abortion: the context of faith
do you have any kind of moral argument against a woman being allowed to just get pregnant as many times and she wants and to than sell the fetal tissue? I can’t argue against it outside the context of faith. (Insanitybytes)
The obviously huge blunder in the question above is this ‘context of faith’.
- If you believe in the Christian god God, and you believe he creates a human being every time an egg and a sperm unite, you also believe that he is personally responsible for killing the vast majority of these unique people who never get a chance to grow an arm or an ear, nevermind see the light of day. Yes, two-thirds of fertilised eggs fail to develop. And then we have the one in five known pregnancies that miscarry before 20 weeks. In the ‘context of faith’, the very design of the Christian god God has little concern for the unborn child.
- If you believe in the Christian god God, and you believe the Word of this god is eternally unchanging and captured in the Holy Bible, you will know that for whole groups of people he cares as little for the lives of actual children as for those unborn: “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” (Hosea 13:16)
- If you believe in the Christian god God, and you fail to follow his moral standards, you will know that your god wants you to have an abortion: “But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”” (Numbers 5:20-22)
In the context of the Christian faith, there is in fact no moral argument against the situation above.
Outside of the context of Christian faith, there are several reasons why women are unlikely to do this, based on logic.
- Both pregnancy and abortion are physically unpleasant and potentially dangerous experiences for women. There are easier and more fulfilling ways to make money.
- Having evolved as empathetic animals with the usual mammal attachment to our offspring, most women don’t actually like the idea of terminating a pregnancy. We’re generally curious to know what our children could be like, and flooded with hormones to protect their development. (This may come as a surprise to the forced birthing lobby, who place more value on a potential human being than on fully conscious and developed human being, and refuse to acknowledge that every woman’s situation is different.)
Thanks for your question, Insanity. I’m sorry you confused your faith for a religion that supports pregnancy, when all the evidence clearly points to the contrary. But I’m even more sorry you can’t use simple facts and logic to aid your understanding of life around you.
Wow. Tough read.
When you say ‘forced birth’ what are you meaning? Could you elaborate a bit? Not sure what I think you are saying is the same thing you are saying. Rather the author fill in the gaps. Thx. -mike
LikeLike
@Mike
Forced Birth is the piteous state of affairs where women are legally obligate to carry their pregnancies to term.
The result is that women die or as is happening in El Slavador going to prison for having miscarrages.
I read some of your comments on David’s blog and from what you’ve written, the situation in El Salvador is the kind of dystopia you’re pining for and that state of affairs is essentially one of women being slaves to their pregnancy.
So you will often hear the terms ‘pro-choice is anti-woman’ or the ‘forced-birth-brigade’ used to describe those who are against the reproductive rights of women – it is because when “pro-life” wins the day, women die.
LikeLiked by 3 people
thx for the reply. I’m familiar with the term and concept of dystopia. it really is shocking. my own views are in transition and I can only assure you with that knowledge. I don’t mean to offend or upset you. please accept my apologies if this is the case-mike
LikeLike
What is meant by forced birth is just that: forcing women BY LAW to carry a pregnancy to term and then birth. This map gives you access to the various kinds of laws that various US states use try to do just this.
But to find out what it might look like if we empowered catholic values in law – you know, anti-choice, fetal fetish absolutes – check out this piece.
This is what ‘forced birth’ looks like in action: laws designed to inhibit or ban reproductive health care services that include medically necessary abortion services, and punish anyone who might assist in obtaining or providing these medical sanctioned services.
Please note the emphasis here on MEDICAL reproductive issues, which has been co-opted and repackaged by the religious to be magically transformed into a MORAL issue over which these folk seem to think they should have some determining say.
Since when was medicine suddenly a subset of religious belief, subject to its judgement of what constitutes appropriate services?
Good grief.
If that were the case, we’d still be getting soaked exorcising epilepsy and trying to pray away infectious diseases. That’s the product of ignorance masquerading as medicine stamped by the approval of old men who eschew sexual congress and wear skirts and funny hats.
When we pretend that religious belief has a legitimate role to play determining what constitutes appropriate medical services then we’re part of a problem the religion never ceases pumping into human affairs and causing unnecessary misery and increased suffering in the name of piety.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oops… failed to close the link after ‘this piece’. Sorry V.
Oh, and I should have known Arb would beat me to this comment. I’m left eating his dust yet again!
LikeLike
His dust? I’d never considered Arb was a man, surely not.
LikeLike
@VW
Sorry, VW, but what tildeb says is correct. How else would I know how to argue well with dudes? I know how they think. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I simply won’t believe it. You’ll always be a woman in my head. (And if you are a bloke, you won’t realise that’s a compliment.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“When you say ‘forced birth’ what are you meaning?”
I think the ‘pro-life’ label is a little silly. It’s only pro one aspect of a pregnancy – the potential human being. It’s not pro the living, breathing, thinking person and all the complexities of their life around them. ‘Forced birth’ is much more appropriate. When women can’t access abortion facilities and they don’t want a pregnancy, they resort to whatever they can find. But the ‘pro-life’ movement aims to force them to give birth, regardless of their circumstances or the development stage of their pregnancy.
LikeLike
Ouch!
