Should Abortion be Allowed?

[Adam Caramon]

It jives with many religions, but is not based on religion. It is based on reason. If someone came up to me and said according to their interpretation of the natural law, they are justified in killing whomever they want for whatever reason they want, they are wrong. Not because I think they are, but because according to what is perceptible through our reason. This natural law is not something human beings created, it is something we understand based on nature.

Natural law, like undefined unalienable rights, are incredibly tenuous. No one is going to be put in prison for violating natural law unless there is also a corresponding actual law.

For centuries, women have relied on various types of contraceptives to prevent brithing a child. Some were teas, some were eating plants, etc. What you're suggesting is that the morning after pill is a murder weapon. That a woman that drinks a cup of a certain type of tea after a mating is committing murder.

That's beyond ridiculous. I understand people's disgust towards late-term abortions, and I understand how people feel when women use abortion as a form of birth control. But, under your definition, there are many secret murderers in our society.

Remember, you have to meet all the requirements of the definition of murder in order for it to be so. The direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being.

So, in the example of the executed man who ends up being innocent, is it the guy who administers the lethal injection that's guilty of murder? The jurors are not guilty of murder, because they didn't directly do it. What about in those situations where, using an electric chair, they have 3 guys throw a switch, and none of the three knows which is the correct switch? Would all 3 be guilty of murder, or only the one with the "live" switch?

Seems paper-thin to me.

 

[Eva]

Yes, agreed. However, nobody has argued otherwise?

Ignoring certain deliberately provocative comments one poster made a while back, most people are arguing about:
1. Foetus/Person - is it one or not?
2. Abortion/murder - are they the same?
3. Cases where abortion should be an option e.g. where it endangers the mother's health, ra**, incest, etc.

Surely, nobody has said that you should be allowed to kill because you 'like to do so'.

The portion of interest in my question is for all people, of all times. If we agree upon this, then we agree that there is a "law" that is discernible and reasonable and applies to human beings regardless of what their opinion is. If that is the case, what other "laws" are discernible and applicable to all people at all times? I would argue that based on the science we now have that humanity begins at conception, and if and only if it begins at conception, then to end the life of the newly conceived human being out of inconvenience, at the very least, is considered murder, the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being, regardless what society accepts.

If we can agree on that, I think we've come a long way. The other issues to discuss that have been at least partly discussed (as you have said):

1. when does human life begin
2. are there cases in which one can justly end the life of another

 

[Eva]

Natural law, like undefined unalienable rights, are incredibly tenuous. No one is going to be put in prison for violating natural law unless there is also a corresponding actual law.

For centuries, women have relied on various types of contraceptives to prevent brithing a child. Some were teas, some were eating plants, etc. What you're suggesting is that the morning after pill is a murder weapon. That a woman that drinks a cup of a certain type of tea after a mating is committing murder.

That's beyond ridiculous. I understand people's disgust towards late-term abortions, and I understand how people feel when women use abortion as a form of birth control. But, under your definition, there are many secret murderers in our society.

I don't know about secret murders because I don't think all people know what they are doing, but unjust killings to say the least. Yes, the morning after pill falls in the same category since it creates a hostile environment for the newly conceived. Similar to starving it to death.

So, in the example of the executed man who ends up being innocent, is it the guy who administers the lethal injection that's guilty of murder? The jurors are not guilty of murder, because they didn't directly do it. What about in those situations where, using an electric chair, they have 3 guys throw a switch, and none of the three knows which is the correct switch? Would all 3 be guilty of murder, or only the one with the "live" switch?

Seems paper-thin to me.

Natural law is the basis for actual laws.

When someone is committing an act, to determine if the act they are committing is in accord with the natural law (specifically murder in this case), we have to look at that particular person's intentions and actions. The fact that they are directly involved in ending the person's life is unquestionable, however, what is their motivation? Perhaps it would be to kill out of revenge. If so, not a just action. If to do their job (specifically in this case since it is not up to the executioner to determine innocence or guilt, it would be the legal system's responsibility), then it would be justified and would not be murder.

No, the jurors would not be guilty of murder. If, however, a juror knows for certain that the criminal did not commit the crime, but votes guilty anyway, and knows that a guilty vote will likely end in an execution, then he is not only guilty of lying, but also of indirectly killing an innocent person. Maybe that would be in a remote fashion considered murder, I haven't figured that out yet. ??

