Is abortion wrong?

[Sculptor1]

Is abortion wrong? Is it okay? Why?

God aborts more foetuses than are aborted by humans.
Is He wrong?

[Sculptor1]

If a woman chooses to kill her foetus she has the right to do so a) because the foetus is part of her body...

No. The foetus's body is connected to her body and contained within her body; it is not part of her body, any more than you are part of a hospital bed when you are on an intravenous drip.

A foetus has no legal standing.
And is not under your control, nor under the control of anyone else but the woman.

[LuckyR]

I think Mounce's attitude is a recipe for destroying the lives of teenage girls.

If a teenage girl is forced to give birth, then the boy who made her pregnant must be traced via DNA and be forced to pay full alimony for 18 years.

Any failure to pay must result in prison. If he cannot pay, then his family must pay. If they cannot pay, then any assets they have will be claimed until the full amount is paid in a timely fashion.

Fair's fair.

Or ... she can be allowed to abort the embryo or foetus.

Well, the arguments you cite are standard antiabortion fodder. Nothing new here.

Of course, you can point out the reality that no birth control is 100% effective, which, of course makes the second sentance invalid.

It's only logical. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I don't understand your comment about the second sentence. How does birth control ineffectiveness change the situation of "If a teenage girl is forced to give birth, then the boy who made her pregnant must be traced via DNA and be forced to pay full alimony for 18 years".

If the lad's family doesn't don't pay alimony then the girl not only loses career opportunities but has to pay for it all too. If the law is to be cruel, it should at least apportion its cruelty fairly.

Sorry for being difficult to understand. You were referring to Mounce's post, so I meant Mounce's second sentance about abortion being caused by not using birth control (since plenty of folks get pregnant while using BC).

[Belindi]

If a woman chooses to kill her foetus she has the right to do so a) because the foetus is part of her body...

No. The foetus's body is connected to her body and contained within her body; it is not part of her body, any more than you are part of a hospital bed when you are on an intravenous drip.

Not only the foetus but also the young baby also is part of the mother's body in a very real sense. Unlike the physical-emotional bond between mother and baby and between baby and his mother , the hospital drip is impersonal and readily transferable from one person to another.

Elective abortions are not done capriciously or without suffering and pain. Nobody likes abortions. Sometimes an elective abortion is the lesser evil.

[LuckyR]

If a woman chooses to kill her foetus she has the right to do so a) because the foetus is part of her body...

No. The foetus's body is connected to her body and contained within her body; it is not part of her body, any more than you are part of a hospital bed when you are on an intravenous drip.

Not only the foetus but also the young baby also is part of the mother's body in a very real sense. Unlike the physical-emotional bond between mother and baby and between baby and his mother , the hospital drip is impersonal and readily transferable from one person to another.

Elective abortions are not done capriciously or without suffering and pain. Nobody likes abortions. Sometimes an elective abortion is the lesser evil.

Exactly. That's why the title and the premise of this thread is erroneously incomplete, since abortion as an issue is one of relative or comparative concerns. Thus it's "wrongness" should be measured relatively not absolutely.

[Sy Borg]

I think Mounce's attitude is a recipe for destroying the lives of teenage girls.

If a teenage girl is forced to give birth, then the boy who made her pregnant must be traced via DNA and be forced to pay full alimony for 18 years.

Any failure to pay must result in prison. If he cannot pay, then his family must pay. If they cannot pay, then any assets they have will be claimed until the full amount is paid in a timely fashion.

Fair's fair.

Or ... she can be allowed to abort the embryo or foetus.

Well, the arguments you cite are standard antiabortion fodder. Nothing new here.

Of course, you can point out the reality that no birth control is 100% effective, which, of course makes the second sentance invalid.

It's only logical. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I don't understand your comment about the second sentence. How does birth control ineffectiveness change the situation of "If a teenage girl is forced to give birth, then the boy who made her pregnant must be traced via DNA and be forced to pay full alimony for 18 years".

If the lad's family doesn't don't pay alimony then the girl not only loses career opportunities but has to pay for it all too. If the law is to be cruel, it should at least apportion its cruelty fairly.

Sorry for being difficult to understand. You were referring to Mounce's post, so I meant Mounce's second sentance about abortion being caused by not using birth control (since plenty of folks get pregnant while using BC).

Cheers. Now I see.

I don't seek punishment for lack of birth control, I seek for the teen boy and girl to receive the same "sentence", given that they committed the same "crime". If a young person's life is to be dashed on the rocks of theistic ideology, then both the girl's and boy's lives should be wrecked as equally as possible.