I. Love. It!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and you forgot this one. Jesus is pro-abortion, too. In the Gospel of the Egyptians Jesus not only demands total abstinence but preaches for the outright separation of the sexes, stating that “sorrow” and what he repeatedly calls “error” will remain with man for just “As long as women bear children.” The statement is quite explicit: don’t ever get pregnant, and if you do then abortion is better than birth.
LikeLike
Yes, I’m waiting for Insanity to explain how the morality of her religion makes abortion a bad thing. She seemed to avoid that completely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She will. I’ve had this conversation with her before. She won’t address it. Funny that 🙂
LikeLike
Here’s the conclusions of that Planned parenthood hit video as made by the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1510279#t=article
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brilliant, thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice and succinct. Inanity should read it.
LikeLike
Yes, I’ve just pasted a bit and encouraged her to pop over for the rest. I’m sure she’ll ignore it. It’s thoroughly inconvenient facts to take on board for her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it frames the “real” moral argument quite well. Acting against it is, as the author points out, immoral.
LikeLike
Here you go, this is Katy Faust on Q&A
The marriage stuff is only in the middle (as far as I could see flipping through), starts a little after 15minutes.
I enjoyed this line presented to Katy: “American evangelical claptrap”
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4273039.htm
LikeLike
Yuck. Can’t bear to watch it. Hopefully Pink will do a highlights post. 🙂
LikeLike
She copped a lot. She appeared quite shocked that people would call her out to openly. A politician there said there wasn’t a place in Oz for her “American evangelical claptrap”
LikeLike
I am filled with envy, though. I would love that sort of platform for activism.
LikeLike
Start spouting a load of obnoxious clap-trap, invent yourself a pile of internet ‘fans’ and leap on the bandwagon of the next big international social advancement (on the wrong side), and you too could publicly shame yourself by fighting against reason, logic and compassion on Aussie TV. Ah, the envy! 😉
LikeLike
That is not quite it. Lots of homophobes blather rubbish on wordpress, or support obnoxious US groups with the word “family” in their title, but she gets on TV. There are trans women writing in The Guardian, appearing on the telly etc.
LikeLike
Ask Pink to give you an exposé? 🙂
LikeLike
I think that was when the iron entered into her soul. It was the moment when she stopped dickering about with activism, and worked at it in earnest. Merv may unwittingly have unleashed A New Force for Traditional Marriage on the world.
LikeLike
@JZ
Well, now isn’t that just the link to share with the heated heads of our anti-choice friends.
Good show. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isn’t it?
LikeLike
Of course, there’s the Divine Command Theory, Violet. I mean, it’s the excuse used for killing all those pregnant women when the earth was completely flooded. . you’d think fundamentalists would be embarrassed to peddle this drivel. The, “it’s just peachy when HE does it!” Talk about a head shake. . . honestly, will they ever tire of making excuses for their invisible ‘friend’?
LikeLike
But where does the Bible frown on abortion anyway? Home abortions were used then obviously as well, yet no law giver felt it was worth commenting on. Except for a priestly magic abortion …
LikeLike
Women are not allowed to sell fetal tissue. Fetal tissue can be designated for research, but not sold by individuals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point, but I think Insanity wants to establish why this would be the case out of the context of religious ‘morality’.
LikeLike
Why it’s illegal?
It’s illegal because those are the current rules set by our legislatures.
I’m guessing it’s done to discourage this type of pregnancy for cash. Pregnancies, whether brought to full term, miscarriage, or abortion-all take a toll on the woman pregnant and on the healthcare providers. It seems like prudent policy to me.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood the question-but that’s my thoughts on it 🙂
LikeLike
Not at all, the only person in a continual state of intentional misunderstanding on this thread has a name starts with Insanity.
“Pregnancies, whether brought to full term, miscarriage, or abortion-all take a toll on the woman pregnant and on the healthcare providers. It seems like prudent policy to me.”
She’ll ignore that too.
LikeLike
You have once again totally avoided my question, Violet. I didn’t ask you for your opinion on faith or why you think something is unlikely, I asked you for a moral argument against women getting pregnant for the purposes of donating fetal tissue. I don’t blame you for trying to evade the question, it’s a difficult one.
Let me gently shoot down your first two attempts, “Both pregnancy and abortion are physically unpleasant and potentially dangerous experiences for women.”
So is donating a kidney and yet people do it all the time. Some in the 3rd world because they need money and some for humanitarian reasons. Having sex with many strangers to put food on the table is also likely unpleasant and yet women do it. Pregnancy can carry risks and yet it is a risk woman have been willing to take for thousands of years.
“Having evolved as empathetic animals with the usual mammal attachment to our offspring, most women don’t actually like the idea of terminating a pregnancy..”
And yet hundreds of thousands of women have abortions anyway. Also, we are repeatedly told that there are no physical or psychological repercussions from abortion. If this is true, and we are only speaking about a meaningless clump of cells whose termination will have no affect on a woman at all, than your explanation carries no weight.
So the issue of whether or not women like something or whether or not they are willing to take the risk is completely irrelevant to explaining why it might be moral or immoral to become a fetal tissue donor as a way of subsidizing one’s income or helping out humankind.
LikeLike
My answer would be Respect. It is not respectful to get pregnant in order to sell foetal tissue. You could argue this from ancient Greek philosophy: Socrates’ eudaimonia- which has, of course, been a strong influence on the Christian tradition, but is not itself Christian.
