Some claim that abortion is just an ordinary medical procedure – just the removal of some tissue from a woman’s uterus – and thus no more morally significant than getting a tooth pulled. However, I’ve never known anyone who experienced angst when contemplating the decision to remove a tooth. They’ve never talked about how difficult the decision was for them, or wondered whether it was the morally right thing to do. They never experience depression after the procedure, and none of them have ever claimed that it was their biggest regret.
Clearly, there is a moral difference between abortion and other medical procedures, and everyone knows it. Abortion doesn’t remove tissue from a woman’s body – it kills an innocent human being who is developing in a woman’s body. That’s why people struggle with the decision. They understand the moral weight involved.
Abortion is a very simple issue, morally speaking. We should not kill innocent human beings. Abortion kills innocent human beings. Therefore, abortion is wrong. We can do better. Let’s protect the most vulnerable human beings among us. Let’s be pro-life.
Thinking to Believe 
June 19, 2020 at 12:21 pm
Well, many people who have been raised to be anti-abortion will naturally struggle with the morality of getting an abortion and may experience regret afterward. But those who aren’t raised that way largely don’t have those problems.
The best way demonstrated to reduce abortions isn’t to ban them but to make sex education and birth control available. Unfortunately, those who are pro-life largely oppose that, which leads to high teen pregnancy rates and unwanted pregnancies.
But to me, the most important consideration is that we have a legal and ethical right to bodily integrity. This means you can’t force someone to donate blood to someone else, even if it would save their life. Even if you hit an innocent person with your car and a blood transfusion from you was the only thing that could save them, nobody could or should force you to give your blood. It’s even illegal to use the organs of dead people to save lives unless they are registered organ donors. Given those facts, what is the justification for forcing a woman to essentially give blood to a fetus against her will?
LikeLike
June 19, 2020 at 1:30 pm
Let me repeat what you just said, but substitute abortion for slavery, and let’s see how your logic holds up:
Well, many people who have been raised to be anti-slavery will naturally struggle with the morality of owning slaves and may experience regret afterward. But those who aren’t raised that way largely don’t have those problems.
The best way demonstrated to reduce slavery isn’t to ban owning people, but to make business education available and provide a universal income. Unfortunately, those who are pro-slavery largely oppose that, which leads to high slave rates.
But to me, the most important consideration is that we have a legal and ethical right to personal property. This means you can’t force someone to give up their slaves, even if it would save their life. … Given those facts, what is the justification for forcing a white person to essentially give away their property against their will?
Your argument is a subterfuge. The abortion issue is very simple. Abortion kills something. Depending on what that something is, it is either moral or immoral. If abortion does not kill an innocent human being, then abortion is moral. However, if abortion does kill an innocent human being, then abortion is immoral. It is a scientific fact that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, and it is a moral fact that this human being is innocent of any wrongdoing, thus abortion is morally wrong.
LikeLike
June 19, 2020 at 2:27 pm
Well sure, you can insert anything unrelated to make my claim mean something completely different. You can also use murder, torture, animal abuse, etc. and they would change the meaning of my post too. But that would be specious.
With slavery and the other options I listed, we are talking about causing suffering to sentient beings. With abortion, we’re talking about a clump of cells that has no mind, no sense of pain, and no capacity to suffer.
Also, over half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage (https://www.sciencealert.com/meta-analysis-finds-majority-of-human-pregnancies-end-in-miscarriage-biorxiv), and while prospective parents may be upset by this, they rarely respond as they would for the loss of a child, there’s no autopsy or investigation into the death, there’s no record of death, etc. This is because human life is by necessity a spectrum. Sperm and ova are technically human life. They are *scientifically* demonstrable as human life. But we don’t attribute to them the mantle of “human life,” nor do we consider them particularly valuable. And when they fuse and become a zygote, they are not suddenly human either. Over time, they become more and more human. But exactly when “human life” should be attributed to a fetus is not something that anyone can claim with certainty. It means different things to different people. It is most certainly not a binary choice that you seem to believe it is.