[EricPH]

My feelings are that we should promote what we stand for, rather than what we are against. A loving marriage for life between one man and one woman.

In the UK, when a child gets to fifteen, about half of them are not with both their biological parents. Blood ties with grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts become weaker. Weaker family units make for weaker community cohesion. Sadly, I come across a lot of youngsters sofa surfing, they say no one cares about them.

[LuckyR]

Well, the arguments you cite are standard antiabortion fodder. Nothing new here.

Of course, you can point out the reality that no birth control is 100% effective, which, of course makes the second sentance invalid.

It's only logical. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I don't understand your comment about the second sentence. How does birth control ineffectiveness change the situation of "If a teenage girl is forced to give birth, then the boy who made her pregnant must be traced via DNA and be forced to pay full alimony for 18 years".

If the lad's family doesn't don't pay alimony then the girl not only loses career opportunities but has to pay for it all too. If the law is to be cruel, it should at least apportion its cruelty fairly.

Sorry for being difficult to understand. You were referring to Mounce's post, so I meant Mounce's second sentance about abortion being caused by not using birth control (since plenty of folks get pregnant while using BC).

Cheers. Now I see.

I don't seek punishment for lack of birth control, I seek for the teen boy and girl to receive the same "sentence", given that they committed the same "crime". If a young person's life is to be dashed on the rocks of theistic ideology, then both the girl's and boy's lives should be wrecked as equally as possible.

I understand your sentiment, but I will be concentrating on telemedicine and pharmacology.

[CIN]

If a woman chooses to kill her foetus she has the right to do so a) because the foetus is part of her body...

No. The foetus's body is connected to her body and contained within her body; it is not part of her body, any more than you are part of a hospital bed when you are on an intravenous drip.

A foetus has no legal standing.

It has moral standing as soon as it develops sentience.

And is not under your control, nor under the control of anyone else but the woman.

Which is why I am pro-choice as far as the law is concerned. But it may still be morally wrong for the woman to abort her foetus, even though (IMO) the law should not interfere.

[CIN]

If a woman chooses to kill her foetus she has the right to do so a) because the foetus is part of her body...

No. The foetus's body is connected to her body and contained within her body; it is not part of her body, any more than you are part of a hospital bed when you are on an intravenous drip.

Not only the foetus but also the young baby also is part of the mother's body in a very real sense.

'Part of the mother's body in a very real sense'? What sense would that be? Please explain yourself.

Unlike the physical-emotional bond between mother and baby and between baby and his mother , the hospital drip is impersonal and readily transferable from one person to another.

Of course. But the existence of a physical-emotional bond does not make the baby part of the mother, it just means that they are closely connected, as I said.

Elective abortions are not done capriciously or without suffering and pain. Nobody likes abortions. Sometimes an elective abortion is the lesser evil.

Agreed. I am not arguing that abortion should be illegal. I am not even arguing that it is always immoral (though I think sometimes it may be). I am merely pointing out that one of your supposed reasons for permitting abortion doesn't work.

Perhaps, so that we don't talk at cross-purposes, I should make my moral position clear.

A foetus is a biological entity distinct from its mother. Before it becomes sentient, it has no moral standing. As soon as it becomes sentient, it has moral standing just like any other sentient being, so that its interests should be considered alongside those of other sentient beings.

The rightness or wrongness of aborting a foetus is, in principle, to be determined in the same way as the rightness or wrongness of any action: by its expected consequences. Suppose you knew that a foetus would grow up to be another Hitler; then the right thing to do would be to abort it. Then suppose that you knew that a foetus would grow up to make the world a much happier place; then aborting it would be wrong.
In practice we can't make these calculations, so we have to rely on moral rules of thumb. A good rule of thumb would be that a foetus should not be aborted if it is expected that it will grow up healthy and happy and will not lessen the happiness of people around it. The mother might know this about her foetus, and yet still decide to abort it. In my view she would be morally wrong to do that, but I don't think the law should interfere with her decision, because, as you point out, legalised abortions tend to prevent the greater evil of illegal and unsafe abortions.

[Mounce574]

I think Mounce's attitude is a recipe for destroying the lives of teenage girls.

If a teenage girl is forced to give birth, then the boy who made her pregnant must be traced via DNA and be forced to pay full alimony for 18 years.

Any failure to pay must result in prison. If he cannot pay, then his family must pay. If they cannot pay, then any assets they have will be claimed until the full amount is paid in a timely fashion.

Fair's fair.

Or ... she can be allowed to abort the embryo or foetus.