To me, respect for the Earth and creation is a moral issue, yet I see American Evangelicals arguing from Genesis “dominion” over the Earth for its exploitation. So Christianity is used to argue for immoral positions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Really nice way of putting it. I don’t see it as a moral issue so much, but kind of common sense. Looking after things, showing respect, it’s a sensible way to live – the outcomes are a nicer world and generally feeling better about yourself.
LikeLike
Dominion was never designed to encompass domination and destruction. It is about stewardship.
It is probably not respectful to create an unwanted pregnancy either. I would consider that an act of disrespect and yet it happens continuously. Men and women should have respect for that process, but if this is not perceived as life they are creating, what is there to respect?
LikeLike
“It is probably not respectful to create an unwanted pregnancy either. I would consider that an act of disrespect and yet it happens continuously.”
I agree. However, nature in the form of our highly excitable sex organs and racy hormones is conspiring to make us temporarily forget about logic and respect. If it wasn’t so easy to over-ride common sense our species wouldn’t have come very far. That’s why sex education is vitally important – at least it has an impact.
LikeLike
Dominionism is ‘forced’ stewardship. It’s obligating people who don’t want to be obligated. It’s psycho-social rape. Legal prohibitions take away the autonomy of the individual, whereas legalizations allow each person to make decisions for themselves. When Islamists outlaw women showing their hair, that’s Islamic dominionism in practice.
What evangelicals want is unilateral control over society whether people are part of their cult or not- and to achieve this they attempt to enact bans on everything and anything that isn’t in line with their ignorant ideology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB22, thy name is hypocrisy.
As in any case involving moral arguments, one has to compare and contrast for and against to find the various extents of considerations and ramifications. To assume – as you pretend your religious belief does for you – that there is only one ‘right’ answer is no longer an examination of a question of moral consideration and ramification but a pronouncement of a personal assumption… in the case of religious folk like you about this issue of fetal tissue being sold hiding behind the religious cloak and claiming it to be ‘immoral’ by fiat, by your declaration that it is so and then scuttling behind nebulous religious notions as if they grant moral validity to your moral assumptions.
This is hubris as well as hypocrisy.
You mistake your assumption to be a moral argument. It isn’t. You then compound your error by mistaking your religious beliefs to be a moral guide in this matter when it clearly isn’t (which is what VW posted about… in case you missed the point as you so often and conveniently do). You then hypocritically accuse others of having no moral ground on which to base their arguments because they don’t have your religious ground… which is not a moral grounding at all!
Accusing VW of not being able to explore the moral considerations and ramifications of selling fetal tissue without some supposedly necessary religious component is obviously not true (as Claire easily demonstrated). But, if you stay true to form, you’ll continue to avoid what’s actually the case (Snopes) and replace it with your distorted version and then claim the real problem lies with those who do not go along with your charade to vilify and distort Planned Parenthood. These are the grounds on which you build and export your assumptions and they are not very good tools for building a moral argument.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Insanity, are you suggesting that there would be no moral ground on which to stand to argue against a woman having abortions just to make a profit?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not suggesting anything. I’m trying to understand what the secular argument for or against abortion for profit would be?
If we are to believe it’s her body, carrying a lifeless clump of cells, and that abortion carries no long term physical or emotional harm for a woman, and that the donation of these tissues is allegedly beneficial for humankind, as has been presented here repeatedly, then offer me a moral argument outside the context of faith? Personally I can’t find one. So enlighten me.
LikeLike
I think a non-religious argument against it would go something like this:
In abortion, a developing human life forms journey towards becoming a fully functional human baby is abruptly ended. Our society, for better or worse, allows this procedure to take place, recognizing that sometimes a pregnant woman must make a very difficult decision about her life and future.
However one feels about abortion, and having seen the photos of aborted body parts I find it extremely problematic and horrifying, there is a clear difference between having an abortion because of an unwanted pregnancy and having an abortion to make money.
True, in both cases a developing human life is ended. The difference is that one mother makes a painful decision after she becomes pregnant, while the other would get pregnant precisely because she wants to end the life and make money selling the human parts. It is per-meditated.
I think most people can see the difference and it doesn’t require an appeal to a religious moral code to arrive there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“…there is a clear difference between having an abortion because of an unwanted pregnancy and having an abortion to make money…”
I wonder why some perceive it this way, however? It’s as if abortion is viewed as morally acceptable as long as a woman is a victim, helpless, passively and reluctantly killing a potential human being through no fault of her own. The moment you introduce the idea that perhaps she does have some moral autonomy and responsibility there, suddenly our perception of the issue changes and we aren’t so comfortable with it anymore.
From a moral perspective however that’s either a potential human being or it isn’t. That’s either her body or it isn’t. She either has the right to decide her own motivations for abortion or she doesn’t. She is either morally culpable or she isn’t.
“The difference is that one mother makes a painful decision…”
Many women have abortions and do not perceive it as a painful decision at all. There are even some bloggers who have written about the experience in real time and clearly stated that it was not a painful choice at all.
So in way what you are saying is that abortion is morally acceptable as long as the woman experiences the painful weight of her experience and some remorse and regret? This must be like a secular version of repent and I will forgive you.
The truth of the matter is, how a woman feels about doing something does not determine the morality of something.
LikeLike
“So in way what you are saying is that abortion is morally acceptable as long as the woman experiences the painful weight of her experience and some remorse and regret?
