal to the woman or man being aborted.

I think your discrimination view is untenable.

Unless you use the science behind ultra sound and DNA. Both scientific methods prove the individual existing in utero.

It would imply that frozen embryos have a right to be born.

Many educated people believe that. By far and away the majority of doctors do not perform nor want to perform abortions.

And even smaller humans, eggs and sperm, would have rights too.

The science of DNA research shows in absolute facts, that a sperm and an ovum are only half of the proof of a human being. It is unfortunate that this example was forced into this topic. Science has proven that at conception does the DNA from the sperm join that of the ovum and makes a fully identified individual. All of the same DNA is present at conception that is there 99-years later. Even forensics proves the same point. A toe found in a trash can is able to be matched perfectly to other body parts by DNA.

And what about phagocytes (free-moving cells that form part of our immune system)?

What about paintings of people if we are going out on the absurd limb?

I also feel that the "pro-life" movement isn't concerned about preventing abortion.

How wrong is this? The "pro-life" crowd is virtually entirely made up of the same kinds of people that want to teach people morality but are labeled by the death crowd as bigots and uneducated. But, as can been seen above, science has destroyed the abortion argument to nothing more than murder in the first degree. No different than matching that toe in the trash with the murderer that hacked up the victim. Exactly the same science.

They want to use pregnancy as a punishment for women having sex. If they were against abortion they would be going whole-hog for sex-ed and condom use.

The ignorance behind the thinking that hedonistic and promiscuous people will use condoms is seen in the amount of women over the age of twenty getting knocked up as we speak. Try another failed theory.

Typically the people against abortion are against those things too.

Typically the people opposed to abortion can think rationally about little humans torn to shreds (if they are lucky) or pulled from a woman's body and tossed into a stainless steel toxic waste canister while still breathing and in most cases crying.

Also, there is no biblical case against abortion. Christian opponents to abortion are embodying a political rather than religious doctrine.

Using logic and reason, the biblical approach to killing a mother with child, along with the other inhabitants of wicked cities was wiping out those that committed abominations. Literally ridding the land of the kinds of people that think abortion for birth control or pagan child sacrifice (the same thing as abortion) is logical or reasonable.

Interesting that the kinds of people that believe in abortion for convenience go along with a certain kind of crowd that allows the violation of other logical and reasonable things.

It's interesting how that works.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:29 pm

I also have a hard time not seeing the fact that so many abortions are performed in the U.S. as I sign that our culture does not encourage responsibility with regards to sexuality, and is too willing to 'take the easy way out.'

But if one sees abortion as safe and effective, isn't having one an example of responsible behavior?

Is abortion a safe method of birth control? I would like to see some honest data on this. I certainly have heard the charges and counter-charges regarding the possible side effects of having an abortion, especially multiple abortions, but because I don't put too much credence in data provided by those on the extremes of the issue, I am not really sure what to believe.

I'm not sure there are two "extreme" sides of the issue. There is the mdeical community on one side, with their statistics and mortality data. On the other ar the anti-abortion groups with their bogus "studies" and moralizing propaganda. I don't think there is a real question as to whether abortion is safer than child birth, and legal childbirth is obviously way safer than illegal abortion.

You can look up that statistics on the web. But if you consider NARAL and PP to be suspect I don't think you'll believe the statistics in any case.

but think this is somewhat of an unfair characterization of the 'religious right' position,

After reading Al's reply, do you still feel my characterization is unfair? He did use the following word: "licentiousness", "hedonistic", "promiscuous". That's only possible if the abortion issue is about punishment of women. I'm not sure that this mythical conservative who is concerned about the unborn is a real creature.

DanZ

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:15 pm

After reading Al's reply, do you still feel my characterization is unfair? He did use the following word: "licentiousness", "hedonistic", "promiscuous". That's only possible if the abortion issue is about punishment of women. I'm not sure that this mythical conservative who is concerned about the unborn is a real creature.

Ad hom was the only rebuttal. Your views were soundly defeated.

Hedonism, licentiousness and promiscuity are the causes of unwanted pregnancies sought to be rid of by murdering the innocent child. We were supposed to be using logic and reason.

You went for spin.

Return to facts and you see the child is a person.

Now if I had used the words "whoredom" or "fornication," but I didn't.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:27 pm

Ad hom was the only rebuttal. Your views were soundly defeated.

That wasn't an ad hominem. I'm grateful to you for coming across with a clear exposition of the conservative point of view just at the right moment.

Which is more important to you: a) Condemning other people for their sexual morality, or b) Stopping abortion?

If you could significantly reduce abortion by giving up condemnation of "licentiousness" would you do it? Or would that violate the whole point of anti-abortionism?

DanZ

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:33 am

Which is more important to you: a) Condemning other people for their sexual morality, or b) Stopping abortion?

Accurately defining what causes abortions to be committed is the only place a healthy minded person can find the relief from the carnage. Like it or not good morality would wipe AIDS and abortion away in a very short time.

If you could significantly reduce abortion by giving up condemnation of "licentiousness" would you do it?

That would be denying the truth of cause and effect. This is THE biggest problem I have with Progresive-Liberal actions. They deny the truth and then when crisis is upon them look to redefine the cause of the effect. I honestly cannot decide whether it is a mental illness or Satan that can drive a person to support abortion for birth control.

Or would that violate the whole point of anti-abortionism?

