Why Abortion should be ILLEGAL

[minnie616]

No, that's exactly my position. Abortion must be legal. Abortion must be legal because moral agents must not be constrained by law from making moral choices.
Abortion is immoral unless performed to save the life of the mother.
I've never wavered from this position in this thread.

And I have not wavered from my position so I will agree to disagree.eace

 

[JayDubya]

Immoral but must be legal makes sense if you feel that way about things like prostitution or drugs... vices, victimless vices.

Immoral but must be legal does not make sense when talking about aggressive violence.

 

[Removable Mind]

The moral dimension of abortion is my argument for its legalization. Where my view falls in the spectrum of views is immaterial to the soundness of the argument. And whether my view is congruent or incongruent with any belief system is immaterial to the soundness of the argument. My argument is based on Reason. Reliance on Reason does not constitute a belief system, as it is the ground and justification of any and all belief.

If you believe that you've based your arguments on "reason", then I suggest that you might be hoodwinking yourself by believing that you've appropriately incorporated soundness into your arguments. There is an origin of biases built into our self-adorning minds over time. Those biases impact one's perception of how much one believes their own stream of thinking, reason, and logic, which is internally formulated to dazzle one's audience.

You do dazzle. I'm just not buying "the soundness of your arguments".

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

So my basic assumption is that the origin of life on earth is a mystery.

In the specific case of abortion, we already know through science what the unborn are; Simply humans in the earliest stages of their development.

 

[FutureIncoming]

If that's all that's standing in our way, then I'll accept your semantics for the sake of argument.

THANK YOU.

So my basic assumption is that the origin of life on earth is a mystery. Or still a mystery if that suits you.

OKAY.

The scientific "explanations" you point to are speculations.

THEY ARE EXPLANATIONS. Only their accuracy is doubted. A bunch of years ago I constructed an explanation for some of the first steps of "abiogenesis". It is located in this thread in at another discussion site, and it is long and involved and complicated, and posted across a whole bunch of different messages in that thread (starting with #33). If you read the link about "Moore's Law and the Origin of Life", then you might notice some similarities in it, to what I wrote about (except I was first, and simply made a guess about the rate of complexity-doubling).

And some of the speculations I've read seem more like science fiction than science.

SCIENCE FICTION HAS ITS SHARE OF FICTITIOUS SCIENCE. It also often has accurate science. Discovering which is which can be quite educational. Meanwhile, keep in mind that subatomic-particle physicists have a simple guideline that is applicable to more than particle physics: "Anything not forbidden is mandatory." That means any possible thing that can exist or can happen is expect-able to exist or happen somewhere, sometime. (Observing Macroscopic Evolution In Action could take a lot of looking for a long time in a lot of places.) If you encounter the apparently science-fictional, look to see if some aspect of it is forbidden. If nothing about it is forbidden, then the overall thing should be possible --however improbable it might truly be.

But let's not get distracted by science here.

IN OTHER WORDS: "Let's ignore science so that we can pretend the origin of life is a total and complete mystery to science." Uh-huh. Do you see why getting on-board with you is somewhat problematic?

This is my amended argument:
The origin of life is still a mystery.

NOT OBJECTING, SO FAR.

Moral agents must make informed choices.

NOW YOU ARE INTRODUCING THE SUBJECTIVE, instead of the Objective. Since morals are provably Arbitrary and Subjective, you are stating an opinion, not a fact, regarding whatever is a "moral agent". How many barbarian hordes thought it was completely moral for them to kill anyone who got in their way?

To choose against life is therefore an uninformed choice.

BAD LOGIC. You have not explained how this connects to not knowing the origin of life. I might assume you are subtly claiming that just because we don't know the origin of life, its existence somehow includes a right to keep existing. Thus, to choose against it is to choose in ignorance of that "right"-- which in actuality might not exist! On what basis should that specific ignorance require assuming life has a right to exist? (Also keep in mind Known Facts, regarding how it is impossible to survive without killing other life-forms, including automatic killings performed by the immune system.) Note the assumption is a positive claim that has not been supported with any evidence! You cannot have a valid argument when you leave out crucial connections!