No, I am not saying that at all! I am saying that the two things are clearly different. I think a person can arrive at the conclusion that torturing babies for fun is wrong, and always is wrong, without a belief in God. It really is common sense. When we argue that one can’t ever arrive at that conclusion without a belief in God, I think we just muddy the waters of the discussion.
I know plenty of atheists who would have a ethical problem with the scenario you described.
“The truth of the matter is, how a woman feels about doing something does not determine the morality of something.”
I agree that if someone thinks that torturing babies for fun is OK, that it doesn’t make it OK and I think Violet would agree with that. But maybe I am wrong. A person who plans to run another person off the road and kill them is considered a murderer, while someone who lost control of their car because of mechanical error and runs a person off the road who then dies may be guilty of nothing.
LikeLike
“I know plenty of atheists who would have a ethical problem with the scenario you described.”
Well then, they should explain why! I hear nothing beyond, “abortion is good and religious people are bad. Abortion is not killing, it’s only fetal tissue being used for the good of humankind.”
LikeLike
Try reading with your glasses on? Maybe all the words, and not just the ones you want to read.
LikeLike
Insanity, maybe if you would be kind enough to expand upon your moral argument against this (covering why my Bible references are of no relevance), I might be better equipped to understand why what I’ve explained to you on this the post, and the other post, doesn’t mean anything to you.
LikeLike
From the link John gives above:
“The 1988 Fetal Tissue Transplantation Panel, which was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and included a chair and several members who opposed abortion rights, was not persuaded by arguments about complicity. Looking back over decades of research, the panel pointed out that despite fears to the contrary, there was no evidence that the possibility of deriving some good from fetal remains had ever persuaded women to have abortions they otherwise would not have chosen. But to assuage concerns, and to avoid even the theoretical possibility that the benefits of research might encourage an ambivalent woman to choose abortion, the panel recommended that the question of donation not be addressed until after a woman had decided she was going to end a pregnancy. It also endorsed the law that prohibited tissue sale for profit (reimbursement of costs was permissible) and recommended that women not be allowed to direct tissue for transplantation to particular people.
Having separated the abortion decision from the choice to donate tissue, the panel concluded that public support is ethical: the source of the tissue poses no moral problem for some people, and in any case, the morality of the two acts can be distinguished.1 Indeed, as to the claim of complicity, although the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops was concerned that the abortion could not in practice be separated from the research, it had written that “it may not be wrong in principle for someone unconnected with an abortion to make use of a fetal organ from an unborn child who died as the result of an abortion.”2 The same arguments led to similar recommendations that have been adopted by European countries.
As it reasoned its way to these recommendations, the panel noted that it is commonplace to use organs and tissues from deceased people, whether their death was caused by accident or homicide. Homicide must surely be viewed as morally evil by anyone who decries the loss of fetal life, and yet no concern is raised about personal or societal complicity with the underlying act. Organ and tissue transplant recipients often talk about the complex emotions that arise from knowing one’s own life was saved because another life was taken, but they do not then feel responsible for the other person’s death.
The panel also considered the pointlessness of refusing support for this research, which uses fetal tissue that will otherwise be discarded. ”
You should read the whole things.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1510279#t=article
LikeLike
I have read it Violet. It is an astounding piece of moral relativism that contradicts itself and is packed with logical fallacies. Consider this part here,
“Homicide must surely be viewed as morally evil by anyone who decries the loss of fetal life, and yet no concern is raised about personal or societal complicity with the underlying act. Organ and tissue transplant recipients often talk about the complex emotions that arise from knowing one’s own life was saved because another life was taken, but they do not then feel responsible for the other person’s death.”
Why is no concern raised about personal or societal complicity in the underlying act? Is it not wrong to kill someone for their organs?
As to these “complex emotions that arise from knowing one’s own life was saved because another life was taken,” are we seriously going to claim that an organ recipient would not be bothered by the fact that someone may have been murdered so that their own life could be extended?
These are not hysterical or irrational arguments, they are based on actual ethical dilemmas occurring in our world right now. The Chinese government already harvests the organs of prisoners, women already produce and donate embryos for science, and people in the 3rd world already sell kidneys and such.
I’d simply like some of you to expand your thinking process beyond, “religious people bad, abortion good,” and start taking a look at the actual moral implications of the path we’re going down.
LikeLike
Is it not wrong to kill someone for their organs?
Why, yes, yes it is. The thing is, Insanity, no one is being killed in the termination of a pregnancy. You can’t “kill” something that cannot “die.” A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. “Life” never emerges in the foetus. Ever. How then do we define an individual human life? For that answer, let’s look to the “Father of the Anti-Abortion Movement,” Dr. Jack Willke:
and this, from another staunch, staunch, staunch anti-abortionist, James Goldenring
LikeLike
If nothing is being killed in the termination of a pregnancy and abortion causes no harm to the woman herself, then I take it you would have no moral issues with a woman choosing to get pregnant for the purpose of selling fetal tissue?
LikeLike
Who’s “selling”? I don’t think you read the paper Violet posted.
Now, Insanity, don’t run away from the question: How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?
LikeLike
“How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?”
That’s your argument Zande, not mine. So once again I presume you have no moral argument against women getting pregnant for the purpose of fetal tissue donation? Or are you only opposed to her being reimbursed for the costs of such labors?
