So what makes abortion immoral?

[RichardMooner]

Is featuring in the bible a prerequisite for a thing being 'moral'? I'm not so sure...

But I would imagine that a biblical argument against abortion could rest with mose's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". In fact, a large portion of debate on this topic rests with a counter to that argument, by saying that certain stages of embryonic development fall outside of the accepted view of 'life' and, thus, do not infract that particular ethic.

Whatever though. I don't think abortion is innately immoral at all. It can be, if the context surrounding the act is 'immoral'- a forced abortion, as an example, is incredibly wrong to my mind. Abortion, like nearly everything, is not a black and white or starkly dualistic concept. It has infinite facets, meaning its validity should only be considered solely on its own merits, not some broad overarching proscription against it by a misguided society.

I wasn't implying that it is, or is not, immoral in any other context than that of the Bible.

It is "Thou shall not murder". Murder and Killing are entirely different things in the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[L2R]

The best (though by no means unassailable) ethical argument I've heard against abortion is that it's a slippery slope from there to flat out infanticide. If you can be cool with snuffing out a normally developing fetus posing no serious threat to the life and wellbeing of a healthy and able mother, then why not be cool with smothering an unwanted or unable-to-be-cared-for infant right at delivery (as was common in Japan within living memory -- hey, nothing that putting a cute little cloth-bibbed Jizo statue at your local temple grounds won't atone for, right?) After all, you can argue from neurobiology that neither a fetus in the womb nor a newborn is yet a sentient being with memories, hopes, dreams, and a place in the social fabric. And if you can "mercy-kill" a healthy-but-inconvenient newborn, hey, why not just be able to murder anyone whose existence on this earth is a nuisance to you?

hey buddy, it's been a while. how's the full house!
There are interim states of being other than non-person and person. When considering laws, they can be factored in to mitigate any risk of slippery slope slip sliding super fun happy. Upon entering the third tri through to several months into life, a baby can be granted rights comparable to an animal. not quite sentient, but secure from harm. Shouldn't kill animals unless it is for food or for protection. Can't eat babies, so can't kill em.

I've also heard it argued that having abortion as an acceptable option removes an incentive to be sexually responsible, i.e. chaste, though this argument holds a lot less water than the above.

Yeah that's a lame duck argument. There are far more constructive ways to encourage responsible behaviour that doesn't involve harm creation.

I really think the foreseeable burden of suffering, on the child and all who would be involved in his/her care as well as the pregnant mother, needs to be carefully weighed on a case-by-case basis. This is why I usually decline to get involved in the abortion debate, because this isn't one-size-fits-all ethics. Circumstances matter. A lot. I say the same thing about euthanasia at the other end of life.

Until we can see the future or into another's mind, the case by case argument is not really going to work. There is no way to determine legitimacy of intention for something as serious as this. The laws can only work when they are applied in universal ways, i.e. looking after the welfare of the woman and protective her right to choose what to do with her own body.

 

[RichardMooner]

The best (though by no means unassailable) ethical argument I've heard against abortion is that it's a slippery slope from there to flat out infanticide. If you can be cool with snuffing out a normally developing fetus posing no serious threat to the life and wellbeing of a healthy and able mother, then why not be cool with smothering an unwanted or unable-to-be-cared-for infant right at delivery (as was common in Japan within living memory -- hey, nothing that putting a cute little cloth-bibbed Jizo statue at your local temple grounds won't atone for, right?) After all, you can argue from neurobiology that neither a fetus in the womb nor a newborn is yet a sentient being with memories, hopes, dreams, and a place in the social fabric. And if you can "mercy-kill" a healthy-but-inconvenient newborn, hey, why not just be able to murder anyone whose existence on this earth is a nuisance to you?

I've also heard it argued that having abortion as an acceptable option removes an incentive to be sexually responsible, i.e. chaste, though this argument holds a lot less water than the above.

I really think the foreseeable burden of suffering, on the child and all who would be involved in his/her care as well as the pregnant mother, needs to be carefully weighed on a case-by-case basis. This is why I usually decline to get involved in the abortion debate, because this isn't one-size-fits-all ethics. Circumstances matter. A lot. I say the same thing about euthanasia at the other end of life.

I understand where they are coming from with those arguments, but neither one of them justify the claim that abortion is a sin. I'm not arguing with their "logic", rather their source.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I understand where they are coming from with those arguments, but neither one of them justify the claim that abortion is a sin. I'm not arguing with their "logic", rather their source.