But the law cannot take that choice away without infringing on the morality of the choice.

YET LAWS DO THAT ALL THE TIME. One could argue that choosing to rob a bank is a moral choice. And, the bank robber doesn't know the origin of every dollar in the bank vault --even the bank might not know, if the place is getting used as part of a "money laundering" scheme. Nevertheless, a Law exists forbidding bank robbery.

FINALLY, I NOTICE YOU DIDN'T RESPOND TO SOMETHING I POSTED A WHILE BACK, regarding how abortion saves more lives than it kills. In more detail, many life-forms each need its environment to contain about 10 times its own mass in other food-life-forms. The "eater" life-form doesn't eat all the food-life at once; eating happens slowly enough that the food-life can replenish itself, allowing the eater to feed for a lifetime. ANYWAY, it is often said that a pregnant woman "eats for two". This means that she is directly associated with the deaths of a great many life-forms, just so that she and her offspring can live/grow. Obviously, if the offspring is aborted, lots of that other life (a lifetime's supply of it!) can be saved!

 

[FutureIncoming]

A bunch of years ago I constructed an explanation for some of the first steps of "abiogenesis". It is located in this thread in at another discussion site, and it is long and involved and complicated, and posted across a whole bunch of different messages in that thread (starting with #33).

Here's something from Msg#148 in that Thread:

Are you saying that while spontaneous rapid combustion (fire) is possible, and spontaneous slow combustion is possible (rusting iron), it is impossible for low-speed combustion (Life) to occur spontaneously? I must say I haven't seen very many Laws or Constants that apply to both extremes but not the middle!

I'm mentioning that because it tends to support the notion that life could have begun existing purely as a result of random events. But also, that Msg #148 includes the beginning of a numbered sequence of steps, in which I speculated about the origin of life. That numbered sequence includes quite a few later messages... (and I didn't want to confuse folks who started reading at #33, and then wondered about some of what I previously talked about here, because there is a lengthy section of that Thread in which I posted no messages at all).

 

[Angel]

And I have not wavered from my position so I will agree to disagree.eace

Disagree about what, for heaven's sake? Are you reading my posts at all, or are you posting on auto-pilot?
I am pro-choice. What are you?

 

[Angel]

Immoral but must be legal makes sense if you feel that way about things like prostitution or drugs... vices, victimless vices.

Immoral but must be legal does not make sense when talking about aggressive violence.

YET LAWS DO THAT ALL THE TIME. One could argue that choosing to rob a bank is a moral choice. And, the bank robber doesn't know the origin of every dollar in the bank vault --even the bank might not know, if the place is getting used as part of a "money laundering" scheme. Nevertheless, a Law exists forbidding bank robbery.

Criminal Law defines and punishes; it does not forbid. That's the Mosaic Law you're thinking of.

 

[Angel]

If you believe that you've based your arguments on "reason", then I suggest that you might be hoodwinking yourself by believing that you've appropriately incorporated soundness into your arguments. There is an origin of biases built into our self-adorning minds over time. Those biases impact one's perception of how much one believes their own stream of thinking, reason, and logic, which is internally formulated to dazzle one's audience.

Where I'm coming from:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
— Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

Kant's Moral Philosophy

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that the supreme principle of morality is a standard of rationality that he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Kant characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary. All specific moral requirements, according to Kant, are justified by this principle, which means that all immoral actions are irrational because they violate the CI.

Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives

Kant holds that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is a categorical imperative. It is an imperative because it is a command addressed to agents who could follow it but might not (e.g. , “Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.”). It is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally, or simply because we possesses rational wills, without reference to any ends that we might or might not have. It does not, in other words, apply to us on the condition that we have antecedently adopted some goal for ourselves.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

 

[Angel]

In the specific case of abortion, we already know through science what the unborn are; Simply humans in the earliest stages of their development.