LikeLike
It’s not my position, Insanity, rather the position of the medical, legal, and scientific professionals across all western countries.
So, Insanity: How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?
You want to use language like “kill” and “murder” so please justify it and answer the question in a rational, coherent, and adult manner.
LikeLike
“How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?”
So than according to you a woman is morally and ethically free to produce all the fetal tissue she wishes. So I then guess you’re just a sexist jerk that doesn’t believe women should be compensated for their labors?
LikeLike
Where does morals come into it, Inanity? Is it morally reprehensible to kick a stone?
If you want to make an argument, then do please bring it into the real world.
How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?
LikeLike
“How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?”
Zande, I am just following your lead here. You say abortion does not involve killing. It is no more immoral than kicking a stone. So fine, hold that view if you wish.
Do you have any kind of moral argument against women “kicking a stone” for fun and/or profit?
LikeLike
Who’s making a profit, Insanity?
Seriously, you should actually read the paper Violet posted.
Now, as to this post, how do you square the circle with scripture clearly showing the Middle Eastern god you worship personally performing numerous abortions, and ordering countless more?
Why are you against abortion if your god is clearly pro-abortion?
LikeLike
Don’t try to bring God into this, Zande, you don’t even believe in God.
So once again, do you have any kind of moral argument against women “kicking a stone” for fun and/or profit?
LikeLike
Don’t bring god into it? But it was you, Insanity, who raised the question of scripture. You injected it into this debate, not me, not Violet, not anyone but you.
So, how do you square the circle in the full knowledge that your Middle Eastern god is clearly Pro-Abortion?
Asked in another way: Why are you acting contrary to the ways of your god, Insanity?
LikeLike
I have not raised the issue of faith or scripture in this thread even once, Zande. I am seeking to understand if there is a secular moral argument to be made against a woman choosing to get pregnant for the purposes of fetal tissue donation. Your evasion and inability to answer speaks volumes and yet you are still hesitant to condone it. Why?
LikeLike
The reason for the post, IB22, was a quote from you:
“(D)o you have any kind of moral argument against a woman being allowed to just get pregnant as many times and she wants and to than sell the fetal tissue? I can’t argue against it outside the context of faith.”
There’s the issue of faith right there, that the context of morality requires a religious framework.
That’s ridiculous.
You then say, “I have not raised the issue of faith or scripture in this thread even once, Zande. I am seeking to understand if there is a secular moral argument to be made…”
Moral arguments are moral arguments. It is you who keeps insisting that yours is a religious moral argument, so VW has pointed out first, and John later, that what you think is a moral argument empowered by your religious belief from scripture is in fact NOT what you assume it to be: a moral argument based on your divine Dear Leader(s) scripture against abortion. The fact is that scripture tells us this Big Invisible Kahuna is not only fine with it but seems quite satisfied to allow over 2/3rds of all fertilized human eggs to abort. You seemed to have missed those facts altogether in your rush to try to justify your stance on abortion by pretending it’s a religious issue, which then apparently makes it a moral one.
Au contraire…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There’s the issue of faith right there, that the context of morality requires a religious framework. That’s ridiculous.”
That is not what I said at all. I said, “I can’t argue against it outside the context of faith.” Perhaps someone else can provide a secular moral argument against abortion for the purpose of fetal tissue donation?
Judging from this thread however, the answer appears to be “no, we cannot.”
LikeLike
1. Insanity, please argue for this in the context of your faith. You’ve yet to establish this, which makes your whole stance a bit of a farce.
LikeLike
2. We have all provided secular moral arguments against this, you’ve just been choosing to disregard them. We don’t know your criteria, because you HAVE YET TO PROVIDE YOUR MORAL ARGUMENT in the context of your faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
3. My primary secular ‘moral argument’ is that it has the potential to cause harm to any woman who would do this – both physical and emotional harm.
When a woman has an abortion for other reasons she is free to weigh up this potential harm from the abortion, against the potential harm she considers she and the potential child would be caused by going through with the pregnancy. Her choice, and usually not an easy one.
LikeLike
Well, you’ve always been a poor judge; this thread already has many moral arguments outside the context of faith. That you choose once again to ignore something doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
LikeLike
Evasion? Priceless, coming from you, O’ Master 🙂
Insanity, perhaps you should read the first few lines of this post:
“
”
There it is, Insanity. Now, why won’t you address this? You made the statement, so I’d like to know how you square this circle when the Middle Eastern god you think exists is so clearly pro-abortion. The god you worship, Insanity, performs numerous abortions and orders countless more. Your god is quite fond of abortion, and even outlines a specific ritual to be performed before abortions are carried out with poison.
So, the question is, why aren’t you? Why are you, Insanity, working against the ways of your own god?
(as to the “moral” argument, I have already dealt with it, repeatedly. There is no moral argument before the foetus is defined as a distinct human organism. That position remains until you can tell me how you can “kill” something that cannot “die.”)
LikeLike
It is interesting to read you two as you go at it! As an outside observer, it seems to me that you both avoid directly answering each others questions.
Insanity: “If nothing is being killed in the termination of a pregnancy and abortion causes no harm to the woman herself, then I take it you would have no moral issues with a woman choosing to get pregnant for the purpose of selling fetal tissue?”
