Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because I have not said that all homicides should be illegal. And of course they are not. It is possible that the reasons to commit the homicide outweigh the reasons not to. Both from a legal and moral point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should elaborate on this. From my experience, debating abortion with men or women often ends with the argument being reduced to this point.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are a couple of points here, one trivial and one non-trivial.

The trivial point: Of course not all homicide is illegal. For example, killing in self-defense is not illegal. Also, when the state carries out a death sentence, that's not illegal. Killing opposing soldiers in a war is not illegal.

The non-trivial point: Many people argue that (1) killing humans is wrong, (2) fetuses are human, (3) therefore killing fetuses is wrong. But the first premise seems to be taken for granted more often than it is supported by argument. It is obvious that killing teenagers is wrong. But the argument that killing a fetus is just as wrong as killing a teenager because they're both human is logically invalid. A person may as well argue that killing a mouse is just as wrong as killing a human teen because they are both mammals.

So rather than taking it for granted that killing innocent humans (including fetuses) is always wrong, I'd like to see an argument for why killing an unwanted fetus is more wrong than killing an unwanted mouse or an unwanted pair of human sex cells (sperm and egg).

Don't misunderstand me. I think it is more wrong to kill a human fetus. But I think we make progress by forcing ourselves to rationally justify that belief instead of just taking it for granted.

Re: My Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
This statement[ QUOTE ]
I don't expect any replies because there will be nothing to argue about when I'm done.

[/ QUOTE ]is clearly wrong. I take issue with this claim:[ QUOTE ]
First of all as to whether abortion is "wrong". Well of course it is. And everybody knows it. The only reason it is not always stated explicitly is because when people argue they often hate to concede even obvious points. But when you stop and think about it you realize that absolutely everybody feels bad about an abortion. Those who argue it should be legal, do to. They simply feel that the arguments for making abortions legal override any other arguments for making it illegal. They realize that at least some of the opposing arguments have merit even if they don't say it.

[/ QUOTE ]I argue that abortion is not "wrong." In fact I don't even think this should be up for debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also agree that abortion is not "wrong", but only because I don't think anything is "wrong" or "right".

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
The non-trivial point: Many people argue that (1) killing humans is wrong, (2) fetuses are human, (3) therefore killing fetuses is wrong. But the first premise seems to be taken for granted more often than it is supported by argument. It is obvious that killing teenagers is wrong. But the argument that killing a fetus is just as wrong as killing a teenager because they're both human is logically invalid. A person may as well argue that killing a mouse is just as wrong as killing a human teen because they are both mammals.

So rather than taking it for granted that killing innocent humans (including fetuses) is always wrong, I'd like to see an argument for why killing an unwanted fetus is more wrong than killing an unwanted mouse or an unwanted pair of human sex cells (sperm and egg).

Don't misunderstand me. I think it is more wrong to kill a human fetus. But I think we make progress by forcing ourselves to rationally justify that belief instead of just taking it for granted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't argue (1). And I don't think it's obvious that killing teenagers is wrong. So I would also like to "see an argument for why killing an unwanted fetus is more wrong than killing an unwanted mouse or an unwanted pair of human sex cells (sperm and egg)."

Re: Abortion
 

Just because I expect no one else to ask, what about
the case where either society, the lawmakers, or the
specific pregnant woman does not believe that there
is a 'soul' injected into the body?

It does not neccesarily make it more or less right
to terminate prior to birth, but it clearly affects
many people's arguments. In some cases, their entire
arguments.

Re: Abortion
 

A soul by definition is really what we think of as "life". Perhaps animation is a better word. People tend to confuse the notion of soul with some sort of magical smoky thing zapped into us.

A rational being (a person) is deemed to have an immortal soul because it is capable of immaterial understanding. Irrational beings, such as animals, have mortal souls.

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Plus we have another factor that is rarely mentioned. Namely whether it is somewhat less bad to kill a human that does not "know" it exists (or does not yet know) than to kill one that does. If that is the case than you could argue that the legitimate reasons TO kill a non cognizant person did not have to be quite as strong as they would be if you were killing a cognizant person.


[/ QUOTE ]

For the record I'm pro-choice. A large reason why is exactly what is stated above. I cant feel all that sorry for a being that isnt even able to consciously exist yet. I also belive that women should have the right to choose to do as they will with their bodies. As men we will never be faced with the dilemma of having to give birth. I wonder how many pro-life men would change their stances if they were placed in the shoes of a knocked up college freshman? If you were raped would you really have the rapist's child? If you were dead broke, the father of the child said if you had it he wanted nothing to do with you, you had no family or support to rely on, would you never think of abortion as an option? I think as men we forget that we have the easy route when it comes to this issue.

Mike Emery

Re: Abortion
 

Sklansky has made the very important moral distinction of murder and killing. I don't think we should use the word homicide simply because it clouds the matter (legal killing is not necessarily morally right).

Anyway, we can conclude that the dying party in a murder has absolutely no choice or blame in the matter, and yet they are still killed. While in a morally justified killing, the dead party is culpably in circumstances that warrant it.

Therefore, the only illogical people in the abortion debate are "Pro-lifers" who think that abortion is justified in certain cases of rape and incest etc. and those "pro-choicers" who hypocritically do not attempt to justify all cases of murder regardless of circumstance. People with the above mindset are making irrational arguments based on emotion and not on reason.

Thus, the only logical conclusions are that all murder of innocent life is morally evil (the position of the Catholic Church) or that all murder is justified so long as the murderer is fulfilling a desire. The latter thinking is chaotic and incapable of practice in a civilized society, therefore, abortion in all circumstances is wrong.

Re: Abortion
 

My father used to tell us that he believed in abortion until 18 years old.

Re: Abortion
 

Hi Bluffthis,

You make some very interesting points. But I would like to point out that the Catholic Church has never taught that the death penalty is wrong, or that life begins at the very moment of conception.

In fact, the Church has always advocated the death penalty to protect the common good when a state deems that this is fit. Only some heretical modernists have been toying with this point of moral theology.

Also, there is no Catholic doctrinal teaching I am aware of telling us the exact moment of new human life. The soul is there when there is "life". If the science tells us that animation takes place when the sperm enters the egg, than that's where life begins. If it happens a few days after or something, that is when it happens. Regardless, it probably does begin at the moment of conception or shortly after as Sklansky was mentioning in his post.

Re: Abortion
 

That's a well laid-out post.

Since I'm not convinced that a "soul" even exists, I'll just mention that I think AN important dividing line is when the fetus begins to have brain activity (I don't know at what stage of development that might be, or if it is externally measurable while the fetus is in the womb).