Abortion is Immoral: Change My Mind

[SPF]

P1: All human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

P2: A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Conclusion: All human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization.

Therefore, if all human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization, then all the abortions that are performed for non-medical emergency reasons are immoral.

The above is taken from the OP. This discussion is aimed at addressing the vast majority of abortions that are committed for non-medical reasons. I welcome anyone to start a new topic of abortions for medical reasons if they want to.

Is there anyone that disagrees with the conclusion derived from the two premises that can provide good reason for why either the conclusion or premises should be rejected?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Refusing chemo because it would harm the baby.

Or any other type of drug that is known to harm the baby. Many drugs are not tested on pregnant moms. The reason for this is obvious: Scientists don't want to harm any unborn babies. As a result, some drugs, namely theodomide, have been recalled because of birth defects even though they did not harm mothers. OTOH there are medications that have been studied on pregnant women and must be sold with a warning that they cannot take them. These drugs could be the only ones that would help expecting mothers.

So His student, would you want a dead fetus in your body for 7 months because a doctor was not allowed to remove it?

 

[GodLovesCats]

SPF, you were the one who said if the mother's life is not in danger, there is no medical reason. Based on your idea of what counts as a non-medical reason, I felt compelled to explain that view is too limited.

 

[His student]

Preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancies are two causes of maternal death. Do I have to explain what those problems are?

Thank you for the examples.

You don't have to explain them at all. I am very familiar with those circumstances and have been involved myself.

I said "pretty much" a red herring.

These rare instances are not good examples of what has gone on with the 60,000,000 or so abortions committed since R. v W.

Besides - most doctors agree that abortions as such are never necessary to save the life of the mother. The vast majority of the medical community do not consider the procedures used in ectopic pregnancy situations to be abortion.

They affirm that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and the necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother. This is so even if those treatments almost always results in the loss of the life of an unborn child.

Even pro-life doctors affirm that prohibition of abortions does not have to affect, the availability of life saving care for a pregnant woman.

In the case of preeclampsia - the treatment is usually delivery not abortion. If delivery is inadvisable because of the age of the baby - there are almost always treatments for the condition.

But - all that aside - these instances are not good examples of the kind of holocaust that our nation has been involved during the last generation or so.

So His student, would you want a dead fetus in your body for 7 months because a doctor was not allowed to remove it?

That's too ridiculous to respond to except to tell you - "Don't be ridiculous"..

Refusing chemo because it would harm the baby.

The idea of killing a baby so that he or she might be harmed by chemo for the mother seems to me to be pretty much of a no-brainer proposition.

Besides - there are currently ways of treating cancer in the mother which have little or no effect on the baby she is carrying.

And if your openly-stated aim is to "chip away" at abortion, then I do not suggest fighting the battle over medical reasons. It also doesn't help your cause against partial-birth abortions, since the reason people out there are fighting to allow those is because you have overtly stated you are trying to chip away at the whole thing. While you are trying to chip away at it, they are trying to hold the line.

"Holding the line" against those who would "chip away" at abortion on demand by killing obvious human beings is immoral.

 

[GodLovesCats]

There are currently ways of treating cancer in the mother which have little or no effect on the baby she is carrying.

Try telling that to women who are not eligible for surgery. I know for a fact chemoterhapy is the only way to treat certain types of cancer. Have you ever heard of multiple myelsoma, leukemia, and similar cancer, which are in the bloodstream and therefore inoperable?

 

[His student]

I don't know a single person involved in the pro life movement (and I have associated with a great many over the last 4 decades or so) who would object to making an exception to truly save the life of the mother.

Again - these arguments are, for the most part, red herrings when it comes to laws that would pretty much eliminate abortion of demand.

Most all of the objections to laws like the fetal heart beat legislation are nothing more than an aversion to limiting the current convenience based holocaust in any way.

 

[GodLovesCats]

His student, you are the one who suggested pregnant women can simply choose a less risky treatment to cure cancer without harming the fetus. If I am a red herring, so are you.

 

[usexpat97]

Is there anyone that disagrees with the conclusion derived from the two premises that can provide good reason for why either the conclusion or premises should be rejected?

Yes. I disagree with your proposition 2, because there exists no good reason to support it, other than YOU believe it. And the reason I am answering your question is because you asked.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Yes. I disagree with your proposition 2, because there exists no good reason to support it, other than YOU believe it. And the reason I am answering your question is because you asked.

SPF is correct. The Bible confirms it.

 

[SPF]

Yes. I disagree with your proposition 2, because there exists no good reason to support it, other than YOU believe it. And the reason I am answering your question is because you asked.

usexpat97 denies Premise 2:

P2: A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

You claim that there exists "no good reason to support it" What then do you say to these references below? Furthermore, if you deny P2, can you let me know with support when you believe a new human being comes into existence?

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

 

[His student]

His student, you are the one who suggested pregnant women can simply choose a less risky treatment to cure cancer without harming the fetus. If I am a red herring, so are you.

A lot depends on when the cancer is diagnosed during the pregnancy and what the nature of the cancer is.

Less risky than what exactly?

No one used the term "simply".

Are you just looking to argue?
Are you looking to justify abortion on demand?
Where are you coming from exactly?

I have said nothing controversial here.

There are many places where you can access these concepts without me having to spell them out for you here on this thread.

