Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Peter Holmes]

The thing about what we call facts and objectivity - and why we value them - is because they liberate us from the delusion that believing, thinking and saying something is so makes it so. And I guess that's an evolved attitude - if only very lately and variably - in human societies. For example, consider this claim:

Water is H2O because I/we/all of us believe/think/say it is.

I think most of us would say that's wrong. I/we/all of us may well believe/think/say something is the case - but that can never be the reason why it's the case. (For now, I want to leave aside VA's and other so-called anti-realist arguments against this prejudice or assumption in favour of facts and objectivity.)

Given the above, consider the following claim:

X is morally wrong because I/we/all of us/my cult's god/God believe(s)/think(s)/say(s) it is.

The point is this. If we think there are such things as facts and objectivity, we can't then offer subjective reasons - what anyone believes, thinks or says - for something being a fact. That road is closed.

PS: I use the word 'cult', because a religion is just a big old cult with good PR.

You got it wrong because you are relying on whatever is fact and objectivity that is grounded on an illusion.
The road is not closed.

What is morality is conditioned upon a moral Framework and System [FS].
In say the Christian moral FSERC, God commanded killing of humans is forbidden, thus immoral.
So, if X kill humans, then X is morally wrong as qualified to the Christian moral FS.

A Christian can insist 'whatever is fact is contingent upon a Framework & System [independent of a subject's opinion, beliefs and judgments] which is objective.
The Christian moral FS from an independent God is factual and objective.
Therefore the command thou shall not kill human is an objective moral fact as qualified to the Christian-moral FS.

However, a rational, critical thinking person will insist the objective moral fact as qualified to the Christian-moral FS, is merely of negligible credibility and objective relative to the scientific FS as the gold standard.

My presentation above grounded on rationality and critical thinking is reasonable.

What tripe. Whether or not any cult's god exists is a fact that has nothing to do with beliefs. You've got this completely back to front. Beliefs don't make facts.

[Alexiev]

A not uncommon, yet minority viewpoint/opinion.

It's only "minority" because only a vast "minority" of babies survive the abortion mill. If we were able to poll the hundreds of thousands or millions murdered worldwide every year, I think we could arrive at much higher numbers. Unfortunately, killing people does rather end their chances to cry out in their own defense.

You bring up an important point, though not perhaps the one you were supposing. Namely, that opinions differ on when "personhood" should be conferred. You're acting casually as if fetuses (which are not "babies" as you know) equate to people. Many agree, but again it's a minority opinion.

BTW, what's your opinion on In Vito Fertilization?

Exactly. We could confer "personhood" before conception: unfertilized ova or sperm are "potential humans", and biblical admonitions to Onan are well known. Or perhaps we confer such status on conception (although many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus). Or maybe it's movement, or viability, or birth.

The point is that wherever we decide to assign humanity, that decision will always be controversial and arbitrary. The Catholic Church opposes birth control. That's as reasonable as opposing early term abortion. But perhaps imposing such beliefs as law is overly onerous.

In addition, if societies' laws properly protect members of society, it's difficult to suggest that sperm, ova, or newly fertilized ova qualify

[Immanuel Can]

A not uncommon, yet minority viewpoint/opinion.

It's only "minority" because only a vast "minority" of babies survive the abortion mill. If we were able to poll the hundreds of thousands or millions murdered worldwide every year, I think we could arrive at much higher numbers. Unfortunately, killing people does rather end their chances to cry out in their own defense.

You bring up an important point, though not perhaps the one you were supposing. Namely, that opinions differ on when "personhood" should be conferred.

Personhood isn't "conferred" at all. It's intrinsic. A person is a person, whether or not some other group of persons decide to agree she is.

You're acting casually as if fetuses (which are not "babies" as you know) equate to people.

