Is abortion wrong?

[anarchyisbliss]

This was my response to another topic on the phiolosophy of politics forum

no doubt about the fact that abortion is murder, a sperm is a living creature an ovum is a living creature and a zygote and an embryo are living conscious beings with souls

be that as it may a woman still has the right to kill her child if she knows that she cannot provide for him or her or if allowing the child to live would cause more harm than good.

And why do religious people get so worked up saying " boo hoo hoo the poor little baby will never get the chance to live wah wah wah " Wont its soul just go straight to heaven or purgatory so whats the big issue if a mother spares her child's soul from the horror of planet Earth

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

And why do religious people get so worked up

I think many religious people get worked up because morality is black and white to them. They think at a certain point "human life" is created, and to cause it to end is sinful murder. In contrast, more secular people have more varying opinions that are not as black and white. The secularist could think it horrible to murder a full grown human, but less bad to murder a dog, even less bad to murder an ant, and even less bad to abort a few cells.

For the religious person, it is often just a black and white question of whether or not their God has declared the action sinful. For the non-religious person, it is often questions that can vary in degree, such as: Does abortion cause the embryo/fetus pain? If so, how much? How does it affect a woman to force her by law to give birth?

[Invictus_88]

NB: The differences (outlined above) between religious and secular thinkers, are merely tendencies.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

NB: The differences (outlined above) between religious and secular thinkers, are merely tendencies.

Yes, that is true. And I am glad you made a note of it.

[Lomax]

Hello Marytk,

I think it is wrong. If you have sex there is the possibility you will have a baby and if you are not capible of either putting the child up for adoption or raising it, then you don't need to be having sex.

What of sex for pleasure?

And if you are raped, you can put it up for adoption.

Certainly, but I think this ignores the extreme negative utility that may ensue for the child.

I mean its basically murder isn't it

i) Would you say that murder is inherently bad, or bad because of its consequences?
ii) How would you distinguish murder? I feel that for a probably non-sensuous being, such as a brick, a snowflake or a barely developed feotus, it is not as simple as to say the action is "murder".

in another forum there were people upset about the killing of animals, wouldn't the killing of an innocent baby be astronomically worse.

May I ask why? This seems like speciesism. Also, a feotus and a baby are not the same thing.

Lomax

[Lomax]

Hello, ForeverRain,

once you create something you have an obligation to see that task through.

Why?

only when you see that it can't result in something posititve can you decide that it should be terminated or not. It's important to give mankind all possible positives to move ahead. Unless you are able to decipher that this life will hinder mankinds path forward can you decide to terminate it.

Is the decision not to kill something that will probably have negative utility, not just as bad as the decision to kill something which will probably have positive utility?

Unlike clay, humans have to be constantly molded and never remain the same. You don't create clay, you mold it. It already exists, we just simply manipulate it. That's what humans do best...manipulate. That's why I said create. I didn't think that I needed to specify among intelligent people.

Well, I disagree here; humans, like clay, are formed out of matter that already exists.

Lomax

[Lomax]

Hello Patrarch,

My claim is that there is NOTHING to morality other than empathic reaction. People create all these ideas to explain "morality" because they just do not understand the natural processes the human has. Morality itself is created by our empathic reaction.

Well firstly, I would disagree with this. I would say that morality is a product of evolution, because we survived as a group, not as individuals. However, the matter of where morality began has little to do with where it can lead. As Peter Singer says: just as the inventors of mathematics, using the natural numbers to count their tribesmen, had no idea their invention would some day lead to infinitesimal calculus, we cannot know where ethics ends.

So perhaps empathy plays a role in the roots of morality, perhaps not. That has nothing to do with whether it is the correct approach to morality.

Lomax

[Lomax]

Hello Anarchyisbliss,

no doubt about the fact that abortion is murder, a sperm is a living creature an ovum is a living creature and a zygote and an embryo are living conscious beings with souls

Well, firstly, I would disagree that a sperm, ovum or zygote is a "living creature". Perhaps we first need a definition of "life"? Moreover, I would certainly disagree that any of the above possess their own consciousness. Further, I think you profess more knowledge than is obtainable; I see no evidence to believe in a "soul".

And why do religious people get so worked up saying " boo hoo hoo the poor little baby will never get the chance to live wah wah wah " Wont its soul just go straight to heaven or purgatory so whats the big issue if a mother spares her child's soul from the horror of planet Earth

Well I cannot speak for all religious people, but in the case of Catholics, I think the conception of "original sin" is one possible issue.

Lomax

[anarchyisbliss]

Hello Anarchyisbliss,

no doubt about the fact that abortion is murder, a sperm is a living creature an ovum is a living creature and a zygote and an embryo are living conscious beings with souls

Well, firstly, I would disagree that a sperm, ovum or zygote is a "living creature". Perhaps we first need a definition of "life"? Moreover, I would certainly disagree that any of the above possess their own consciousness. Further, I think you profess more knowledge than is obtainable; I see no evidence to believe in a "soul".

And why do religious people get so worked up saying " boo hoo hoo the poor little baby will never get the chance to live wah wah wah " Wont its soul just go straight to heaven or purgatory so whats the big issue if a mother spares her child's soul from the horror of planet Earth

Well I cannot speak for all religious people, but in the case of Catholics, I think the conception of "original sin" is one possible issue.