John, WOULD you have an issue with this?
Since nobody is legally allowed to do what IB is suggesting, I think a better question is:
If nothing is being killed in the termination of a pregnancy and abortion causes no harm to the woman herself, then I take it you would have no moral objection with a woman choosing to get pregnant for the purpose of donating fetal tissue to help others?
I think we would all agree that this is something that could happen, because it isn’t illegal.
LikeLike
“If nothing is being killed in the termination of a pregnancy and abortion causes no harm to the woman herself, then I take it you would have no moral objection with a woman choosing to get pregnant for the purpose of donating fetal tissue to help others?”
This thread is littered with examples of abortion causing harm to women. It’s about weighing up if continuing with the pregnancy would cause more harm than an abortion.
I disagreed with John on his post over at his place. There is life, it’s not yet sentient and it is parasitically dependent on its host. This is generally a wonderful thing, but where it isn’t, for whatever reason, the individual woman and her choice take precedence. I would hope fully informed about what she is ending and how she could regret it if taken lightly.
So, regarding your question, if we were one sample of fetal tissue away from finding a cure from cancer and a woman volunteered to get pregnant to do this, what would you say?
I think my question is as sensible as yours. They are both unreal situations. It would be illogical for a woman to get pregnant only in order to donate fetal tissue, given that there an unfortunately high supply. It would be unlikely that any woman would agree to do it, given our biological instinct to cherish our potential offspring. It’s disrespectful to deliberately start making something you plan to terminate (as opposed to dealing with something that wasn’t intended).
LikeLiked by 2 people
“If we are to believe it’s her body, carrying a lifeless clump of cells, and that abortion carries no long term physical or emotional harm for a woman, and that the donation of these tissues is allegedly beneficial for humankind, as has been presented here repeatedly, then offer me a moral argument outside the context of faith?”
Ah, I see! If I shut my eyes and spin what has been stated here round in circles ten times, I can understand what your brain has done with the information presented here.
1. The “lifeless clump of cells” is incorrect. Clearly there is life – there is growth, there is movement and there is potential for further development into a sentient human being. John’s point of view is that you can’t kill a human that already has a lack of sustained brainwaves. You’re not turning it off, because it’s not yet on in sentience terms.
2. Abortion can carry physical risks to women in terms of damage to the womb or cervix, or serious bleeding and infection. Having several abortions is likely to weaken the cervix and increase the risk of late miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies.
3. Obviously there is the biological drive to reproduce which makes many, if not most humans crave offspring. Given this, there is a chance of emotional harm in the form of regret, for what could have been. This could obviously lead to more seriously psychological harm depending on the circumstances.
LikeLike
As to the main question by Insanitybytes22, wether if there is an actual moral argument about a woman getting pregnant just to sell fetal tissue, and not just some religiously based nonsense (wether the religion in question or it’s holy book actually supports this view or not), I would say, the question is about wether the woman in doing so harms herself. This is about her, after all.
It is a bit the same as making a living as a professional soldier , the soldier may tell her/himself and others that she/he learns how to kill other people most efficiently, only because she/he wants to protect other people, but the moral question is still about wether, if by doing so the soldier is in risk of harming her/himself.
I think it could be argued, that there is a great risk of serious emotional harm the person in question, wether it is the woman selling fetal tissue (especially if she got deliberately pregnant to do so), the soldier, or for example a prostitute may suffer from services rendered, even when they did not percieve it themselves beforehand. And morals after all, is NOT about following some preset arbitrary rules, but about the actual harm and benefit analysis.
We do not consider organ donations to be immoral, because even though they may be about cutting up a perfectly healthy person and removing functional organs, they are done to save others. In that respect, I see no evil in a woman who got pregnant against her whishes donating the aborted fetal tissue to science, in order to save lives in the future. Why should I? It may even help her in the trauma of having have to have the abortion.
But as with prostitution, I see nothing wrong with a person who chooses to have money for sexual services offered, the wrong I see is if a person is forced to do this through economic dependancy, or other sort of pressure. Same applies to selling the fetal tissue.
Let’s be honest though. The question about selling fetal tissue, is an easily resolved and marginal in comparrison to actual social problems such as prostitution, or soldiering. It would be best resolved – if indeed it is not so yet, in some societies ridden by the plague of extreme capitalism – by removing the money from the issue alltogether, by women who are going to have an abortion anyway making an organ donation of it.
LikeLike
“And morals after all, is NOT about following some preset arbitrary rules, but about the actual harm and benefit analysis.”
PLEASE READ AND DIGEST, INSANITY.
LikeLike
I think Inanity has bailed. Seems she can’t actually explain why she’s against abortion when her god is all for it.
I ca appreciate the dilemma.
LikeLike
Rather embarrassing. I hope I don’t have to lose respect for her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d just like to hear the
excuseexplanation.LikeLike
I do not care to hear any more excuses, how ever entertaining. We have a proverb in Finland wich roughly translated goes something like this: A pig will come up with an excuse, sometimes the ground is frozen, sometimes the snout is sore. It refers to human ability to live in denial and come up with endless excuses.
Insanitybytes22 seems to have glued her identity to the anti-abortion/religion view and since it has become a part of her self image to remain on one side of the issue, no matter what, such excuses are about wriggling to keep her identity, not really even defending a point of view anymore. But she is not alone, because this is exactly what religion does to a person. They give up objectivity to gain some emotional comfort. But faith is an anathema to objectivity.
