Abortion is not Immoral

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
[SIZE=+2]From a recent presentation at UBC
[/SIZE]

Is Abortion Immoral?

Given the facts as we can at present prove them to be, there is no good reason to regard abortion as immoral. To demonstrate this we must first explain what it means for something to be moral or immoral, and also what abortion is.

The foundation of every moral system is the combination of values with facts. To disagree on a point of morality can thus be a dispute about the facts (such as the circumstances and consequences of an action), or a dispute about values, or both. If a disagreement hinges on facts, one case or the other is vindicated when both sides honestly investigate and acknowledge the facts that can be known. If a disagreement hinges on values, inquiry must be made as to why each holds the values they do. Values are either the conclusions derived from certain facts in combination with certain other values, or else they are fundamental. Disputes over values that are the conclusions derived from certain facts in combination with certain other values are resolved as for all other moral disagreements--by investigating the facts more carefully.


Disputes over fundamental values, however, are irreconcilable.


Both sides must agree to disagree, or develop a mutually agreeable compromise. It is even possible, within certain limits, to respect the individual moral sentiments of others even when we do not adopt those principles ourselves. But disputes that appear irreconcilable are not necessarily about fundamental values. They may simply result from either side failing to understand the reasons for either position, or from the inability to establish certain facts as true or false. Such cases must be resolved by first tolerating eachother or working out a compromise, while continuing to logically analyze the dispute and to investigate the facts. In law, this principle is manifest as moratoria, temporary injunctions, and holding suspects in custody (with or without allowance of bail), all of which being necessarily temporary solutions pending investigation, trial or judicial consideration. These observations must be kept in mind throughout this debate.
Those who argue that abortion is wrong generally base their argument on respect for individual human existence. Usually, this value, or something similar, is rightly assumed to be universally shared, and then the dispute arises only on matters of fact. I will continue this assumption. There are those, we can imagine, who not only have no value for respecting individual human existence, but also could not even in principle be persuaded to adopt such a value (e.g. by appealing to some other values they did possess which would be fulfilled by adopting a value for human life). But such people would not be persuadable on any point of morality anyway, rendering this debate of no use or interest to such a creature. We are thus speaking to, and for, everyone else.
Given the above, the required set of circumstances for abortion to be immoral are any which violate respect for individual human existence. The question here is thus not whether the value for individual human existence is justified (this will be assumed for this debate), but whether any circumstances of abortion contradict the object of that value. This is therefore a dispute about the facts, not values. Moreover, there are in almost all moral systems cases when killing is not immoral, and some when it is even moral. Self defense (or the defense of others) is the most prominent and relevant example here. But I imagine there will be no secular dispute in actual matters of self defense. In other words, I will assume for now that everyone agrees that abortion neither is immoral, nor should be illegal, when necessary to save the mother's life. This leaves only one issue for debate: whether elective abortion is immoral.

 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Just ask any Muslim man who just killed his wife/mother/daughter/daughter-in-law/niece etc., in the name of "honour".

He will tell you that murder is not immoral.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
The argument is flawed because morality is a personal viewpoint regarding code of conduct not universal. Therefore what is and isn't moral is also a personal viewpoint.

Scientifically, human life begins at conception. Abortion in the context of this discussion is about taking a human life. Everyone has their own opinion. I can think of at least three categories of thought.

1) Some people view taking human life as an absolute. (They oppose abortion and capital punishment)

2) Other's see taking innocent human life as an absolute. (They oppose abortion but support capital punishment)

3) Others oppose taking cognizant human life. (They support abortion to a point, but oppose capital punishment).

Pick your morality... I'm a number 3
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
The argument is flawed because morality is a personal viewpoint regarding code of conduct not universal. Therefore what is and isn't moral is also a personal viewpoint.

Scientifically, human life begins at conception. Abortion in the context of this discussion is about taking a human life. Everyone has their own opinion. I can think of at least three categories of thought.

1) Some people view taking human life as an absolute. (They oppose abortion and capital punishment)

2) Other's see taking innocent human life as an absolute. (They oppose abortion but support capital punishment)

3) Others oppose taking cognizant human life. (They support abortion to a point, but oppose capital punishment).

Pick your morality... I'm a number 3

I guess I'm a 2 with an exception or two.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
The argument is flawed because morality is a personal viewpoint regarding code of conduct not universal. Therefore what is and isn't moral is also a personal viewpoint.