My working definition of sin is to deliberately choose a course of action that causes others to suffer. If this isn't what you mean by sin, then I've got nothing for you, I'm afraid.

I'm not savvy enough (few are) to neurology (specifically embryoneurology or embryoneurogenesis) to make a judgement call as to whether a fetus in the womb subjectively experiences suffering. But I can say with certainty that getting an abortion puts the erstwhile mother at risk for some insidious but very real forms of suffering. But again, as I alluded to in my first post above, this risk needs to be weighed. I think a case can be made for some pregnant women that bringing the baby to term and attempting to raise it would put her and/or the child and/or the community in which they live at risk for much more suffering than aborting the baby.

Bottom line, I think abortion should remain legal, but shouldn't be chosen lightly. I'll admit that I'm not fully sold on abortion being easily available to any pregnant woman no-questions-asked. I understand the powerful emotional appeal and true empowerment inherent in statements like "my body, my privacy, my rights!" But it's not that simple. Most Western cocksure talk of individual rights commits the fallacy of assuming a priori that the rights-asserter lives in a vaccuum, instead of a social milieu, and forgetting that every choice we make affects other people, and the world at large.

 

[RichardMooner]

My working definition of sin is to deliberately choose a course of action that causes others to suffer. If this isn't what you mean by sin, then I've got nothing for you, I'm afraid.

I'm not savvy enough (few are) to neurology (specifically embryoneurology or embryoneurogenesis) to make a judgement call as to whether a fetus in the womb subjectively experiences suffering. But I can say with certainty that getting an abortion puts the erstwhile mother at risk for some insidious but very real forms of suffering. But again, as I alluded to in my first post above, this risk needs to be weighed. I think a case can be made for some pregnant women that bringing the baby to term and attempting to raise it would put her and/or the child and/or the community in which they live at risk for much more suffering than aborting the baby.

Bottom line, I think abortion should remain legal, but shouldn't be chosen lightly. I'll admit that I'm not fully sold on abortion being easily available to any pregnant woman no-questions-asked. I understand the powerful emotional appeal and true empowerment inherent in statements like "my body, my privacy, my rights!" But it's not that simple. Most Western cocksure talk of individual rights commits the fallacy of assuming a priori that the rights-asserter lives in a vaccuum, instead of a social milieu, and forgetting that every choice we make affects other people, and the world at large.

I guess I'm going off of sin, defined by James, as having knowledge of what is right, and choosing what is wrong.

Determining whether an abortion is just, or unjust is beyond my qualifications, but I do not subscribe to the belief that an embryo should be held in the same respects as the woman carrying it.

Now, given that it generally requires two for the production of offspring, I think that the father of the child should have a say, if and only if, he plans presuming full responsibility for the child, but of course, this gets sticky in marital relationships, so I think the ramifications that either course of action would have on both parties, need to be evaluated.

More honestly though, if a husband does not value the well being of his wife, as much as he values the embryo she is carrying; I can't imagine that the marriage would be sustainable if action was taken in enmity of the other's wishes.

I'm not implying that there is not deviation from this, seeing that a husband does not necessarily value his unborn child more than his wife's well being--just because he doesn't want her to have an abortion, but anyone with a shred of incisiveness would realize that the distress, insecurity, and instability generated by the reluctant bearing of a child-- would take a significantly negative toll on the mother. And any husband that valued his wife's well being more than the embryo she is caring; would support her final decision regardless of his personal wishes.

 

[Ninae]

The soul isn't said to take up residence in the body before 3 months, so anything before then is more just the killing off of a bunch of cells or growing organism, although it can be said to have a sort of animal soul (and everything alive is ensouled by devas or elementals).

I feel it's more about the POTENTIAL than anything else. Or, that that "thing", left alone, will grow into a fully ensouled human being. And when someone are holding their child in their arms, thinking about if they had chosen to terminate the foetus, they would have stopped that child from coming into existence. This would be an unbearable thought for most parents, but it's more a murder of a "potential".

This makes it quite a complex issue. You can choose to take the attitude "It wasn't even ensouled yet" or think about what could have been if you hadn't intervened.

 

[RichardMooner]

The soul isn't said to take up residence in the body before 3 months, so anything before then is more just the killing off of a bunch of cells or growing organism, although it can be said to have a sort of animal soul (and everything alive is ensouled by devas or elementals).