What about in those situations where, using an electric chair, they have 3 guys throw a switch, and none of the three knows which is the correct switch? Would all 3 be guilty of murder, or only the one with the "live" switch?

To have a clearer example, if three intruders had guns, but only one had a bullet, and they were aiming at an innocent individual, and all three pulled the trigger...

What were their intentions? Certainly to kill the innocent individual. Sure, in a very minor almost insignificant way the one with the bullet is most responsible for the individual's death, and he would be guilty of murder, but the intention was the same in all three men. They are at the absolute very least accomplices in the murder.

 

[m_elect]

Natural law, like undefined unalienable rights, are incredibly tenuous. No one is going to be put in prison for violating natural law unless there is also a corresponding actual law.

Seems paper-thin to me.

How can there be such a thing as natural law if there is no supreme natural lawgiver?

Which is most plausible?

A. Mankind has an intuitive sense of morality instilled in it by a creator who is the supreme lawgiver. Therefore morality actually exists.

B. Mankind has a sense of morality who's source is beyond evolutionary explanation. Since there is no supernatural source for it, morality is nothing more than a personal preference. It is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in the brain. Raping an infant is morally equivalent to eating lunch.

 

[Eva]

How can there be such a thing as natural law if there is no supreme natural lawgiver?

Which is most plausible?

A. Mankind has an intuitive sense of morality instilled in it by a creator who is the supreme lawgiver. Therefore morality actually exists.

B. Mankind has a sense of morality who's source is beyond evolutionary explanation. Since there is no supernatural source for it, morality is nothing more than a personal preference. It is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in the brain. Raping an infant is morally equivalent to eating lunch.

I would argue that we can know there is a "supreme law giver" based on that very fact, however, I didn't want to get into that discussion. You are absolutely right.

 

[m_elect]

I would argue that we can know there is a "supreme law giver" based on that very fact, however, I didn't want to get into that discussion. You are absolutely right.

You have to decide this first. Any question of right and wrong must start here.

 

[Alc]

How can there be such a thing as natural law if there is no supreme natural lawgiver?

Which is most plausible?

A. Mankind has an intuitive sense of morality instilled in it by a creator who is the supreme lawgiver. Therefore morality actually exists.

B. Mankind has a sense of morality who's source is beyond evolutionary explanation. Since there is no supernatural source for it, morality is nothing more than a personal preference. It is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in the brain. Raping an infant is morally equivalent to eating lunch.

This assumes that we're talking about absolute morality as opposed to the kind of morality that has evolved within societies in order for them to function.

 

[m_elect]

This assumes that we're talking about absolute morality as opposed to the kind of morality that has evolved within societies in order for them to function.

Can anyone explain how morality evolves scientifically? Has morality been found in the human genome project? If it could be proven that morality evolves, well then, can we actually say group A's morality is better than group B's? What gives anyone moral supremacy to make such a judgment?

Is it morally better to be self righteous than to be hypocritically honest? There is no golden measuring stick. The individual decides at the moment which is most self serving. After all, tomorrow it could be more beneficial to decide the other way. And who's to say it's wrong to flip flop?

 

[Alc]

Can anyone explain how morality evolves scientifically? Has morality been found in the human genome project? If it could be proven that morality evolves, well then, can we actually say group A's morality is better than group B's? What gives anyone moral supremacy to make such a judgment?

Is it morally better to be self righteous than to be hypocritically honest? There is no golden measuring stick. The individual decides at the moment which is most self serving. After all, tomorrow it could be more beneficial to decide the other way. And who's to say it's wrong to flip flop?

So do societies today regard the same things as being moral/immoral that societies 100 or 1000 years ago would? If not, then 'moral' standards have evolved, probably out of necessity.

I doubt anyone is trying to tie the process into genetics.

 

[m_elect]

So do societies today regard the same things as being moral/immoral that societies 100 or 1000 years ago would? If not, then 'moral' standards have evolved, probably out of necessity.

I doubt anyone is trying to tie the process into genetics.

Even attaching the word 'evolved' to morals is misleading. It is not provable scientifically. Regardless of whether or not morals change over time, a golden standard still does not exist.

If a moral changes, how does one know the change is correct with out an unchanging standard? And it's only reliable until another change is accepted.

If a moral never changes does it become the standard? It still is only a preference because there's no reason why it cannnot be superseded tomorrow.

 

[Alc]

Even attaching the word 'evolved' to morals is misleading. It is not provable scientifically. Regardless of whether or not morals change over time, a golden standard still does not exist.