Scientifically, human life begins at conception. Abortion in the context of this discussion is about taking a human life. Everyone has their own opinion. I can think of at least three categories of thought.

1) Some people view taking human life as an absolute. (They oppose abortion and capital punishment)

2) Other's see taking innocent human life as an absolute. (They oppose abortion but support capital punishment)

3) Others oppose taking cognizant human life. (They support abortion to a point, but oppose capital punishment).

Pick your morality... I'm a number 3

Other's see taking innocent human life as an absolute. (They oppose abortion but support capital punishment)

...and those seem to be the majority in the pro-life camp. Hypocrites unite!!!!
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Other's see taking innocent human life as an absolute. (They oppose abortion but support capital punishment)

...and those seem to be the majority in the pro-life camp. Hypocrites unite!!!!

How does capital punishment equate with "innocent human life", unless someone in the systems screws up? You can't base philosophy on human errors?
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
How does capital punishment equate with "innocent human life", unless someone in the systems screws up? You can't base philosophy on human errors?

Life is life. How do you judge who lives and who dies? What is the basis of that judgement?

Is it a moral decision - nope. Ethical - no, again
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Life is life. How do you judge who lives and who dies? What is the basis of that judgement?

Is it a moral decision - nope. Ethical - no, again

Guess that's up to the head honchos in the legal and justice system. The Bible (in places sanctions taking human life). If your granddaughter was taken by some pervert, would you want to keep him alive? Probably not everyone is in a position to make that judgment and I certain am not, except I can try to put myself mentally into other people's shoes. Is it moral or ethical to keep a person around who may take other innocent lives if kept alive. I DON'T THINK SO.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
Guess that's up to the head honchos in the legal and justice system. The Bible (in places sanctions taking human life). If your granddaughter was taken by some pervert, would you want to keep him alive? Probably not everyone is in a position to make that judgment and I certain am not, except I can try to put myself mentally into other people's shoes. Is it moral or ethical to keep a person around who may take other innocent lives if kept alive. I DON'T THINK SO.

Is it moral or ethical to keep a person around who may take other innocent lives if kept alive. I DON'T THINK SO.

That's why we have prisons

I guess your ok with people going to the "chair" for drunk driving causing death

...and how do you rationalize that with abortion being so heinious.

You can't.

So ultimately. You must be pro abortion and pro capital punishment

Life is not something you get to "cherry pick" according to your value system. Who knows. Your value system could be totally "whacked"
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I've noticed that 2's and 3's both tend to respect a 1's morality, but lack respect for the other's morality. That's why this topic is a hot button.

Logically a fourth category exists, but I've seldom see it. They support abortion and capital punishment.

I support abortion as a free choice in the first trimester, a judgement call in the second trimester and a crime in the third trimester. When a baby has reached the stage of development where it could survive without extreme intervention, its murder.

But that's just my personal morality.

1's and 2's can't stop 3's and 4's from having abortions. Moral 3's and 4's will go underground or leave the country to do what they believe is their free and moral choice. That's the reality.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Guess that's up to the head honchos in the legal and justice system. The Bible (in places sanctions taking human life). If your granddaughter was taken by some pervert, would you want to keep him alive? Probably not everyone is in a position to make that judgment and I certain am not, except I can try to put myself mentally into other people's shoes. Is it moral or ethical to keep a person around who may take other innocent lives if kept alive. I DON'T THINK SO.

Life in prison accomplishes the same thing while preserving the sanctity of human life.

Our criminal justice system is fallible. Look how many convicted murderers have been proven innocent in recent years as a result of advances in genetic testing. How about all the people serving time as a result of the Ontario criminal pathologist who was a screw up...

Allowing executions will always mean executing a number of innocent along with the guilty.
 

A4NoOb

Nominee Member
Feb 27, 2009
83
3
8
How does this speech conclude that abortion is not immoral? It just opened pandora's box about elective abortion without making any case about it. Putting the title as "Abortion is not Immoral" is erroneous when it just leaves people on a limbo about elective abortion. Elective abortion takes up 98% of the gross 1 million humans killed every year in America.