But my argument still stands independently of these facts. A fetus is innocent, as you say…but so is a person you accidentally hit with your car. A fetus is fully dependent on its mother to survive…but so is that person whom you hit and who will die without a blood transfusion from you right away. In that scenario, an innocent life is 100% dependent on you, caused by a situation you brought about by your own actions…but your bodily integrity rights ALWAYS supersede the rights of anyone else to your body, and NOBODY can require you to give your own blood to help another, even if they need that blood to survive.
I don’t see how an abortion is any different from that car accident example. For your argument to have merit, you have to make a significant distinction between the two events.
LikeLike
June 19, 2020 at 10:44 pm
The religious among us accept the idea of a “soul,” a spiritual element to human life, and that would pretty much define how you respond to the “abortion question.” It is wrong to kill a being that carries that “soul.” Period.
However — and it’s an important ‘however’ — no one, as far as I know, can tell us what the soul is made of, where it abides, or, most importantly for the present topic, when it gets there. There are no empirical answers to those questions. Hence, with particular emphasis on “when,” the “abortion question.”
But not everyone accepts the “soul” hypothesis, and without that “soul,” protecting human life becomes part of the social contract. The “abortion question” then comes under the rubric of the definition of “human.” The definition is fairly straightforward once a baby is born and begins interacting with its “context” (though even then, some difficulties arise: limitations on the “interaction”; war; self-defense; and a bunch of others). But before then, well, “human” isn’t an easy quality to pin down.
It would seem best to leave the abortion issue between the woman and God, with appropriate input from other interested parties (family, pastor, physician, et al.). It isn’t a “legislative” issue.
Amen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 22, 2020 at 10:26 pm
Derekmathias, you miss the point entirely. If one’s moral logic cannot justify some other practice that we know to be evil, then it cannot justify another practice.
Now you set forth another subterfuge to avoid the obvious fact that abortion kills an innocent human being. Now you say it’s ok because the unborn are not conscious and do not feel pain. First, there’s no question that the unborn can feel pain. The disagreement is simply over how early they can. But let’s say they couldn’t feel pain. How does that change the moral equation? When you are sleeping, you are not conscious. Would it be ok to kill you in your sleep? Or what if we sedate someone before we kill them so they don’t feel any pain. Would it be moral, then? Of course not. Why? Because it’s not the pain that makes it wrong. It’s the fact that you have robbed a human being of their right to life without sufficient justification.
You do not understand embryology. Virtually everything you said is contradicted by any standard embryology textbook. First, sperm and ova, while alive, are very different from a zygote. Failing to understand the difference is the failure to distinguish parts from wholes. And one doesn’t become more and more human. A new human being comes into being at fertilization, and simply matures over time. It’s a whole human being from the get-go. We know the zygote (which is not something distinct from a human being, but the name given to a particular state of human maturation) is human because it has human parents and human DNA. Everything that little human will ever need to mature into an adult human is present from the beginning.
You want to equate an accidental death with intentional murder? Once again, you fail to make a critical and simple distinction.
LikeLike
June 22, 2020 at 10:31 pm
Joe, no pro-life advocate even brings up the topic of the soul. Why? Because it is irrelevant to the debate. Human beings have value as human beings, not as souls. But let’s say it was important. And let’s say we didn’t know when the soul entered the body (though I do not agree with this claim). How does it follow from our ignorance that it’s ok to let people kill their potentially ensouled children? That seems to be a good reason to oppose abortion. After all, if a demolition crew was about to destroy a building, and they said they couldn’t be sure if there were any children inside the building, would you say “the decision to go forward with the demolition should be a choice between the demolitionist and his God”? Of course not. So why, when it comes to abortion, do you make that claim? Not being sure whether we are killing a valuable human being or not is the best reason to be opposed to abortion, at least until we can answer that question with relative certainty.
LikeLike
June 23, 2020 at 7:03 am
TR — Couple of things: First, I agree with what you suggest — that it is best to assume “human-ness” is present from the start (the “zygote”) and advise against abortion on those grounds alone.
Second, my comment wasn’t to make a debate point, but only to suggest that just because you (and, others, including me) agree on a philosophical point, that everyone else therefore has to accept that point. You and I could (probably) make arguments for our point of view that would seem to us unassailable. But that doesn’t, in and of itself, make us “right.”