I have no more called you a herring than I have called you a poodle.

A "red herring is a type of argument. It is a kind of proposition that is a pretty much irrelevant topic that is introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue.

In this case I was talking about the immorality of the kind of abortion on demand, as practiced in this country since Roe v Wade, that has resulted in some 60,000,000 unwarranted human deaths.

Certainly there are rare instances where the life of the mother is at stake. There are even more extremely rare instances where out and out abortion is necessary. There are a great many more where medical treatment for the mother's situation almost always ends the life of the baby. But those are not considered abortions by either the law or by the medical community.

I'm sorry that you misunderstood what I was doing when I referenced red herrings. I assure you that I was not calling you a herring, a salmon, a trout or any other kind of fish.

 

[usexpat97]

usexpat97 denies Premise 2:

P2: A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

You claim that there exists "no good reason to support it" What then do you say to these references below? Furthermore, if you deny P2, can you let me know with support when you believe a new human being comes into existence?

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

I already answered that question. I will answer it again, but I'm not going to argue. I find it ironic how the same science that denies the metaphysical, you use as evidence to claim a metaphysical soul is "fertilized" at conception. You spent a lot of time cherry-picking. I could do the same, but I'm not going to. You asked a question, I answered it.

 

[usexpat97]

In this case I was talking about the immorality of the kind of abortion on demand, as practiced in this country since Roe v Wade, that has resulted in some 60,000,000 unwarranted human deaths.

And to think, the world went to world war over a holocaust that the history books say had only 6 million deaths. Yet even pro-lifers condemn the...in the single digits?...number of doctors killed in abortion clinic bombings.

I think the majority is in fact with me. Most don't believe there have been 60 million murders, really. Not even you. I can assure you, if 20% of the U.S. population was being murdered, I would not be "protesting" and "lobbying congress".

 

[SPF]

I already answered that question. I will answer it again, but I'm not going to argue. I find it ironic how the same science that denies the metaphysical, you use as evidence to claim a metaphysical soul is "fertilized" at conception. You spent a lot of time cherry-picking. I could do the same, but I'm not going to. You asked a question, I answered it.

So is this your way of saying that you can’t provide ANY support for when a new human being comes into existence?

The science is clear, it’s biological fact, science has advanced enough to where we can literally see what happens at fertilization. We know when a new and unique human being with its own DNA is created. We know that it takes roughly 25 years for a human being to develop. We know what a human being should look like st each stage of development.

What evidence can you provide to contradict our commonplace scientific understanding that a new human being come into existence at fertilization?

 

[Mel333]

I am very much aware that I do not hold the corner on all theological truth. Indeed, the only beliefs that I actually cling to with any sort of deep rooted conviction are the following:

So here's my position:

P1: All human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

P2: A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Conclusion: All human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization.

Therefore, if all human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization, then all the abortions that are performed for non-medical emergency reasons are immoral.

I welcome anyone to show me where my argument fails. Is one of my premises wrong? Does my conclusion not follow from the premises? Is my position (in italics) not properly based upon the premises and conclusion above?

You're arguments (although good) do not take into the account free-will. That man cannot force what is morally right to do upon another.

The oldest most fundamental law known to man is free-will. The freedom that God gave us to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Which is what you've bitten into if you judge people according to these basic (good) moral rights.

The apple knows too much if you eat it and your eyes will know good and evil. Judge people according to morals and yee be judged.

The fundamental right to choose to bear a child overrides the immoral act of aborting a child because she has a fundamental right to choose to do the right thing.

Oldest law there is. Can't argue with freedom because freedom is love. Giving someone the right to choose to do what is right.

 

[SPF]

The fundamental right to choose to bear a child overrides the immoral act of aborting a child

You do realize that my argument has nothing to do with free will and is not about free will, right? It’s about whether or not an abortion is moral or immoral, not about whether or not a person has the right to have an abortion or not.

Are you capable of addressing the actual topic?

 

[Mel333]

You do realize that my argument has nothing to do with free will and is not about free will, right? It’s about whether or not an abortion is moral or immoral, not about whether or not a person has the right to have an abortion or not.

Are you capable of addressing the actual topic?

Okay. This forum has become quite mean now. I've addressed these issues.

 

[SPF]

Okay. This forum has become quite mean now. I've addressed these issues.

Mean for what, wanting to stay on topic? You're more than welcome to start a topic on free-will in relation to abortion law if you want, but that's not what I created this topic to discuss.

I would love for you to share your thoughts on the OP and let me know whether or not you believe abortion is immoral or not.

 

[GodLovesCats]

SPF, I am convinced you refuse to accept the fact that morality is not limited to whether a zygote is really a person or not. Morality is a complex issue which involves both the unborn baby and its mother. Why do you keep saying abortion is immoral even if the mother must choose between the baby's life and her own life, knowing that she is morally valuable and loved in the eyes of God and therefore should not die? It is not possible for an unborn baby to be more valuable than the mother, so it is immoral to say an expecting mom should die and carry her unwanted baby knowing the clock is ticking on her own life.

 

[SPF]

Why do you keep saying abortion is immoral even if the mother must choose between the baby's life and her own life

Please show me where I ever said that. I invite you to read the OP again and then come back and let me know which of the Premises you disagree with, and then provide supporting reasons why one of them (or both) should be denied.