I do believe that Fire fighters that are suspicious about how a fire got started look for the cause. And in many cases it is a dishonest person called an "arsonist" that purposely started the fire and committed a crime.

In the logic of the pro-death abortion crowd, the arsonist did nothing wrong.

Looking away from the behavior of the people causing abortions is not sound intelligence.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:00 pm

Like it or not good morality would wipe AIDS and abortion away in a very short time.

And since you have no means by which to make people adhere to what you call "good morality" your response is the same as doing nothing.

For social ills we say that if a problem can't be solved immediately we should take steps to reduce it. This logic is totally lost on anti-abortionists, who have as their sole purpose the condemnation of others.

This thread is supposed to be about logic and reason. Yet any plan that involves magically reducing the sex drive of teenagers is illogical, unreasonable, and guaranteed to fail.

DanZ

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:08 pm

questioner wrote: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.

juliod wrote:I think your discrimination view is untenable. It would imply that frozen embryos have a right to be born. And even smaller humans, eggs and sperm, would have rights too. And what about phagocytes (free-moving cells that form part of our immune system)?

Quote:
I think your discrimination view is untenable.

AlAyeti:
Unless you use the science behind ultra sound and DNA. Both scientific methods prove the individual existing in utero.

Quote:
It would imply that frozen embryos have a right to be born.

AlAyeti:
Many educated people believe that. By far and away the majority of doctors do not perform nor want to perform abortions.

The science of DNA research shows in absolute facts, that a sperm and an ovum are only half of the proof of a human being. It is unfortunate that this example was forced into this topic. Science has proven that at conception does the DNA from the sperm join that of the ovum and makes a fully identified individual. All of the same DNA is present at conception that is there 99-years later. Even forensics proves the same point. A toe found in a trash can is able to be matched perfectly to other body parts by DNA.

It always seems to come back to this crux. When is a person a person? How do we decide who is 'human' enough to deserve human rights?

It seems to me it is hard to draw this line without being at least somewhat arbitrary. I personally don't find any of the classic arguments I have heard as completely compelling, one way or the other. They all seem to have problems.

On one extreme, we could say human personhood starts at birth (or even later?). ON the other, at conception. Sperm and ovum by themselves I don't think we should put in the mix (you can accuse me of being arbitrary if you wish

).

If we say conception, and give a fertilized egg the full rights of personhood, what non-Biblical rationale would there be for this? I don't think it quite works to say "eliminating a unique DNA pattern from the human population is murder," which is what Al seems to be implying in his DNA in the toe example. Yes, you could say the individual exists 'in utero' but this doesn't settle the question. It is not science which bestows rights.

If a couple undergoing fertility treatments which produces multiple fertilized eggs (maybe some of which are identical), is it murder to reduce this number to 1 or 2?

Also, under this criteria for personhood, murdering only one of two twins would not count as murder, since the DNA is still there in the other twin. Also, human cloning would be a good thing, since we could keep that DNA pattern going (potentially forever) by cloning a person who is killed or otherwise dies. If it the DNA pattern is the criteria for personhood, than murder would cease to be a crime the day human cloning becomes a reality.

All of this is silly, of course, but does point out that part most people's 'gut level intuition' about the consequences of murder includes not only the person's genetic make-up as a person, but also their experiences and their consciousness of these experiences. Two twins are different because of their different experiences and their separate consciouses. Most people would feel it intrinsically 'more tragic' if an 8-year old were suddenly killed than an 8-day old. The former has much more of the attributes of a 'person' than the former. The parents arguably would feel the loss much more deeply in the latter case than the former, everything else being equal.

We could argue 'viability' instead of conception. The problem is, viability is a moving target. Also, do we talk only 'biological viability' or speak in larger terms. Is it viable for a mother to bring a child into the world in the middle of a famine situation where the mother will have no means to keep the child alive? THis is an extreme example, and one that probably doesn't occur in the U.S., but as U.S. policy is driving what happens in other countries as well, it should be considered.

A child is dependent on its mother while in the womb, at least for most of that time. It is arguably dependent on the mother, or at least other adults for some time after it is born. It is a continuum from total dependence to relative independence. During this long transition, it is the parents, particulary the mother, who typically has the responsibility for the child. As such, it seems to make at least some sense that the parents concerns and feelings bear more weight than anybody else's.

Quote micatal:
I also have a hard time not seeing the fact that so many abortions are performed in the U.S. as I sign that our culture does not encourage responsibility with regards to sexuality, and is too willing to 'take the easy way out.'

juliod wrote:But if one sees abortion as safe and effective, isn't having one an example of responsible behavior?

Let me make a wild analogy. Is drilling for oil in the ARctic National WIldlife Refuge a responsible behavior? It is arguably relatively safe, at least for humans. It is also effective in helping to meet U.S. energy needs. We can do it and effect basically no one since (correct me if I'm wrong) nobody actually lives up there. Should we allow oil companies to do exactly as they wish up there? If not, why not?

Part of my concern with abortion is related to the concerns I have about 'violence' in general, violence being defined rather broadly. When I see farmers clearcutting forest to clear land for growing beef, I see this as violence. I see it as a loss to our world. ON the other hand, the people doing it may very well be within their rights, and may be simply trying to do what they can to survive. However, I am probably not going to feel good about it, even if the clear-cutters can show they have a reasonably good rationale for what they are doing.