Just as one example, you suggest that “human beings have value as human beings.” That sounds good (and I wouldn’t disagree) but, truth is, it’s a personal (i.e., subjective) judgement that depends on how you define “human” and what is your sense of the “value” that attaches to that human. I’d suggest that not everyone arrives at the same conclusions.
For many people — certainly for most “Christians” — the idea of a ‘soul’ is critical to developing the “value” attached to being human, and I think that that value accounts for the passion of the anti-abortion arguments. But for those who believe that ‘soul’ is a fiction and that “human-ness” arises as the “Homo sapiens” fetus develops the abilities that we associate with “being human,” for those, the removal of an embryo or (at least an early-stage) fetus does not constitute “killing an innocent human.”
I don’t quite agree with that, but neither can I “prove” them wrong. And yes, I know that is a bit of a slippery slope. But all life is a slippery slope. All of us live somewhere between what we can “prove” and what is “best.” That isn’t always enough to justify “legislation.”
Amen.
LikeLike
June 23, 2020 at 1:30 pm
“Derekmathias, you miss the point entirely. If one’s moral logic cannot justify some other practice that we know to be evil, then it cannot justify another practice.”
But that is exactly my point. If one cannot be ethically, morally or legally forced to give blood to anyone else, even if it’s necessary to save their life, then a woman cannot be ethically, morally or legally forced to provide blood for a fetus (which is obviously necessary to save its life). The reason I used the car accident analogy is to make both situations equivalent: the one who needs blood does so because of actions the “donor” took.
“Now you set forth another subterfuge to avoid the obvious fact that abortion kills an innocent human being. Now you say it’s ok because the unborn are not conscious and do not feel pain. First, there’s no question that the unborn can feel pain. The disagreement is simply over how early they can. But let’s say they couldn’t feel pain. How does that change the moral equation? When you are sleeping, you are not conscious. Would it be ok to kill you in your sleep? Or what if we sedate someone before we kill them so they don’t feel any pain. Would it be moral, then? Of course not. Why? Because it’s not the pain that makes it wrong. It’s the fact that you have robbed a human being of their right to life without sufficient justification.”
The problem with your logic here is that it becomes absurd when carried to its logical conclusion. If a zygote is human life, then a gamete is human life–they’re both alive and both human, after all. So should women be treated as murderers for menstruating instead of getting pregnant? Should men be treated as murderers for not using their hundreds of millions of sperm to impregnate a woman? Of course not.
The value of “human life” is not an instantaneous achievement. Clearly sperm and ova are not considered human life, and the only difference between a gamete and a zygote is that two of the former have fused into one of the latter. Like the difference between an open and closed zipper, there’s little difference. The zygote has no pain receptors, no mind, no heart, no limbs, no anything…except potential (which is also true of gametes). And clearly a born baby is a “human life.” Thus, human life begins somewhere in the middle. But where?
Contrary to what you claimed, it is not a scientific fact that human life begins at fertilization, something that should be obvious by the fact that there is no clear definition of “human life.” I don’t know who misinformed you about that, but no scientist would make such a claim based on the evidence, only on personal opinion.
And that’s the rub. When “human life” begins is to a large degree a matter of opinion. Some, like you, believe it begins at fertilization. Others say it’s not until the fetus has differentiated organs. Still others say it’s when the fetus can sense pain. And still others say it’s when there is mental activity. Finally, there are those who believe it doesn’t begin until birth (interestingly, that last one was the belief of the rabbi scholars of the Old Testament). I respect your choice, just as I respect the choices of others. But that’s the thing…it’s your CHOICE. That choice may be right for you, but not for someone else. One shouldn’t be able to impose one’s opinion on others. It should be an individual choice.
“You do not understand embryology. Virtually everything you said is contradicted by any standard embryology textbook. First, sperm and ova, while alive, are very different from a zygote.”
No, they aren’t. They are virtually IDENTICAL to the sum of the two parts, except for the fusing of the chromosomes. More importantly, the zygote possesses NONE of the characteristics we use to apply value to a human life (apart from potential…which again, gametes have as well). A zygote is just one early step in the gradual increasing of human life value. In fact, I challenge you to find any scientific evidence to support the claim that a zygote is scientifically human life but gametes aren’t. The fact that we are genetically determined in a zygote isn’t evidence, because we are ALSO genetically determined by the two separate gametes.