I feel it's more about the POTENTIAL than anything else. Or, that that "thing", left alone, will grow into a fully ensouled human being. And when someone are holding their child in their arms, thinking about if they had chosen to terminate the foetus, they would have stopped that child from coming into existence. This would be an unbearable thought for most parents, but it's more a murder of a "potential".

This makes it quite a complex issue. You can choose to take the attitude "It wasn't even ensouled yet" or think about what could have been if you hadn't intervened.

I think that is more an issue left debated by the mother, and not others. Personally, I don't believe that preventing the manifestation of life in the world we live in--is an injustice.

 

[Ninae]

I also don't see it as an injustice, but that the thought of preventing the existence of someone you would come to love more than anything could be a source of great sorrow and feel very wrong, for both of the prospective parents.

As soon as the child is born most wouldn't be able to bear that thought.

 

[moke]

ignorance and selfishness

 

[Foreigner]

The only thing that makes one abortion wrong and the other right is circumstance, and the arbitrary definition of "life" and "personhood" that humanity likes to apply to things.

Just like how in one instance of homicide is murder, another is self-defense, another is execution, another is a casualty of war, etc.

People who want uniformity of these definitions are not realizing that the law is a living entity open to interpretation, benefit and abuse in most instances.

If we go by the law of nature, then right or wrong is not relevant to this issue. Abort or not, react to abortion as wrong or not, it doesn't matter. In the end, some women will always have abortions, no matter what restrictions go into place. If abortion providers were banned tomorrow, women would just go back to coat hangers and herbal abortificents.

 

[drug_mentor]

There is nothing immoral about abortion, in my mind it is more moral than bringing a child into this world when its parents either don't want or can't afford to raise it.

 

[herbavore]

People who want uniformity of these definitions are not realizing that the law is a living entity open to interpretation, benefit and abuse in most instances.

If we go by the law of nature, then right or wrong is not relevant to this issue.

Perfectly said.

 

[rickolasnice]

That is not logic, that is just a semantic defining of what abortion is. Yes, it is killing. No-one is trying to say otherwise. Yet many in the world can justify eating meat. The justifications are usually along the lines of degrees of sentience or survival, and are accepted as reasonable, by many at least.



A clever move really I personably don't like abortion, and I don't think many people actually do, but I can certainly see the necessity for it. Its incredibly sad that such a need exists, but we need to be pragmatic and understand that this, indeed, is not one size fits all.

Killing what though?

I don't see anybody crying over cut hair or the removal of a tumour.

An unborn foetus is NOT a human child.

There is nothing immoral about abortion, in my mind it is more moral than bringing a child into this world when its parents either don't want or can't afford to raise it.

 

[swilow]

Killing what though?

I don't see anybody crying over cut hair or the removal of a tumour.

An unborn foetus is NOT a human child

You must point out to me where I said a fetus was a human child and why that matters. Even if a fetus was a human child, that doesn't really mean that it is worthy of life.

I am completely pro-abortion and utterly against prolife inanity. But I don't think it does us any good to describe abortion as anything but killing, same as we should never forget that the steak you had for dinner is a piece of dead cow. We like to sanitise that which makes us uncomfortable through intellectualisation and deductive 'reasoning. Lets not pretend that abortion is something that it isn't. It is the death of 'something'. It is the ending of a form of life. Our society has restrictions on murder of humans only; a tragedy for the majority of the world which is non-human. What a joke really, the passion with which Christians will defend their archaic morality whilst actively funding deprivation and slaughter in the billions. But the cognitive dissonance in existence to assuage such consciences is alive and well even amongst the secular world.

I'd rather call a spade a spade myself....

 

[rickolasnice]

I'm sorry..

I quoted your post as a start off for mine, i didn't mean for it to be arguing for or against what you said

As for it IS killing.. you could say the same about cutting your hair or removing a tumour, fighting a virus with medicine or bleaching the toilet..

All of these could be classified as killing but for general discussion on it i wouldn't use the word as it seems to imply murder. (not that you said this)

 

[psood0nym]

What makes an abortion immoral depends on one's conception of personhood, of which there are two two major categories: absolute and scalar.

For absolutists personhood (many term this "possession of a soul") is an either/or proposition. Most absolutists believe life/personhood/soul begins at conception, whereby the unique two-celled being gains an indivisible eternal soul and is afforded all the rights to life enjoyed by more mature humans until death in the external world.

