:BRAVO: Well said, adajos! All of your posts in that thread have been superb. :first:Originally posted by adajos
firechyld:
Well, I can think of other factors that might influence a woman to have an abortion besides those. But I cannot conceive of a decision for abortion, except perhaps when the mother's life is in danger, in which selfishness or ignorance is not a primary factor.
I can.
Care to give some examples?
Nor can I think of any decision to have an abortion, with the possible exception I just mentioned, that is not wrong. The consistency problems between the moral rights of newborns vs fetuses alone should be sufficient to show that, as I've already pointed out.
Unfortunately, this is an issue that simply cannot be seperated from personal opinion: no matter how objective one tries to make one's points, it all comes down to whether you believe abortion is right or wrong. And that's something that is very rarely evaluated on factual data, regardless of which side you're on.
I disagree, you can separate this issue from personal opinion on the morality of abortion. You didn't really address my point. You don't have to presuppose the moral wrongness of abortion in order to logically arrive at the conclusion that it is wrong, for the reasons I have already discussed with you.
Here's a quick summary to show my point (note, this discussion is loosely based on our conversation up till now---however I'm putting it in my own words to prove a point, and thus nothing below is something that firechyld has necessarily said or conceded):
adajos: It's wrong to kill an infant.
firechyld: I agree.
adajos: But you think abortion is morally ok and rightfully legal.
firechyld: Yes.
adajos: What's the difference between a fetus and a newborn that makes for the moral distinction between abortion and infanticide?
firechyld: Well, before birth only the mother can take care of the child.
adajos: What does it matter---after birth whoever is entrusted with the child must morally and legally care for it? Why should that moral obligation only start after the child comes out of the womb? The nature of the child itself doesn't change immediately after birth.
firechyld: Well, fetuses are not independent nor are they fully developed.
adajos: Newborns are not independent nor are they fully developed. The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is physical location.
firechyld: I guess so.
adajos: So how does the physical location of a being that has the same nature affect the morality of destroying it.?
firechyld: (Having internal monologue) Hmmmm....well, I can't seem to think of any reason why location should matter. At this point I have 3 choices:
- I can live with the inconsistency of my moral beliefs, or
- I can change my opinion about the moral evil of infanticide, or
- I can change my opinion about the moral acceptibility of abortion
firechyld: I don't really want to discuss the morality of abortion.
That's just a skeleton example that I stripped down so you could understand the flow of the argument that makes my point. Please forgive me if you feel I have put words in your mouth, but I tried to fairly represent our discussion. I'm sure you'll let me know if I erred.
The only place where you can escape your moral inconsistency is if you can provide a difference between a fetus and a newborn that creates some moral distinction in how they can be treated. Thus far, I don't believe you have provided such a difference, and are thus left with the dilemma of inconsistent beliefs.
Pretty much, yeah. I'm not trying to lead up to some greater point... I'm just pointing out that "Any woman who has an abortion doesn't care about the baby" is a fallacy.
I agree. But the statement "Any woman who has an abortion doesn't care enough about the baby" is true. And I'll throw in my usual exception, namely, except to save the mother's life.
So if you agree with my above point, again, I have to ask "so what?" regarding the mothers' feelings towards her aborted fetus. Feelings don't change the morality of an action.
I disagree. Much of morality is based around feelings. One only needs to look at the impact social politics makes on how people feel about particular sins... and that's only within Christianity.
So then the slavery of Africans in America was morally ok because people at the time felt that it was ok?
It's a broad category. Here's an example:
Do you remember the recent news story about the little girl who had the partially formed conjoined twin attached to her head? There was much media coverage about the operation to remove the twin.
Technically, that twin was a living individual. It was post-birth. None of the pro-lifers on this board voiced an objection to the "murder" of the twin for the sake of the fully-formed girl.
If that girl had grown to, say, age 12, and fallen pregnant, do you think people around here would have been as accepting if her parents elected to terminate the pregnancy for the girl's wellbeing?
Not the best example, true, but the first one that jumps to mind.
See, that sort of thing is similar to the "except when the mother's life is in danger" clause of my moral beliefs about abortion.
I think that the moral value of preserving as much innocent life as possible allows for the taking of one life to save another in horrible situations where if no action is taken, both will die.
Bush's Abortion Ban Bounced, post #152
