Absolute Prohibition of Abortion

[Diogenes]

One question for debate is whether Islam and the Roman Catholic church prohibit abortion in all cases.* They both appear to, even to save the mother's life. The RC view is nuanced, perhaps using disingenuous logic.#

Assuming these two major religions DO prohibit abortion even to save the life of the mother, as well as in the cases of rape and incest, how can this prohibition be morally justified?


_________________
*

"Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and the child." (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Association of Large Families, AAS (1951), XLIII, p. 855.)

#

The only ethically justified understanding of this much-celebrated exception shows that it is not an exception at all! The classical example of an ectopic pregnancy or the example of the cancerous uterus, which allow the surgeon, ethically, to remove the woman's damaged reproductive organs in order to save her life, should not be used as examples of abortion, even though a baby's life is terminated in the progress.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/librar ... ther-12052

[Purple Knight]

How do you morally justify allowing a wife and mother to die in order to preserve a blastocyst

Because they think it's a person. Full stop. This justifies everything and it's not unreasonable. They can even be right... even though I disagree with them.

This is because ultimately, where we draw the line of person-or-not-person is absolutely arbitrary.

My line is incredibly problematic because I attribute personhood to sapience and reason, meaning on the right side I'm including some other animals like cetaceans which is problematic, while on the left side I'm excluding some humans, which quite correctly gets me lumped in with Nazis because they advocated destroying the mentally handicapped, and while I think mild mental retardation is still personhood, I don't think that way when it's severe and the human is non-functional.

Their line is a lot less problematic, much simpler (human=person) and is only a problem on the right side where they're including blastocysts and letting a fully developed, thinking, breathing, reasoning being die because it would be murder to kill the blastocyst.

Their line also makes more sense than the rules of modern society, which affirms that you have rights without a brain, but not as a blastocyst... even though... not having sentience... is really the only claim anyone has to justify the blastocyst not having any rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly
Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a main brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining awareness of their surroundings. Reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur.
Due to the presence of the brainstem, children with anencephaly have almost all the primitive reflexes of a newborn, responding to auditory, vestibular and painful stimuli.[6] This means that the child can move, smile, suckle and breathe without the aid of devices.

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA ... 7Ee9dc32ba
Under the present legal system infants with anencephaly are considered living human beings whose rights must be vigorously protected

[brunumb]

Murder is unlawful killing of a human being. If abortion is legal it is not unlawful and therefore not murder. A clump of cells is not a person despite anything you might say to prop up your emotive argument.

Do you think you are more than a clump of cells? Why?

I am, now. ...

Please explain why do you think so?

The cells are now organised into structures we call organs. There is also bone and hair.

Does this mean we can eliminate all bald people, or people who are not fully developed?

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about.

[Diogenes]

How do you morally justify allowing a wife and mother to die in order to preserve a blastocyst

Because they think it's a person. Full stop. This justifies everything and it's not unreasonable. They can even be right... even though I disagree with them.

This is because ultimately, where we draw the line of person-or-not-person is absolutely arbitrary.
....

I appreciate your thoughtful comment, but do not think 'the line' need be arbitrary. Rather, the problem is drawing that line requires knowledge and intelligence. Many do not appreciate either. They prefer absolutes to difficult truths. It should be obvious that neither a zygote, a blastocyte, nor an early stage embryo is a human being.

It should be equally obvious that a fetus that can feel pain, react to stimuli, has a full heartbeat (as opposed to undetermined sounds), and is actively moving on it own within the womb is something human and worthy of protection.

But there is another issue, the issue of coercion. Do we really want a society that locks up pregnant women to force them to term? Do we want a society that offers the death penalty or prison to ten year old girls who were raped and aborted the fetus of the rapist? This is what the religious right insists on:

Pronouncing as "murderers" and imprisoning women who refuse to carry a rapist's zygote to term.
As I say in my signature, the best arguments against religion, are the arguments made in support of it.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #31]

I am fine with being called a blastocyst.

The word seems way more cool than the word human.

Now that I am a blastocyst - do you morally have no issue with murdering me?

[oldbadger]

I have read and heard about abortion bans in some US States.
I have even heard that rape victims have no right to abortion, is that correct?

In any case, where babies are utterly protected by law, then I would expect the law to provide for babies through childhood until adulthood, offering adequate subsistence and clothing, a full education, and all medical care until at least 18yrs of age. And certainly in the case of a rape victim's child and all children born disabled the law should provide even full university education costs and special benefits for the mother.

But..... do they?

[brunumb]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #31]

I am fine with being called a blastocyst.

The word seems way more cool than the word human.

Now that I am a blastocyst - do you morally have no issue with murdering me?

Is this what you call intelligent debate?