Yet, it is somewhat interresting, how the religious repeatedly blame the non-religious for not having an objective moral standard, when in fact it is quite the opposite. It is the religious themselves whose morals is based solely on their intuition and not on any rational conclusions, wich they excuse by claiming that their personal subjective understanding represents some moral absolute as it supposedly comes directly from some creator entity or other what-not unfalsifiable imaginary thing. The religious, that I have talked with, explain their connection to these god characters by what they call the conscience – oblivious to the fact that what they are really referring to, is their subjective intuition based on their empathetic ability as mammals and their personal cultural heritage. The holy books inform their intuition, but also work as excuses to retreat to when they expect other people should take these silly old books as authority on morals. Naturally not all non-relgious have any moral “standars” as such, but by far most I have known in my life have been more or less humanists, whose moral “standard” is based on the wellbeing of humans as the social species science can tell us we are. Now that is as objective as we can get. This of course, requires a person to grow up from the developmental stage we all go through, on wich we rely on authorities (like mommy and pa) to guide us through the more complex issues of social conduct…
As to the discussion about abortion and wether if the fetus is a human being, I would like to ask the pro-lifers, how do they percieve the parasitic twins? Are those human beings? Surely the parasitic twins were once fetuses, so did they just somehow stop being human beings, or are they human beings with human rights still? Or could we simply just agree, that the fetus is no more a human being than the parasitic twin? At wich point is it reasonable to think that the twinkle in the eyes of a man and a woman become an actual human being? Do the doctors in the opinion of the pro-life side have a right to dissect and kill the parasitic twins in the process? There are surprisingly many found. And if they are religious (the pro-“life” people, not the parasitic twins) do they expect these things end up in their afterlife as well? Do these things in their opinion have a soul? Does their god make the parasitic twins? What ever for?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gee violetwisp,
You made a valiant effort to chastise God for His ways, and by so doing have used your own argument to hang yourself. Now that is the most uncomfortable of nooses.
A simple lesson in math may suffice. It’s kind of hard to teach calculus to a person who cannot add. You try to find defects in the God of calculus, then blame Him for your misunderstanding of simple addition.
His ways are above your pay grade; but don’t be so foolish to find fault with someone you say is non existent. Not too smart.
He is mistake free. We the people? Eh, not so much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You made a valiant effort to chastise God for His ways, and by so doing have used your own argument to hang yourself. Now that is the most uncomfortable of nooses.”
Where? What?
“His ways are above your pay grade; but don’t be so foolish to find fault with someone you say is non existent. Not too smart.”
Oh my dear, I won’t suggest who’s not too smart around here. I’m finding fault with people who claim to follow those words and think abortion is morally wrong based on those words. You poor thing. Lost.
“He is mistake free. We the people? Eh, not so much.”
Well at least you’re right about you and Insanity making mistakes …
LikeLike
vw-
‘WE the people……………..’prone to error, yep, I’m included, as is I suppose you…………….if you are a member of the human race.
Fortunately, God gives us a heads up as to what is faulty. Lots of good stuff there ‘it is written……………’
LikeLike
Colourstorm, as Insanity appears unwilling (or simply unable) to answer this quandary, can you please explain to me why you’re against abortion when your god is so clearly pro-abortion?
Surely the objective is to follow your god, correct?
Why, then, aren’t you following your god?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This may be hard for you to digest jz, but there is no contradiction between the smooth and kosher cutting of a lamb’s neck, or the arrowing of a deer to put food on the table,
with the SAVING of the life of a human……………..after all, as the good book says: ‘the righteous tend to life,’ and this is exemplified in many ways.
God cannot be put in a thimble as you would imagine, and His ways are unquestionably perfect, and if you do not agree, then you have a defective view of God, which by the way, you have proven in every possible way.
Hope this helps.
LikeLike
Um, Colourstorm, that doesn’t address the question.
If the objective is to “follow” the ways of your god, then why don’t you support abortion?
Your god clearly adores abortion, he even has a well -defined ritual to be carried out before poison is given to the pregnant woman to destroy the foetus.
So, the question is, upon what do you base your opposition to abortion when your god is so evidently “Pro-Abortion”?
Could you try and be specific, and stick to the subject? Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jz
One of the great lines of film was given by a man when asked what Jerusalem meant to him.
‘Nothing.’ ‘Everything.’
In the same context, no answer will satisfy you, yet every reason has been given, for truth comes in many coats, but provides the same warmth.
The scriptures jz and absolute truth……….have always been good friends………..long before Christianity arrived on the scene…………if anything is moral, you have God to thank. If anything is egregious, you have man to blame.
LikeLike
Shall we try to address the question asked, Colourstorm?
Why do you oppose abortion when your god is pro-abortion?
You god, Colourstorm, has a full ritual to be performed before poison is given to destroy the foetus. This is your god’s way.
Why, Colourstorm, are you acting against your gods way?
Could you please try and stick to the question asked.
Thanks.
LikeLike
‘The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away…..blessed be the name of the Lord.’
Kinda makes sense that a man should be a bit judicious when giving and taking away………..
LikeLike
So, let me get this straight:
You, Colourstorm are Pro-Abortion?
