Using logic and reason to oppose abortion...

[questioner4]

Okay, even though I've been questioning my faith for over a year, I am still firmly pro-life - although I believe 'traditional' pro-lifers go about it the wrong way. I believe thast abortion is wrong, because I oppose discrimination on all grounds. I believe it is being discriminatory to deny basic human rights to the smallest humans, simply because they are still dependant on the mother. It really would be nice to hear people oppose abortion on grounds other than the Bible.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Are you a 'non-traditional pro-lifer'? If you are Christian and pro-life, can you think of any non-Biblical reasons to oppose abortion?

[AlAyeti]

Quote:

When fertilization takes place all of the DNA is now completed to make the person and everything that identifies that one individual a 100% unique person

You still don't quite get it that the DNA content is "complete" when a sperm and an egg are next to each other. Is that a person?

Consider two sperm next to an egg. According to your DNA-based model, these represent two complete, viable people that both deserve to live. Yet when one fertilizes the egg he kills his brother. How do you deal with the moral implications of that? Or do you just ignore it?

What I am not ignoring is the place where your argument has broken down and now exists. I wish I could say that I am surprised but I expect that this type of reasoning power is at play in supporting abortion for convenience.

You are not grasping at straws nor are you building strawmen, you have entered into a world where I haven't the abilty to reach you. It is like presenting the term "almost pregnant" as meaning anything rational.

I am going to print out this thread and use it to show the Christians that I support, why we are not the ones that hold bizaare and fantastic and indeed undefensible views.

Utterly incredible post.

[ENIGMA]

Sex and the resulting pregnancy? Was the woman married or not? Did she get married or pregnant to kill her unborn child? A miscarriage is not a act of wilful intent.

No, but unless she was raped sex was.

Let's see a law about manslaughter shall we? This is where the term precedent comes from. It's a legal term.

You leave out a key term: involuntary.

From the 1998 Criminal Code of Oregon:

163.118 Manslaughter in the first degree.
...

Manslaughter in the first degree is, in all likelyhood considered the equivalent of voluntary manslaughter, not involuntary manslaughter.

Failure to appreciate this difference is as monumental an error as failing to appreciate the difference between a shielded nuclear reactor and an unshielded one. Do find a legal definition for involuntary manslaughter and feel free to get back to us then, mkay?

Just another small note:

(3) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1)(c)(B) of this section that the child or dependent person was under care or treatment solely by spiritual means pursuant to religious beliefs or practices of the child or person or the parent or guardian of the child or person.

This part of the law was written in to keep good Christian parents whose religious beliefs support exclusive use of faith healing from going to jail when they let their children die of a readily curable illness.

If you are so concerned about the children, why do you never rail against such people?

///

The mother had no intention of killing it, she just engaged in activity which had a significant chance of killing it (more likely than the stereotypical "Man recklessly tosses brick over sidewalk, killing pedestrian beneath" scenario, at any rate). That's the definition of involuntary manslaughter.

Abortion, you have proved, is murder.

No, I have assumed it for purposes of doing a reducio ad absurdum on such a notion. Get with the program.

Why try a person whose only involvement in the death of another was an accident? NO prosecuator will get involved.

So, only follow the law when it "feels good"? Gee, never thought you would be the one with such a sentiment.


Let me fix your bolding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

Quote:

Involuntary manslaughter (which includes negligent manslaughter) is the crime that results from a death that occurs despite a lack of intent to kill. The criminal law of England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and United States differentiate between various crimes based on mens rea (criminal intent), and involuntary manslaughter is generally associated with a level of negligent mens rea. While specifics of negligence may vary from one jurisdiction to another, it is generally defined as failure to exercise a reasonable level of precaution given the circumstances. Recklessness is defined as a wanton disregard for the dangers of a particular situation.An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge, which landed on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent was not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the Mens Rea required for murder does not exist. However, in dropping the brick, there was a good chance of injuring someone, therefore the person who dropped it was reckless.

Negligent mena rea = Not intent to kill, but rather intent to take an action with a significant likelyhood of death.

The brick example illustrates this nicely.

A person intentionally drops a brick off a bridge, the brick falls and kills the victim, even though the person did not intend to kill the victim.

Likewise:

A woman intentionally has sex (excluding rape), a miscarriage occurs and kills the embryo/fetus, even though she did not intend to kill it.