“You want to equate an accidental death with intentional murder? Once again, you fail to make a critical and simple distinction.”
I think the analogy is accurate. In one case you have sex, not intending to get pregnant, but it happens. In the other case, you drive a car, not intending to hit anyone, but it happens. In both cases, the victim is 100% dependent on your blood to survive. In both cases, nobody has the ethical, moral or legal right to force you to give blood. The only significant difference is that in one case you are already supplying blood to the fetus; in the other you are not yet supplying blood to the car accident victim. If you’re hanging your hat on that distinction, it’s easy to modify the situation to remove that difference: the driver wakes up from being knocked unconscious to discover he is in the middle of a blood transfusion to the victim. Should he choose to cease the transfusion and cause the victim to die, that is entirely HIS choice, ethically, morally and legally. So you see? The two situations can easily be equated.
Perhaps your objection is biblical? If so, then you should be aware that Jesus never said anything against abortion, even though abortion has been practiced since ancient Egypt. Furthermore, God teaches priests to use abortion as a form of punishment for infidelity:
• Numbers 5:24-27 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her … he is to have the woman drink the water. If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
So should a woman be forced to carry a fetus if she doesn’t want to? I don’t see how one can make an argument that her rights of bodily integrity can be overridden by the rights of the fetus.
LikeLike
September 1, 2020 at 11:06 pm
I don’t know if you knew this, but abortion AND promiscuity developed rampantly because of things like birth control. Sex and procreation were once united and there was none of this evil.
Besides. Birth isn’t an operation. It’s natural. Animals that are mammals give birth and don’t get abortions. Sticking claws and stuff up the birth canal to kill a growing fetus is about the most insidious unnatural and creepy idea. That baby evades it too.
LikeLike
September 2, 2020 at 2:03 pm
“I don’t know if you knew this, but abortion AND promiscuity developed rampantly because of things like birth control.”
Abortion existed as far back as ancient Egypt at least: https://muvs.org/en/topics/termination-of-pregnancy/abortion-in-antiquity-en/. If one’s objection to abortion is religious, the Bible says nothing against it. Jesus condemned divorce and remarriage, but few people argue that divorce and remarriage should be illegal.
“Birth isn’t an operation. It’s natural. Animals that are mammals give birth and don’t get abortions.”
Well, killing babies that aren’t your own is also common in the animal kingdom (male lions, for example, kill all the cubs when they take over a pride). So is eating one’s young. Natural isn’t necessarily good, nor is artificial necessarily bad.
LikeLike
September 2, 2020 at 2:25 pm
“I don’t know if you knew this, but abortion AND promiscuity developed rampantly because of things like birth control.”
Well… maybe not. Abortion, promiscuity, and birth control have been hanging around together for a few thousand years. What’s this “developed rampantly” business? When did this “rampant” development happen? Do you have any research to back that up? (And maybe you do… but you have to give us some clue as to what that is.)
“Sex and procreation were once united and there was none of this evil.”
Sex and procreation have been “united” for about as long as humans have been having sex. Even early humans would have had the relationship figured out. But I’d also note that sex and pleasure have been around for about as long.
The :Christian” view of sex has been distorted by early Christian theology, which assigns the “evil” tag to (a) sex with someone other than one’s spouse; and (b) sex that doesn’t have the potential for procreation. (Protestant theology has modified that somewhat; Catholics are still pretty conservative about condemning sex-for-pleasure-only activity under all circumstances.)
I’m not sure how all of this fits into an “abortion” discussion, but I’m assuming you are connecting abortion to promiscuity, That’s an interesting, if misguided (in my opinion), argument. I’d like to hear how you develop that line.
LikeLike
September 4, 2020 at 4:51 pm
Related to this topic, here is an interesting post by a Christian who is anti-abortion, but realized it shouldn’t impact his vote for president:
https://www.quora.com/How-has-Donald-Trump-changed-you/answer/Jerry-Olsen-4?ch=99&share=650565b8&srid=uBhZO
LikeLike