Absolutely nothing simple about it, Canada.
If science leads you to believe that it's simple, then science misleads you.
Because it's a ****ing miracle, eh?

 

[Angel]

IN OTHER WORDS: "Let's ignore science so that we can pretend the origin of life is a total and complete mystery to science." Uh-huh. Do you see why getting on-board with you is somewhat problematic?

Let's ignore science because it cannot explain the origin of life on earth, and that's all I need for my argument.

NOW YOU ARE INTRODUCING THE SUBJECTIVE, instead of the Objective. Since morals are provably Arbitrary and Subjective, you are stating an opinion, not a fact, regarding whatever is a "moral agent". How many barbarian hordes thought it was completely moral for them to kill anyone who got in their way?

No, I'm just citing the necessary condition for moral agency. Defining a term.

BAD LOGIC. You have not explained how this connects to not knowing the origin of life. I might assume you are subtly claiming that just because we don't know the origin of life, its existence somehow includes a right to keep existing. Thus, to choose against it is to choose in ignorance of that "right"-- which in actuality might not exist! On what basis should that specific ignorance require assuming life has a right to exist?

I am not talking about, nor have I mentioned rights. My argument is not based on rights. It's based on duty, the duty of a moral agent, and there's nothing subjective about a moral agent. He's the person choosing to act in one way or another in circumstances in which one may reasonably talk about right and wrong action.

 

[Angel]

FINALLY, I NOTICE YOU DIDN'T RESPOND TO SOMETHING I POSTED A WHILE BACK, regarding how abortion saves more lives than it kills. In more detail, many life-forms each need its environment to contain about 10 times its own mass in other food-life-forms. The "eater" life-form doesn't eat all the food-life at once; eating happens slowly enough that the food-life can replenish itself, allowing the eater to feed for a lifetime. ANYWAY, it is often said that a pregnant woman "eats for two". This means that she is directly associated with the deaths of a great many life-forms, just so that she and her offspring can live/grow. Obviously, if the offspring is aborted, lots of that other life (a lifetime's supply of it!) can be saved!

Consequentialism is bunkum, as far as this deontologists is concerned.

I'm mentioning that because it tends to support the notion that life could have begun existing purely as a result of random events. But also, that Msg #148 includes the beginning of a numbered sequence of steps, in which I speculated about the origin of life. That numbered sequence includes quite a few later messages... (and I didn't want to confuse folks who started reading at #33, and then wondered about some of what I previously talked about here, because there is a lengthy section of that Thread in which I posted no messages at all).

Yes, interesting speculation on the origin of life, to be sure. My favorite is the Alien Garbage Theory, that a spore in the garbage of some super intelligent alien race started it all. Earth as alien landfill. It's all fun. But that's all it is.

 

[minnie616]

Disagree about what, for heaven's sake? Are you reading my posts at all, or are you posting on auto-pilot?
I am pro-choice. What are you?

I know you pro-choice but you say abortion is immoral unless it used to save the pregnant woman's life, and not only do I disagree but so does the RCRC, many Christian clergy and members , many Jewish clergy and members.


There is a moral case regarding abortion as no woman should be coerced to carry a pregnancy to term.

We need to act compassionately and justly when facing difficult moral decisions.


I believe that " The right of an individual to make their own choice about whether or not they will offer their body in the support of another organism is a moral good."

From this article:

Abortion is a Moral Good

The right of an individual to make their own choice about whether or not they will offer their body in the support of another organism is a moral good.

The individual making a choice which will be most beneficial to them is a moral good, whether that choice is abortion or birth or both (and most women who have abortions, it should be noted, make different choices at different times in their lives).