But in a way I would even agree with the title. Abortion is not immoral, it is criminal. Defining criminality is a non issue when the American Constitution (for the sake of this argument there is no other Constitution so devoted to human values) highlights the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" of every American person. Morality in terms of criminality are two completely separate entities where one's morality is subjugated purely on one's own personal inclination and criminality is derived from facts. Ergo, what distinguishes a criminal act from an immoral act is that it violates the Constitutional rights of citizens. To intentionally violate one's freedom to live is a criminal act.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
How does this speech conclude that abortion is not immoral? It just opened pandora's box about elective abortion without making any case about it. Putting the title as "Abortion is not Immoral" is erroneous when it just leaves people on a limbo about elective abortion. Elective abortion takes up 98% of the gross 1 million humans killed every year in America.

But in a way I would even agree with the title. Abortion is not immoral, it is criminal. Defining criminality is a non issue when the American Constitution (for the sake of this argument there is no other Constitution so devoted to human values) highlights the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" of every American person. Morality in terms of criminality are two completely separate entities where one's morality is subjugated purely on one's own personal inclination and criminality is derived from facts. Ergo, what distinguishes a criminal act from an immoral act is that it violates the Constitutional rights of citizens. To intentionally violate one's freedom to live is a criminal act.

But in a way I would even agree with the title. Abortion is not immoral, it is criminal. Defining criminality is a non issue when the American Constitution (for the sake of this argument there is no other Constitution so devoted to human values) highlights the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" of every American person. Morality in terms of criminality are two completely separate entities where one's morality is subjugated purely on one's own personal inclination and criminality is derived from facts. Ergo, what distinguishes a criminal act from an immoral act is that it violates the Constitutional rights of citizens. To intentionally violate one's freedom to live is a criminal act.

and somehow in the above convoluted logic, abortion is "immoral?"

If the current laws in Canada are to be followed life begins at birth, subsequently your statement To intentionally violate one's freedom to live is a criminal act is moot

A fetus is not alive
 

A4NoOb

Nominee Member
Feb 27, 2009
83
3
8
and somehow in the above convoluted logic, abortion is "immoral?"

Did you read what I said? Abortion is not a moral issue, it is a criminal act.

If the current laws in Canada are to be followed life begins at birth, subsequently your statement To intentionally violate one's freedom to live is a criminal act is moot

A fetus is not alive
Have you ever seen the birth of a human baby? What is the difference between the infant after the umbilical cord is cut and 2 minutes earlier when it resides in the woman's womb? Let me suggest that there is no difference. But of course, you wouldn't hesitate to quote liberal laws imposed by Pierre Trudeau's Constitution. Luckily for Pierre Trudeau, he had the extremely liberal Red Tory, Joe Clark to put up no effort to challenge Trudeau's joke of a Constitution.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Is it moral or ethical to keep a person around who may take other innocent lives if kept alive. I DON'T THINK SO.

That's why we have prisons

I guess your ok with people going to the "chair" for drunk driving causing death

...and how do you rationalize that with abortion being so heinious.

You can't.

So ultimately. You must be pro abortion and pro capital punishment

Life is not something you get to "cherry pick" according to your value system. Who knows. Your value system could be totally "whacked"

You are posing easy questions today, Tyr. Being in prison does not guarantee the guy is not going to reoffend. Many prisoners have been murdered by inmates. Many inmates have escaped from prison to commit more murders, many inmates (with "life" sentences) have been released on some form of parole to commit further murders. Victims of abortion get terminated without having a say and victims of abortion have committed no crimes, so there is no comparison between fetuses and convicted criminals. As for the Bible it sets out moral codes that many in the world subscribe to.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Did you read what I said? Abortion is not a moral issue, it is a criminal act.

Have you ever seen the birth of a human baby? What is the difference between the infant after the umbilical cord is cut and 2 minutes earlier when it resides in the woman's womb? Let me suggest that there is no difference. But of course, you wouldn't hesitate to quote liberal laws imposed by Pierre Trudeau's Constitution. Luckily for Pierre Trudeau, he had the extremely liberal Red Tory, Joe Clark to put up no effort to challenge Trudeau's joke of a Constitution.

Absolutely, anyone who thinks a baby is not alive prior to birth is fooling themselves. Ask any ethical doctor.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,893
11,179
113
Low Earth Orbit
You cannot use the Bible to prop up antiabortionism. If god was real and really wrote the 10 Commandments then there would be 12 which would included rape and child diddling. Since it was okay to rape and sell your kids into slavery at the time it is all the proof needed to see that god had no hand in these alleged commandments.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
"Allowing executions will always mean executing a number of innocent along with the guilty."- AND forbidding execution of guilty murderers will ensure that innocent lives will be taken.