As to whether getting pregnant amounts to reckless endangerment:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Feb28.html

Medical textbooks, U.S. government statistics and many obstetrician/gynecologists state that about 15 percent of pregnant women will miscarry. But this number refers only to "clinical" pregnancies -- those confirmed by a pregnancy test at a doctor's office.

An authoritative study published more than 15 years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine found that more than twice as many pregnancies, 31 percent, result in miscarriage.

Not a coin toss, but certainly more probable than dropping a brick off of a bridge at random and killing someone below.

Risk does not carry with it culpabilty nor complicity in a crime.

Taking an action that significantly increases the likelyhood of someone else's death does.

Judging from the statistics, it's like playing Russian Roulette with 1 or 2 rounds in the chamber.

*spins the barrel*

Feeling lucky?

Just being alive carries with it the risk of death. We do not prosecute mountain climbers that survive an avalanche that there friends didn't survive. UNLESS, someone cut a rope or pushed someone OR brought a bad rope knowingly.

In other words, you only prosecute people if they significantly increase the likelyhood of someone else's death... see we agree.

[AlAyeti]

AlAyeti wrote:

Sex and the resulting pregnancy? Was the woman married or not? Did she get married or pregnant to kill her unborn child? A miscarriage is not a act of wilful intent.

No, but unless she was raped sex was.

Rape is bad but slaughtering a little unborn person is not? Please tell me where your views of morality come from? The baby is forcefully slaughtered too. How would you prosecute a rapist? I would be most harsh. I do not even like to dwell on the rape issue becuse the woman is purely innocent and a victim. Like an unborn human.

Quote:

Let's see a law about manslaughter shall we? This is where the term precedent comes from. It's a legal term.

You leave out a key term: involuntary.

Innocent people do not even get prosecuted. You did not understand my use of the law on guilt and innocent.

Quote:
From the 1998 Criminal Code of Oregon:

163.118 Manslaughter in the first degree.
...

Manslaughter in the first degree is, in all likelyhood considered the equivalent of voluntary manslaughter, not involuntary manslaughter.

Abortion is murder. Are you agreeing with that fact?

Failure to appreciate this difference is as monumental an error as failing to appreciate the difference between a shielded nuclear reactor and an unshielded one. Do find a legal definition for involuntary manslaughter and feel free to get back to us then, mkay?

Guilt is all about the thought process.

Just another small note:

Quote:
(3) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1)(c)(B) of this section that the child or dependent person was under care or treatment solely by spiritual means pursuant to religious beliefs or practices of the child or person or the parent or guardian of the child or person.

This part of the law was written in to keep good Christian parents whose religious beliefs support exclusive use of faith healing from going to jail when they let their children die of a readily curable illness.

And now it is being used by the homosexual agenda to force parents to have to let their kids be taught sodomy as a civil rights issue and the sex acts as a life skill. So much for paranoia.

If you are so concerned about the children, why do you never rail against such people?

I'm an consistent in my views about protecting children. mine have asll been inoculated. And visit Doctor's when sick. Our pediatrician even knows the difference between a rectum and a penis.

///

Quote:
The mother had no intention of killing it, she just engaged in activity which had a significant chance of killing it (more likely than the stereotypical "Man recklessly tosses brick over sidewalk, killing pedestrian beneath" scenario, at any rate). That's the definition of involuntary manslaughter.

Quote:
Abortion, you have proved, is murder.

No, I have assumed it for purposes of doing a reducio ad absurdum on such a notion. Get with the program.

Even in latin murder is murder. See the Hypocratic oath.

Quote:
Why try a person whose only involvement in the death of another was an accident? NO prosecuator will get involved.

So, only follow the law when it "feels good"? Gee, never thought you would be the one with such a sentiment.

Let me fix your bolding:

That is all you will be able to fix in trying to redefine murder and guilt.

Medical textbooks, U.S. government statistics and many obstetrician/gynecologists state that about 15 percent of pregnant women will miscarry. But this number refers only to "clinical" pregnancies -- those confirmed by a pregnancy test at a doctor's office.

An authoritative study published more than 15 years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine found that more than twice as many pregnancies, 31 percent, result in miscarriage.