If a moral changes, how does one know the change is correct with out an unchanging standard? And it's only reliable until another change is accepted.

If a moral never changes does it become the standard? It still is only a preference because there's no reason why it cannnot be superseded tomorrow.

End of that line of discussion, then.

God doesn't exist, so your gold standard doesn't exist, so we can progress no further with this line of thought.

OR

God does exist, so your golden standard does exist, but we have no way of knowing if current morality is moving closer to it or not since all opinions on exactly what the golden standard is are completely subjective.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Natural law is the basis for actual laws.

I would argue that we can know there is a "supreme law giver" based on that very fact, however, I didn't want to get into that discussion. You are absolutely right.

Yeah, what I figured from the beginning, sort of destroys your whole argument.

How can there be such a thing as natural law if there is no supreme natural lawgiver?

[B]Natural law[/B] or the [B]law of nature[/B] ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language"][COLOR=#0645ad]Latin[/COLOR][/URL]: [I]lex naturalis[/I]) has been described as a law whose content is set by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature"][COLOR=#0645ad]nature[/COLOR][/URL] and is thus universal.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#cite_note-Ref-1-0"][COLOR=#0645ad][1][/COLOR][/URL] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature"][COLOR=#0645ad]human nature[/COLOR][/URL] and deduce binding rules of moral behavior.

I don't see anything about a supreme natural lawgiver in the definition. I don't think that a 'natural law' has to be 'given' either.

Which is most plausible?

A. Mankind has an intuitive sense of morality instilled in it by a creator who is the supreme lawgiver. Therefore morality actually exists.

That's a different can of worms. But, I'll answer anyway. If there is a creator, and a supreme lawgiver, and this lawgiver instilled his sense of morality into humans, then all humans would be moral people unless the supreme lawgiver is not that good at instilling.

B. Mankind has a sense of morality who's source is beyond evolutionary explanation. Since there is no supernatural source for it, morality is nothing more than a personal preference. It is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in the brain. Raping an infant is morally equivalent to eating lunch.

I wouldn't say it is beyond evolutionary explanation. Humans in general want security. They don't want to be killed. They don't want to have their stuff stolen. Therefore, overtime, they came to an understanding with other humans in their groups to not do these things, and they became known as "Bad Things". Eventually the bad things got codified into laws.

 

[m_elect]

End of that line of discussion, then.

God doesn't exist, so your gold standard doesn't exist, so we can progress no further with this line of thought.

OR

God does exist, so your golden standard does exist, but we have no way of knowing if current morality is moving closer to it or not since all opinions on exactly what the golden standard is are completely subjective.

If God doesn't exist we agree that a golden standard does not exist. And so any question of abortion is a personal preference. I like my fetus' with mustard and relish on a hotdog role. You may prefer them born in a hospital for the purpose of house chores.

If God exists his existence is objective and his proofs are also objective despite any creature's subjective opinion.

 

[ColinEssex]

There is no god. There is no proof that there is other than a book on far-fetched fairy tales.

Some people think there is a god, only to use that as an excuse for starting wars.

Most Americans believe there is a god and that god is American. Which is why they always witter on about it. "God bless America", "I will pray for you" - utter rubbish (trash).

Col

 

[Eva]

Yeah, what I figured from the beginning, sort of destroys your whole argument.

I'm not sure how it does. It is argued whether or not one can know that there is some sort of "lawgiver" using reason alone. I happen to think you can, but these "natural laws" are, like I said, based on nature and reason, not because "God said so." Even if you do hold that you can know that there is a lawgiver, it is not true (I don't think) that we can know much about him other than that he is good.) My argument is based on human reason, since human reason is universal, whereas "what God says" is debated.

[B]Natural law[/B] or the [B]law of nature[/B] ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language"][COLOR=#0645ad]Latin[/COLOR][/URL]: [I]lex naturalis[/I]) has been described as a law whose content is set by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature"][COLOR=#0645ad]nature[/COLOR][/URL] and is thus universal.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#cite_note-Ref-1-0"][COLOR=#0645ad][1][/COLOR][/URL] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature"][COLOR=#0645ad]human nature[/COLOR][/URL] and deduce binding rules of moral behavior.