I've served time in jail for being $750 behind on child support for an 18-year-old child. My bank account was seized, and I lost my home, job, and everything I owned. The jail time is counterproductive. I think that both sets of parents should be more proactive and not allow "children" to engage in premarital sex.

[Sculptor1]

If a woman chooses to kill her foetus she has the right to do so a) because the foetus is part of her body...

No. The foetus's body is connected to her body and contained within her body; it is not part of her body, any more than you are part of a hospital bed when you are on an intravenous drip.

A foetus has no legal standing.

It has moral standing as soon as it develops sentience.

No. Does a tapeworm have moral standing?
It has sentience.

And is not under your control, nor under the control of anyone else but the woman.

Which is why I am pro-choice as far as the law is concerned. But it may still be morally wrong for the woman to abort her foetus, even though (IMO) the law should not interfere.

Who made you the moral leader over other people?

[Sy Borg]

I think Mounce's attitude is a recipe for destroying the lives of teenage girls.

If a teenage girl is forced to give birth, then the boy who made her pregnant must be traced via DNA and be forced to pay full alimony for 18 years.

Any failure to pay must result in prison. If he cannot pay, then his family must pay. If they cannot pay, then any assets they have will be claimed until the full amount is paid in a timely fashion.

Fair's fair.

Or ... she can be allowed to abort the embryo or foetus.

I've served time in jail for being $750 behind on child support for an 18-year-old child. My bank account was seized, and I lost my home, job, and everything I owned. The jail time is counterproductive. I think that both sets of parents should be more proactive and not allow "children" to engage in premarital sex.

It's a lousy solution. A better one IMO would be sensible sex education and abortion rights.

[Belindi]

My feelings are that we should promote what we stand for, rather than what we are against. A loving marriage for life between one man and one woman.

In the UK, when a child gets to fifteen, about half of them are not with both their biological parents. Blood ties with grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts become weaker. Weaker family units make for weaker community cohesion. Sadly, I come across a lot of youngsters sofa surfing, they say no one cares about them.

I agree Eric. It's best for a child to be reared in a loving family, at least a nuclear family of mother father and children. Still better is an extended family with more distant relations in it and relations who care for the old , the ill and the dying.
Better and better the neighbourhood where all the people around support each other, and keep to a set of family rules governing reciprocal good behaviour within and outside the family. but the nuclear family is the biological and best sociological basis for all the rest.

This is a picture of what a family could be like long ago when people were born and lived their lives in the same small town, village, or community. Big modern cities, where most people now live all their lives, usually are divisive of families and communities. There are exceptions for instance where long -standing working class communities can be emotionally bonded by their hard work in the same or related heavy industries. Nomads like the Roma are emotionally bonded by their sense of community.

The family is in danger because of these and other social circumstances. This is why religion remains a valuable means of helping families and communities to be strong.

The sort of Christianity that is taught today is not fit for helping independently minded young people and their parents to live together. The Bible is too often idolised. Miracles are still preached. Punishments and politics have invaded the rituals. Lastly, well-meaning people try to teach the word of God is if it were science or philosophy which it is not.

With reference to the title of this thread, modern Xianity with its idolatry of The Bible, belief in miracles, wonky mythology, and insistence on sins that are no longer sins, is too weak a prop, and needs to be brought up to date.

[CIN]

No. The foetus's body is connected to her body and contained within her body; it is not part of her body, any more than you are part of a hospital bed when you are on an intravenous drip.

A foetus has no legal standing.

It has moral standing as soon as it develops sentience.

No. Does a tapeworm have moral standing?
It has sentience.

The Cambridge dictionary defines sentience as 'the quality of being able to experience feelings'. Does a tapeworm have that? Obviously tapeworms can physically respond to certain stimuli, but that doesn't prove that they have feelings.

The particular feelings that matter here, IMO, are pleasant and unpleasant ones. If a being can experience things as pleasant or unpleasant, then it matters to it how it is treated, and therefore, morally, it ought to matter to us how we treat it. If it can't, it doesn't, and it shouldn't.

I have no idea whether a tapeworm passes that test. Maybe you know more about tapeworms than I do. If so, please tell.

And is not under your control, nor under the control of anyone else but the woman.

Which is why I am pro-choice as far as the law is concerned. But it may still be morally wrong for the woman to abort her foetus, even though (IMO) the law should not interfere.

Who made you the moral leader over other people?

I don't claim to be a moral leader. I do claim that, other things being equal, it's morally wrong to terminate a happy life. Do you have a problem with that?