Not a coin toss, but certainly more probable than dropping a brick off of a bridge at random and killing someone below.

Absence of malice. An accident.

Risk does not carry with it culpabilty nor complicity in a crime.

Taking an action that significantly increases the likelyhood of someone else's death does.

Judging from the statistics, it's like playing Russian Roulette with 1 or 2 rounds in the chamber.

Silly comparison. The gun has to be pointed at your own head with the knowledge of destroying yourself.

*spins the barrel*

Feeling lucky?

You are equating a willful act to an accident. Not smart.

Quote:
Just being alive carries with it the risk of death. We do not prosecute mountain climbers that survive an avalanche that there friends didn't survive. UNLESS, someone cut a rope or pushed someone OR brought a bad rope knowingly.

In other words, you only prosecute people if they significantly increase the likelyhood of someone else's death... see we agree.

Only certain kinds of people get pregnant with the premeditated thought of killing their baby before birth. Some have a dream shattered. Your logic is not well-placed.
_________________

[Tim the Skeptic]

If you really want to use logic and reason to oppose abortion you should first acknowledge one thing:

You will NEVER eliminate abortion from the supply side of the equation.

If there is a demand, there will be a supply. The American Prohibition proved it. The current Drug War proves it. Muslim smugglers of alcohol and drugs prove it. If abortion is declard illegal, Americans will go to somewhere else in the world to get an abortion or they will return to the back alleys.

So, if you want to eliminate abortions, you have to eliminate demand. Until Christians come up with a truly effective method of eliminating demand, there will always be a supply and all the Christian logic and reasoning in the world won't mean squat.

[juliod]

So, if you want to eliminate abortions, you have to eliminate demand.

There's the rub. The same christians that oppose abortion also vigorously oppose all reasonable efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies. The core reason is that christians want to use pregnancy as punishment for women for having sex.

DanZ

[steen]

Rape is bad but slaughtering a little unborn person is not?

"A little unborn person"? What kind of revisionist lingusitcis is that? Is that something like "re-dead corpse"?

The baby is forcefully slaughtered too.

"Baby" is the developmental stage beginning at birth. I fail to see any relevance here.

Innocent people do not even get prosecuted. You did not understand my use of the law on guilt and innocent.

Given that we now are at more than 100 people freed from death row, per evidence against their claimed crime, that seems a silly claim. Not only do innocent people get prosecuted, they also get judged and executed.

Abortion is murder. Are you agreeing with that fact?

"Murder" is the illegal killing of a person. So your claim is false, it is not a "fact."

Even in latin murder is murder.

And abortion isn't murder.

[Nirvana-Eld]

I'm sorry but I haven't been following too closely to this discusion and others, but i feel like another pro-life point of view is necessary.

If you justify abortion by being able to survive by one's own means, does that mean that people like Terry Shiavo are not human and can be killed only because she couldn't survive on her own? If this is true could we even go as far to say that those who carry around oxygen tanks are dispensable? One cannot justify abortion by the mere fact that they are unable to survive outside the womb.

In Abortion, your are taking unlimited potential and sucking out of existence. From a logical point of view, I find that appaling. It is as much of a waste as murder (im only equating the two)

[juliod]

If you justify abortion by being able to survive by one's own means, does that mean that people like Terry Shiavo are not human and can be killed only because she couldn't survive on her own?

That's a phony compound question there. Abortion is justified by being a safe and effective means of birth control.

In Abortion, your are taking unlimited potential and sucking out of existence. From a logical point of view, I find that appaling.

How do you find something "appalling" by logic? That doesn't seem possible. To be appalled is to have an emotional response.

DanZ

[Nirvana-Eld]

Heres a thought juliod, why not use a condom? or pills? or don't do it in the first place if you don't have a baby? personally i havent seen any protesting going on against the selling of those two products. The only protesting i see is the killing of innocent human beings. In Florida, turlte fetuses are protected by law, but why not Human fetuses? Is it because our society today have become morally apathetic and emotionless?

And having an emotional reaction from a logical conclusion is very possible. Thats how we form opinions.

[Nirvana-Eld]

One more thing, I'm not an expert, but i would like to see data(preferably with a source) on the effects of abortion on the mother's uterus, I recall something about scarring and the inability to have more children in some cases, but im not sure. help here please.