If they don't, then to what do they "equate"? To fishes? To dogs? To emus? Obviously not. And there's nothing casual or even extraordinary about the realization that that is the case; the whole point of abortion is to cut off the existence of a person...not of a dog or emu. It's only because the baby will necessarily make the demands of a mother that any child, any fully-fledged person would, that they are even treated as problematic in the first place. What the woman is fearing is having to have a baby, a toddler, a child, and eventually, a teenager and adult. She doesn't fear the presence in the world of just another emu.

[Alexiev]

It's only "minority" because only a vast "minority" of babies survive the abortion mill. If we were able to poll the hundreds of thousands or millions murdered worldwide every year, I think we could arrive at much higher numbers. Unfortunately, killing people does rather end their chances to cry out in their own defense.

You bring up an important point, though not perhaps the one you were supposing. Namely, that opinions differ on when "personhood" should be conferred.

Personhood isn't "conferred" at all. It's intrinsic. A person is a person, whether or not some other group of persons decide to agree she is.

You're acting casually as if fetuses (which are not "babies" as you know) equate to people.

If they don't, then to what do they "equate"? To fishes? To dogs? To emus? Obviously not. And there's nothing casual or even extraordinary about the realization that that is the case; the whole point of abortion is to cut off the existence of a person...not of a dog or emu. It's only because the baby will necessarily make the demands of a mother that any child, any fully-fledged person would, that they are even treated as problematic in the first place. What the woman is fearing is having to have a baby, a toddler, a child, and eventually, a teenager and adult. She doesn't fear the presence in the world of just another emu.

This is nonsense. A fertilized cell is not a "person" by any normal definition of "person". If we show a picture of a fertilized ovum to English speakers, none would say, "That's a person".

So your notion that a fertilized ovum is a person is no more obvious than that a sperm or unfertilized ovum is a person. The position is reasonable, but hardly obvious.

[Flannel Jesus]

So your notion that a fertilized ovum is a person is no more obvious than that a sperm or unfertilized ovum is a person. The position is reasonable, but hardly obvious.

It seems like you haven't read the title of this thread. It says Period! With a capital P and an exclamation mark. Spare me all this fancy talk about ovum bovum. Period! means TRUE!

[Immanuel Can]

You bring up an important point, though not perhaps the one you were supposing. Namely, that opinions differ on when "personhood" should be conferred.

Personhood isn't "conferred" at all. It's intrinsic. A person is a person, whether or not some other group of persons decide to agree she is.

You're acting casually as if fetuses (which are not "babies" as you know) equate to people.

If they don't, then to what do they "equate"? To fishes? To dogs? To emus? Obviously not. And there's nothing casual or even extraordinary about the realization that that is the case; the whole point of abortion is to cut off the existence of a person...not of a dog or emu. It's only because the baby will necessarily make the demands of a mother that any child, any fully-fledged person would, that they are even treated as problematic in the first place. What the woman is fearing is having to have a baby, a toddler, a child, and eventually, a teenager and adult. She doesn't fear the presence in the world of just another emu.

This is nonsense. A fertilized cell is not a "person" by any normal definition of "person".

Who's doing the defining? What makes it "normal"?

What about having a truthful or accurate definition: that would be better, would it not?

What's very clear, though, is that the aborter is trying to prevent a person. Not an ovum. If she would stay merely an ovum, then there would no great concern, and there would be no alleged threat to lifestyle or demands, no need that a potential mother should be delivered from the expedient of loving and caring for her as she grows up.

But what the aborter wants is precisely to cut off a person from existing...nothing less. And every aborter knows exactly that fact.

[Alexiev]

Who's doing the defining? What makes it "normal"?

What about having a truthful or accurate definition: that would be better, would it not?

What's very clear, though, is that the aborter is trying to prevent a person. Not an ovum. If she would stay merely an ovum, then there would no great concern, and there would be no alleged threat to lifestyle or demands, no need that a potential mother should be delivered from the expedient of loving and caring for her as she grows up.

But what the aborter wants is precisely to cut off a person from existing...nothing less. And every aborter knows exactly that fact.

Easy questions. Speakers of standard Engilsh are doing the defining.

Every person who uses birth control is trying to prevent a person from existing. So are some people who abstain from sex. So what? What's wrong with that?