There is a specific meaning for blastocyst. There is a specific meaning for murder. All you are doing is murdering the English language. What a waste of time.

[Diogenes]

A blastocyst has no brain. It is just a clump of cells. It cannot make cogent arguments.
In fact, the human fetus does not have a viable or complex nervous system until about 6 months after fertilization.

"The embryonic stage reveals that the fertilized egg is a clump of cells with no brain; the processes that begin to generate a nervous system do not begin until after the fourteenth day. No sustainable or complex nervous system is in place until approximately six months of gestation."
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/book ... brain.html

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

It is immoral to kill someone just to right a wrong.
Abortion is killing someone.
Therefore abortion is immoral.

The best course of action is for the poor girl or woman to raise the child and win by proving the rapist and all the people that wanted to kill the baby were wrong to think so.

Since the value of a blastocyst is not equal to the value of an actual child, abortion is not immoral like killing someone is.

No actual argument here, just pretending A equals B.

[Clownboat]

I would also add who judges that the life of a woman is of more value than the life of a child?

I have done just that. The life of a woman is of more value than the life of a zygote, blastocyst, embryo and/or fetus.

Biblically, all human life is equal, it is not of less value because the person is smaller, has not lived as long or is physically dependent on others to survive.

Are you talking about a book that would send countless billions to a hell for not beliving a dead man resurrected? That book? I would suggest you use your mind in place of a book.

[Purple Knight]

I appreciate your thoughtful comment, but do not think 'the line' need be arbitrary. Rather, the problem is drawing that line requires knowledge and intelligence. Many do not appreciate either. They prefer absolutes to difficult truths. It should be obvious that neither a zygote, a blastocyte, nor an early stage embryo is a human being.

It should be equally obvious that a fetus that can feel pain, react to stimuli, has a full heartbeat (as opposed to undetermined sounds), and is actively moving on it own within the womb is something human and worthy of protection.

A fly can feel pain, react to stimuli, and moves on its own. It is not a human worthy of protection. Maybe that's because it doesn't happen to be of the human species but now we're back to consideration of species. Feeling pain, reacting to stimuli, and moving on your own don't give you rights if you wouldn't otherwise have them. If "it's obvious" is the only point, I can only follow it to there being a very important qualitative difference between a blastocyst and a fetus that can react to stimuli and move on its own. I can't follow it to that being the thing that gives you rights because nobody gives rights to everything that can react to stimuli. And if you need to be human anyway, but if an adult human is going to have rights without sapience, the pro-life side is going to ask why not the blastocyst and the only good answer is going to be, because it makes raped 10-year-olds into murderers.

But there is another issue, the issue of coercion. Do we really want a society that locks up pregnant women to force them to term? Do we want a society that offers the death penalty or prison to ten year old girls who were raped and aborted the fetus of the rapist? This is what the religious right insists on:

Pronouncing as "murderers" and imprisoning women who refuse to carry a rapist's zygote to term.
As I say in my signature, the best arguments against religion, are the arguments made in support of it.

Actually this isn't necessary. I happen to be pro-choice but there's a pro-life way to avoid this: Let the mother have the abortion and the rapist is the murderer. I imagine if someone throws a baby on a highway, he's the murderer and not the driver of the car that happens to hit it. I would hope, anyway. I would also imagine that if people made a practice of laying large amounts of babies on highways, forcing people to avoid them, that ultimately making them the wrongdoers when the babies go splat, and letting drivers have their highways, is the necessary and fairest outcome.

One reason I feel pro-life side is inconsistent is that they don't say that someone who is trying to achieve a baby, but has miscarriages, is guilty of anything. If the fetuses were really full-fledged people, then trying when you know you have miscarriages would qualify as endangerment. People would have to make sure their uterus is safe just like schools have to make sure their buses are safe before anyone can put children in them.

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #31]

I am fine with being called a blastocyst.

The word seems way more cool than the word human.

Now that I am a blastocyst - do you morally have no issue with murdering me?

I have a major issue with murdering you and if I have say I will not let anyone do so. If I have say I will punish someone for doing so.

This is because you are clearly sapient and can reason. My line is more problematic because I do not count an adult human as worthy of protection if it doesn't have a brain, or has mental retardation severe enough that it can't reason, and because I do count some higher animals as worthy of protection, such as cetaceans and corvids. But I stand by it.

I'm not sure what Diogenes thinks about you calling yourself a blastocyst. They might say you clearly ain't one because you have more than a handful of cells. I imagine that because you react to stimuli, have a heartbeat, and move on your own, you're going to be worthy of protection in their worldview because that's what matters. I just have a problem with it because flies meet those criteria and then you have to add the criterion that you have to be of the human species anyway.