The abortion procedure itself, like most other medical procedures, is a moral good. And like most other medical procedures, it is bad when done without consent, or when coercive. As is childbirth.

Abortion is a Moral Decision by Rev. Debra W. Haffner

 

[Zalatix]

Ending a life isn't necessarily illegal. We do it all the time for various reasons, but it's not all considered murder.

So saying that "ending a life is ending a life", while true, is not a compelling reason to criminalize abortion. We do not treat all life as sacrosanct.

We should treat innocent life as sancrosanct.

The problem with "pro-lifers" is they don't define foreign Middle Eastern civilians as innocent life, nor do they consider poor born children to be innocent life, either. They're willing to risk the lives of countless unborn children by attacking ALL funding for Planned Parenthood, even while it provides prenatal care for poor women. Pro-lifers sometimes even go through the back door of abortion clinics to make problem pregnancies go away on the down-low. These silly children even want to ban contraception and when they can't sell that, they package it under "I don't want to pay taxes to support those whores and their whore lifestyle."

Their war on abortion is not about saving lives, it's about keeping women under their thumb.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Absolutely nothing simple about it.

Unfortunately, it's that simple in the specific case of abortion Angel.

 

[year2late]

Disagree about what, for heaven's sake? Are you reading my posts at all, or are you posting on auto-pilot?
I am pro-choice. What are you?

Your posts are confusing at times.

 

[TheGoverness]

Your posts are confusing at times.

Very confusing.

 

[Angel]

Your posts are confusing at times.

Very confusing.

My apologies. I'll try to be clearer in future. Clarity is a virtue in discourse. If I'm unclear or confusing, please ask for clarification. I would very much appreciate this.

 

[TheGoverness]

My apologies. I'll try to be clearer in future. Clarity is a virtue in discourse. If I'm unclear or confusing, please ask for clarification. I would very much appreciate this.

Will do.

 

[Angel]

Unfortunately, it's that simple in the specific case of abortion Angel.

A simple procedure perhaps, but ending the life of an incipient self-conscious being resonates with cosmic complexity, or so it seems to this humanist.
And that may be the crux of our disagreement. Science is not a humanism.

 

[Removable Mind]

A simple procedure perhaps, but ending the life of an incipient self-conscious being resonates with cosmic complexity, or so it seems to this humanist.
And that may be the crux of our disagreement. Science is not a humanism.

The bolded above is bull hockey. Complete nonsense. That is an incredibly illogical, irrational claim.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Criminal Law defines and punishes; it does not forbid. That's the Mosaic Law you're thinking of.

MOST FOLKS EQUATE "ILLEGAL" WITH "FORBIDDEN". I can agree that technically they are different concepts, but in terms of practical application and effect, they are more synonymous than not. And neither label will stop folks from doing a so-labeled action, if that is what they choose to do.

 

[Angel]

A simple procedure perhaps, but ending the life of an incipient self-conscious being resonates with cosmic complexity

The bolded above is bull hockey. Complete nonsense. That is an incredibly illogical, irrational claim.

Do tell. How "illogical"? How "irrational"? How "incredibly" so?
I'm extremely interested, in the name of self-knowledge, to understand your assessment, RM. No bull.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Do tell. How "illogical"? How "irrational"? How "incredibly" so?
I'm extremely interested, in the name of self-knowledge, to understand your assessment, RM. No bull.

So why aren't our fundamentalist republican friends proposing legislation on this issue? Why do they never?

 

[Angel]

MOST FOLKS EQUATE "ILLEGAL" WITH "FORBIDDEN". I can agree that technically they are different concepts, but in terms of practical application and effect, they are more synonymous than not. And neither label will stop folks from doing a so-labeled action, if that is what they choose to do.

We hope law has a deterrent effect, but studies are inconclusive. Still, criminal law does not infringe on the freedom of the individual to lie, steal, cheat, and kill at will. Making abortion illegal would infringe on the freedom of the individual to have an abortion.