Lomax

First off all cells are living creatures so there's that answer you cant really disprove that and i have proof of souls what do you think makes something conscious? not just a network of electrical units and gray matter, there is an observer. And all things on this planet are conscious regardless of biological status. And for catholics even if youre married you cant get an abortion.

[Lomax]

Hello Anarchyisbliss,

First off all cells are living creatures so there's that answer you cant really disprove that

Well, dictionary dot com defines "creature" as "an animal, esp. a nonhuman". I am quite sure that a cell doesn't satisfy the criteria for an animal, in the same was a brick doesn't satisfy the criteria for a house. Every time you cut your hair or scratch your arm, you kill a good few cells.

i have proof of souls

Care to share the proof?

what do you think makes something conscious? not just a network of electrical units and gray matter, there is an observer.

I would opt for the former, if I had to pick on of those two.

Out of curiosity, what do you think makes the observer? Isn't consciousness a prerequisite for observation?

And all things on this planet are conscious regardless of biological status.

Well, you can't know that; consciousness can't be empirically verified (nor falsified). But given that my state of consciousness is affected when I perform actions which affect my central nervous system, I would say there is evidence that a central nervous system is prerequisite to consciousness.

And for catholics even if youre married you cant get an abortion.

What has that to do with original sin?

Lomax

[anjie143]

Q. Is abortion wrong?

A. Is it wrong to tear your own soul to pieces?

[Lomax]

Hello Anjie143,

Q. Is abortion wrong?

A. Is it wrong to tear your own soul to pieces?

Q. Is it wrong to tear your own soul to pieces?

A. If a soul exists, can it be affected by the destruction of the body?

Lomax

[anarchyisbliss]

Hello Anarchyisbliss,

First off all cells are living creatures so there's that answer you cant really disprove that

Well, dictionary dot com defines "creature" as "an animal, esp. a nonhuman". I am quite sure that a cell doesn't satisfy the criteria for an animal, in the same was a brick doesn't satisfy the criteria for a house. Every time you cut your hair or scratch your arm, you kill a good few cells.

Regardless of what dictionary.com says about a creature, a dictionary definition is not always the true definition of a word it merely scratches the surface

i have proof of souls

Care to share the proof?

I did share the proof in regards to the observer which would be the soul

what do you think makes something conscious? not just a network of electrical units and gray matter, there is an observer.

I would opt for the former, if I had to pick on of those two.

Out of curiosity, what do you think makes the observer? Isn't consciousness a prerequisite for observation?

the observer is the soul which develops as the body does the observer is created at the same time as the subconscious mind, and i don't see the relevance of your second question

And all things on this planet are conscious regardless of biological status.

Well, you can't know that; consciousness can't be empirically verified (nor falsified). But given that my state of consciousness is affected when I perform actions which affect my central nervous system, I would say there is evidence that a central nervous system is prerequisite to consciousness.

And for catholics even if youre married you cant get an abortion.

What has that to do with original sin?

original sin is sex outside of marriage according to Catholic doctrine, intra marital sex wouldn't be sinful so if you conceived a child through intra marital sex and aborted it Catholics couldn't use the argument of original sin against you intramarital sex

Lomax

[Lomax]

Hello AnarchyIsBliss,

Regardless of what dictionary.com says about a creature, a dictionary definition is not always the true definition of a word it merely scratches the surface

Well, you said I couldn't disprove that a cell is a creature. If the weight of proof lies merely with definitional retreat, then I do not see how this relates to the question of morality.

I did share the proof in regards to the observer which would be the soul

No; rather, you shared conjecture.

the observer is the soul which develops as the body does the observer is created at the same time as the subconscious mind, and i don't see the relevance of your second question

Well, you said that the observer makes the consciousness, and this is your "proof" of an observer. I am saying that the observer cannot precede the consciousness, and thus, it is no proof at all.

original sin is sex outside of marriage according to Catholic doctrine, intra marital sex wouldn't be sinful so if you conceived a child through intra marital sex and aborted it Catholics couldn't use the argument of original sin against you intramarital sex

No, "original sin" is the sin inherited by man from Adam and Eve, due to their corruption by Satan, according to the Catholic doctrine. The idea is that each person is born with sin, and thus, must spend their life atoning for it, or they will go to hell. The Catholic objection to abortion is that the feotus would go to hell without a chance to atone. And of course, there's the matter of the doctor going to hell.

I'm not Catholic, but I just thought I would explain their point of view, since you asked.

Lomax

[anarchyisbliss]

thanks for clarifying on the Catholic Doctrine I am also not a Catholic so I was just using hearsay. You did not refute my argument on the definition because the definition you gave was very rudimentary. Creature comes from the Latin root "crea" meaning create or build stipulativley speaking creature is a general umbrella term for all "things" on this planet So when I say creatures I just mean the Earth's inhabitants;its just much more eloquent than saying the word "things". And my concept of an observer is not a conjecture it is as much of a fact as the concept of Ego, subconscious, or any other psychological attribute that cant be explicitly "proven" it just appears that we have a skeptic in our midst. My concept of observer is my proof of soul, i.e; the observer is the soul they are synonymous. Neither the observer proceeds consciousness nor vice a versa they occur at the same time. Consciousness makes the observer while the observer makes conciseness. They evolve parallel to each other. And where is your"proof" that the observer cannot come before the conscious mind? not to be aggressive just wondering.