For those who believe there are different hierarchical degrees of subjective being the extent of immorality that abortion represents is dependent on the position of the developing fetus in that hierarchy. It is hard to argue that we don't all believe intuitively in a hierarchy of smaller and larger "souls" when so few lose sleep over breathing in bacteria that can't survive inside us, smacking mosquitoes, or eating hamburgers.

Those of us who possess democratic values recognize certain "fundamental rights" that all "citizens" deserve to have protected by law. But beyond this, nearly all of us intuitively believe the same hierarchy that places us above animals and plants puts some human beings above others. That is, there are "smaller" and "larger souled" human beings. Douglas Hofstadter quantifies this notion in "Hunekers," taking the name of a famous critic who said of a Chopin piece: "Small-souled men, no matter how agile their fingers, should avoid it" (and so somebody like Shakespeare or Newton might have a 400 Huneker soul, whereas an average person has 100.). He implies this quantity relates to the magnitude of "strange loops"developed in any particular human brain's processing of self-awareness, as he believe such reciprocal processing is precisely what gives some life forms, and some humans, greater or lesser being than others. Of course we can't actually measure Huneckers, but using the concept it might be argued an abortion at X number of days is roughly equivalent to breathing in bacteria, swatting mosquitoes, eating a burger, or, later on, killing a young chimpanzee.

Of course as others have noted the circumstances of the mother's life are hugely relevant to justifying the act. But I believe the two categories alluded to above account for what most consider the "what" of what makes abortion immoral.

 

[Trying2Iso]

I'm sorry..

I quoted your post as a start off for mine, i didn't mean for it to be arguing for or against what you said

As for it IS killing.. you could say the same about cutting your hair or removing a tumour, fighting a virus with medicine or bleaching the toilet..

All of these could be classified as killing but for general discussion on it i wouldn't use the word as it seems to imply murder. (not that you said this)

hair is already dead, tumors are part of your own body, and toilet scum aren't human. moot points
i support abortion rights, but i also admit that it is killing. abortion is more like Justified killing.

 

[RichardMooner]

What makes an abortion immoral depends on one's conception of personhood, of which there are two two major categories: absolute and scalar.

For absolutists personhood (many term this "possession of a soul") is an either/or proposition. Most absolutists believe life/personhood/soul begins at conception, whereby the unique two-celled being gains an indivisible eternal soul and is afforded all the rights to life enjoyed by more mature humans until death in the external world.

For those who believe there are different hierarchical degrees of subjective being the extent of immorality that abortion represents is dependent on the position of the developing fetus in that hierarchy. It is hard to argue that we don't all believe intuitively in a hierarchy of smaller and larger "souls" when so few lose sleep over breathing in bacteria that can't survive inside us, smacking mosquitoes, or eating hamburgers.

Those of us who possess democratic values recognize certain "fundamental rights" that all "citizens" deserve to have protected by law. But beyond this, nearly all of us intuitively believe the same hierarchy that places us above animals and plants puts some human beings above others. That is, there are "smaller" and "larger souled" human beings. Douglas Hofstadter quantifies this notion in "Hunekers," taking the name of a famous critic who said of a Chopin piece: "Small-souled men, no matter how agile their fingers, should avoid it" (and so somebody like Shakespeare or Newton might have a 400 Huneker soul, whereas an average person has 100.). He implies this quantity relates to the magnitude of "strange loops"developed in any particular human brain's processing of self-awareness, as he believe such reciprocal processing is precisely what gives some life forms, and some humans, greater or lesser being than others. Of course we can't actually measure Huneckers, but using the concept it might be argued an abortion at X number of days is roughly equivalent to breathing in bacteria, swatting mosquitoes, eating a burger, or, later on, killing a young chimpanzee.

Of course as others have noted the circumstances of the mother's life are hugely relevant to justifying the act. But I believe the two categories alluded to above account for what most consider the "what" of what makes abortion immoral.

Even if life begins at conception, I don't see why it is immoral.

 

[421]

I also don't see it as an injustice, but that the thought of preventing the existence of someone you would come to love more than anything could be a source of great sorrow and feel very wrong, for both of the prospective parents.

As soon as the child is born most wouldn't be able to bear that thought.

It's certainly something you may end up deeply regretting. Like a lot of sins.

 

[swilow]

^Yes, sins 8)