Abortion Is Wrong

I know it's apples and oranges! I was trying to get Ralph to admit that. Now, if there was a burning building and there was a generic adult in one room and a pregnant woman in another, I would save the pregnant woman.

 

But what if it were an etopic pregnancy - and the woman was deaf, dumb, blind, a quadraplegic, and severly below average IQ and "generic" adult is a doctor, father of five, and a Nobel Prize winner with the possible cure for cancer?

As for me, I would save the first person that I found and then try to save the other.

 

Yes, you're right. As I said before, abortion should be unlawful except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. For some reason, some people want to focus on this minuscule exception to my position against abortion. It's a matter of balancing interests and moral significance. I'm pro-life because a fetus' or embryo's life outweighs a woman's rights to privacy and bodily autonomy. I support the exception for when the mother's life is in danger because the mother's right to life outweighs that of an embryo or fetus.

 

First off, these hypotheticals assume you can only save one and that you have the same level of access to either one. I would save the pregnant woman because I believe in "ladies first" in situations like that. I don't value some peoples' lives over others because of usefulness to society, money, IQ, or handicap status. For example, if Bill Gates and a hobo off the streets walk into a hospital emergency room, the hobo should get treated first if his condition is more severe. In fact, hospitals that get Federal funds are required by law to do it that way.

 

Yes, you say that you are pro-life and then proceed to provide the exception.

You say that you are pro-life and then vote for Obama knowing that would - and did - expand the number of abortions - by funding them over seas and by means of an accounting gimmick in the healthscare bill.

Somewhere else you claim that morals are absolute - all this while carving out exceptions to a moral absolute.

Why do people focus on your inconsistency?

Go figure.

 

Personally, I am against abortion of any kind.

Once, some time ago, I talked with my wife about ending an ectopic pregnancy if it were to happen and called it an "abortion".
She said "it's not an abortion because it's not a real pregnancy".

Had it ever been the case I would have left the decision up to her and supported her.

All ectopic pregnancies end themselves, sometimes the mother survives the burst tube and hemorrhaging, the baby never.

We have had 11 successful pregnancies and 2 miscarriages so we never had to make the decision to end an ectopic "pregnancy".

HankD

 

Well then, if your hypotheticals assume that you can save one and have access to saving either equally...

Why do you choose to save the mother over the child in the case of abortion?

 

I explained why I have that exception. A woman's rights to privacy and bodily autonomy are not the same as her right to life. I'll rank the importance of the rights I enumerated in my explanation below.

1. Woman's right to life
2. Fetus' right to life
3. Embryo's right to life
4. Woman's right to bodily autonomy
5. Woman's right to privacy

A pro-choice person would put a woman's rights to privacy and bodily autonomy above the right to life of an embryo or fetus. I'm pro-life, so I don't do that.

I voted for Obama even though I disagree with him on abortion because it's not like McCain would have stopped elective abortions and because the other things I agree with Obama on are more important than abortion.

 

Because the mother's right to life is more important than that of a fetus or embryo. I think this is the third time I've said that.

 

That's fine. Would you base your allowing abortions in cases of ectopic pregnancies more along my other argument of self-defense or maybe a lesser of two evils thing? (Or something else; I'll let you speak for yourself.)

Please note that I'm not saying embryos and fetuses aren't alive or that they don't have a right to life. I find it hard to get too worked up over abortion when all over the world children are starving to death, people are killing each others in wars, etc. I went on a mission trip to Nicaragua a couple of years ago and some of the stuff I saw breaks my heart.

 

That makes sense. Thank you for sharing.

And I agree with you that elective abortion is immoral. It's just a matter of priority.

 

You have fallen into your own little "exceptions" trap.

You whittled down an absolute moral position of pro-life when you accepted an exception for a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother.

Now you have slipped into a judgement that the "right to life" of the mother exceeds that of the unborn.

Soon we will be hearing about quality of life no doubt.

I believe that the offical term is "slippery slope".

 

No. Abortions for fetal deformity are immoral because the fetus has a right to life.

 

I'm just trying to figure out when, in your mind, all these "embryos" and "fetuses" become a person?

 

In my opinion, not later than the first few weeks after fertilization.

 

Then why would you have a problem with discarding unused embroys for IVF?

You sound more than a little confused on the critical issue of life.

 

Because, in my opinion, there is a substantive possibility that personhood is attained at fertilization, and embryos have moral significance regardless.

 

And that uncertainty is exactly why we should assume that life begins at conception in forming positions on abortion and all other issues that affect the unborn.

All the mother's health, quality of life, number of unwanted children, hunger and all the other issues meant to distract and get you to take your eye off the real issue of protecting the unborn.