LikeLike
jz
What part of ‘Kinda makes sense that a man should be a bit judicious when giving and taking away….’ don’t you understand?
I’m not taking away anything.
LikeLike
I’m sorry Colourstorm, but you’re just not making any sense whatsoever.
Here, let’s simplify the question:
Colourstorm: Are you, like your god, Pro-Abortion?
LikeLike
jz
Your questions as usual, present a false narrative.
There is no ambiguity in the argument of ib22, nor mine here.
‘The righteous tend to life……….’ What do you want, a certified letter?
LikeLike
‘The righteous tend to life……….’
Is that scripture?
If so, how does that square with the abortion poison your god commands to be used to destroy unwanted foetus’s?
That’s what I’m asking, Colourstorm. Could you try and be clear in what you write. You’re not making any sense.
Again: Are you, Colourstorm, pro-abortion, like your god?
Yes or No?
LikeLike
Ah… I get it… you understand that your god is not righteous if “the righteous tend to life” and your god not only permits but seems to endorse abortion.
Bummer for you.
But you also believe your god is perfection and so must be righteous.
Uh oh… (cue the “One of these things just doesn’t belong here’ children’s song)
It’s amazing to me how often religious positions put forth incompatible claims and insist that both are true (as well as exempt from doubt) and so the ‘just so’ squinting begins… and still people try to square the circle as if this kind of belief is rational.
It isn’t.
As CS and IB22 and Wally and so many others like to demonstrate, it’s no wonder brains on religion just don’t work well; they can’t because the subject (without an object) is irrational.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice try tildeb, but wrong.
Would you like to try ‘world capitals’ for 600?
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, I think we can conclude that Colorstorm’s failure to answer a clear question is an answer in itself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apparently Pete, you have not learned the lesson of Pilates disingenuous question either:’what is truth?’
LikeLike
Ah so my friend you are like Jesus before the evil ‘Pilate’ our friend Mr Zande.
Like Jesus you have been deserted by the disciples (IB) whilst all the accusers encircle you.
I suspect you take comfort from being persecuted for the truth.
LikeLike
Yikes pete, a foul ball there. Did I call Pilate evil?
The point was rather simple though, as to WHY the Lord was silent.
Persecution? Hardly. A walk in the park with no effort, and causing no sweat.
LikeLike
And oh btw, and for what its worth john, insanitybytes22 has been both Willing, and easily Able to address your concerns, but of course you have chosen to avoid the answers you seek.
Did you catch that word ‘Easily?’
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me fix that for you, CS.
Many of the commenters on this thread have put forward logical, sensible, in-depth responses to IB’s question. Both of you refuse to accept the CONCLUSIONS, which are easily comprehended.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here ya go carm, last comment to you and colleagues.
Until you come to know that God is perfect and can do no wrong, you will always be at a disadvantage in understanding His ways……………..simply because as the old Stones song goes: you put Him under your thumb, and have assigned absurd qualities to Him that justify your unbelief.
Newsflash: He is error free, and the wrong is always…. always…… always in the hearts of they who chastise the Creator.
LikeLike
He is error free
So, that means abortion is fine, as your “error-free god” demands the use of the abortion poison.
Therefore, you (like Insanity) are pro-abortion.
Thanks for clearing that up,. Colourstorm.
LikeLike
Geez john, I think you have mixed up the true God of heaven and earth, with your non existent one made in your image……….
You take great liberty to put your views in the mouths of others, and artfully assign your caustic interpretations where they are not welcome nor true.
Talk about amusing nonsense. Over and out.
LikeLike
Right, you’re Pro-Abortion.
In the future, if you would just answer straight questions with straight answers we wouldn’t have to waste so much time getting to the bottom of your beliefs.
Your god, the one you follow, is “error free,” and as your god demands the use of abortion poison to destroy foetus’s then you, too, endorse the use of abortion poison.
Colourstorm (and Insanity) are, therefore, Pro-Abortion.
If I’m mistaken, then please tell me why you think your god is wrong, and why you’re anti-abortion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once more you attribute your conclusions without merit.
All I can say when speaking of truth: ‘the darkness comprehendeth it not.’
It’s not an insult, but a matter of fact. You are scripturally handicapped, and the argument has become pointless.
LikeLike
Colourstorm, Yes or No: Does your god perform abortions?
LikeLike
Is there a difference between a ‘god’ and the true and living God?
Answer this and you will hardly need an answer from me.
But once more your questions present a false narrative and not worthy of time.
And some mock the silence of the Lord before Pilate….
LikeLike
Curious: does it ever occur to you that your inability to answer simple questions reflects the fragility of your belief system?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What you deem ‘inability’ others may recognize as prudence.
Have a great day/night though.
LikeLike
Actually it was when I started to fully appreciate the errors in the Bible that I came to conclude that if ‘God’ is error free and never wrong then in fact the very fallible Bible proves it is not a divine work.
LikeLike
Thanks for that, Colourstorm.
Perhaps you could point me to the comment where Insanity has answered the same question put to you. I might have missed it, so your help here would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Pingback: Abortion – some facts and history | Clouds moving in
Pingback: a challenge for christians: the moral argument against abortion | violetwisp
Pingback: Backed Into A Corner, Poked with a Stick – Arguing with Religious People. | Dead Wild Roses
Pingback: abortion – what do you want? | violetwisp