I don't see anything about a supreme natural lawgiver in the definition. I don't think that a 'natural law' has to be 'given' either.

based on what I said above, the natural law is not binding on all people of all times because they are "God's rules." Forget about the God aspect...whether we can prove a God exists from the natural law is a different debate, so let's just assume he doesn't exist. The natural law is binding on all people at all times because it is based on human nature which all people of all time share.

That's a different can of worms. But, I'll answer anyway. If there is a creator, and a supreme lawgiver, and this lawgiver instilled his sense of morality into humans, then all humans would be moral people unless the supreme lawgiver is not that good at instilling.

I wouldn't say it is beyond evolutionary explanation. Humans in general want security. They don't want to be killed. They don't want to have their stuff stolen. Therefore, overtime, they came to an understanding with other humans in their groups to not do these things, and they became known as "Bad Things". Eventually the bad things got codified into laws.

I'd say that our understanding of the natural law evolves so long as it is more in line with human nature, but the natural law itself does not evolve.

I'd also argue that human beings are moral people, not moral in the sense that they want to be good people, but that their actions have a rightness or a wrongness about them, and that we can judge their rightness or wrongness based on the natural law.

 

[Eva]

I'm sort of lost on what y'all think. Do you agree that, through reason, we can ascertain certain guiding principles, especially that one should not murder another human being (refer to previous definition of murder, which allows for capitol punishment when necessary - prisons aren't trustworthy, etc, and for self-defense - primary responsibility is to protect oneself and those in their responsibility) and that this would apply to all people of all times regardless of legal or social norms?

If we cannot agree on this, then we can go no further in our discussion, because the entire debate hinges on this principle.

1. If we can know through reason that it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being

2. If human life is equally valuable

3. If the newly conceived is a human being

4. Then abortion is wrong for all people of all times.

If this is the conclusion one comes to, then no number of sympathetic circumstances can justify it.

That's a lot to agree upon, but that is how the argument has to go.

Thoughts? I'm sure you've voiced some of them before, but I'm interested in knowing on what points from beginning to end you disagree with.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I wish that you had numbered your points but as I see it

Then abortion is wrong for all people of all times.

If this is the conclusion one comes to, then no number of sympathetic circumstances can justify it.

conflicts with

refer to previous definition of murder, .................... and for self-defense - primary responsibility is to protect oneself and those in their responsibility)

The abortion can be to protect the mother and her existing family.

Brian

 

[Adam Caramon]

I'm not sure how it does. It is argued whether or not one can know that there is some sort of "lawgiver" using reason alone.

When most people refer to natural law, they are speaking of those tenets that humans have adopted through the years. Killing another person is generally wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. However, these natural laws came about naturally, through time, as society evolved.

Your view is that a supreme being and creator of the universe designed these nautral laws and then magically implanted them in human's minds. As such, you hold these natural laws as much more important than most other people would, as to you they are divine, they are more important than anything any individual society on earth can come up with.

Do you agree that, through reason, we can ascertain certain guiding principles, especially that one should not murder another human being (refer to previous definition of murder, which allows for capitol punishment when necessary - prisons aren't trustworthy, etc, and for self-defense - primary responsibility is to protect oneself and those in their responsibility) and that this would apply to all people of all times regardless of legal or social norms?

I would disagree. I don't think that there are any moral standards except those that a particular society venerates. At times when murder was quite common place (tribal raids, border clashes, etc), murder wasn't wrong when it was inflicted on groups other than your own group.

When the Europeans came to America, they slaughtered the Native Americans. Was this morally wrong? Today we can look back and make that judgment with today's standards, but at that time, the Native Americans were outside of the European's group, and thus considered less than human. To the European society it was not wrong to cleanse the land of the Native Americans.

And 200 years from now? I'm sure society will look back on us and see how immoral we were based on many of our actions. Morals are constantly evolving as society's expectations and outlooks change.


Out of curiosity Brian (or any of the Europeans), in the UK and Europe in general, there is a lot more socialized medicine than in the US from what I understand. Are women able to get abortions there, and if so, is it considered like any other medical procedure? Are there any stipulations that say taxpayer money cannot be used for abortions?

 

[Brianwarnock]

It is possible to have an abortion on the NHS, but it is on a case by case situation and certain conditions have to be met. A search on NHS abortion will give a number of sites giving more information.

 

[Access_guy49]

The abortion can be to protect the mother and her existing family.

Brian

I totally agree with your point Brian! i'm glad someone else finally made it, i've been waiting to see how an anti-choice perspective responds to this while maintaing all life is equally important. typically i find they jump over this argument.