[Immanuel Can]

Who's doing the defining? What makes it "normal"?

What about having a truthful or accurate definition: that would be better, would it not?

What's very clear, though, is that the aborter is trying to prevent a person. Not an ovum. If she would stay merely an ovum, then there would no great concern, and there would be no alleged threat to lifestyle or demands, no need that a potential mother should be delivered from the expedient of loving and caring for her as she grows up.

But what the aborter wants is precisely to cut off a person from existing...nothing less. And every aborter knows exactly that fact.

Easy questions. Speakers of standard Engilsh are doing the defining.

Wrong answer. Not only do speakers of Standard English not agree on this question, neither does the rest of the world that does not speak Standard English. And, in fact, the word "foetus" comes from Latin, not Standard English, and means "an offspring of a human or other mammal in the stages of prenatal development" (Oxford English Dictionary). We're not talking about "other mammals," obviously; so what we're talking about, in Standard English, is a "human."

Maybe you want to revise that answer?

Every person who uses birth control is trying to prevent a person from existing.

That is true. But I don't know what you are trying to conclude from that fact.

One thing you can say about them: that at least they are not tearing one limb from limb and flushing her into a sink. So that's in their favour, I guess. But who says they should be preventing pregnancy with pills? Why don't they just manage their own reproductive potential by choice -- the very faculty the "pro-choicers" want us to think is so great?

[Harbal]

But who says they should be preventing pregnancy with pills? Why don't they just manage their own reproductive potential by choice -- the very faculty the "pro-choicers" want us to think is so great?

Isn't taking pills exercising choice?

[Flannel Jesus]

But who says they should be preventing pregnancy with pills? Why don't they just manage their own reproductive potential by choice -- the very faculty the "pro-choicers" want us to think is so great?

Isn't taking pills exercising choice?

Yeah that seems like a weird argument he made to me. "Why aren't they choosing to do the exact thing I want them to do, instead of choosing to do the thing that want to do, which is take the pills".

Who cares? Let em take the pills.

[Immanuel Can]

But who says they should be preventing pregnancy with pills? Why don't they just manage their own reproductive potential by choice -- the very faculty the "pro-choicers" want us to think is so great?

Isn't taking pills exercising choice?

It is. And provided the pills in question do no harm to you or anybody else, that's perfectly fine. The question is, "Do the pills do harm?"

[Harbal]

But who says they should be preventing pregnancy with pills? Why don't they just manage their own reproductive potential by choice -- the very faculty the "pro-choicers" want us to think is so great?

Isn't taking pills exercising choice?

It is. And provided the pills in question do no harm to you or anybody else, that's perfectly fine. The question is, "Do the pills do harm?"

Well I can't see how they do harm to anyone other than the person taking them, and if they do have any harmful effects on the one taking them, that is their choice, which, presumably, they will weigh against the harm of not taking them.

[Immanuel Can]

Isn't taking pills exercising choice?

It is. And provided the pills in question do no harm to you or anybody else, that's perfectly fine. The question is, "Do the pills do harm?"

Well I can't see how they do harm to anyone other than the person taking them, and if they do have any harmful effects on the one taking them, that is their choice, which, presumably, they will weigh against the harm of not taking them.

I agree. That's what you can't see.

[Harbal]

It is. And provided the pills in question do no harm to you or anybody else, that's perfectly fine. The question is, "Do the pills do harm?"

Well I can't see how they do harm to anyone other than the person taking them, and if they do have any harmful effects on the one taking them, that is their choice, which, presumably, they will weigh against the harm of not taking them.

I agree. That's what you can't see.

But I suspect I won't agree with what you think you can see.

[Immanuel Can]

Well I can't see how they do harm to anyone other than the person taking them, and if they do have any harmful effects on the one taking them, that is their choice, which, presumably, they will weigh against the harm of not taking them.

I agree. That's what you can't see.

But I suspect I won't agree with what you think you can see.

I suspect you're correct. At least you see that.