Comments on: The Secular Morality of Abortion

By: A Taste of 2012 » Almost Diamonds

A Taste of 2012 » Almost Diamonds — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 15:00:44 +0000

[…] were always our best choices for next of kin. I spoke at a local community college about how the morality used to argue against abortion is ultimately secular (if often grossly wrong). I talked about the not-so-difficult task of balancing of rights in […]

By: No Light

No Light — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:37:35 +0000

@Gilliel – there was a documentary series here in the UK that showed a series of mammals developing in utero, from conception to birth.

IIRC there was a human, an elephant, a dolphin, and a litter each of puppies and kittens. It was amazing.

The embryonic stage was fascinating because they were entirely undifferentiated. They could have been any future animal Anyone who could watch that and deny evolution would have to be smoking some serious crack.

I’m going. to use little Mr Ele-Embryo. too, See if anyone will argue it’s worth as a human!

By: dustinarand

dustinarand — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:52:22 +0000

Having grown up in a devoutly Catholic household, I can tell you that the firm conviction of pro-lifers stems from what seems to them to be an airtight logical argument. It goes something like this.
MP: All persons have a right to life.
mp: A fetus is a person
C: Therefore, a fetus has a right to life.
The seeming certainty of this syllogistic reasoning gives pro-lifers great confidence that their cause must be just, but it doesn’t hold up under close examination.
First, it depends upon an equivocation fallacy. The word “person” is being used in two different senses in the major and minor premises. The major premise is a normative statement about a moral category, “person”, and some attribute it has by virtue of (unstated) moral arguments or assumptions. But in the minor premise the assumption that a fetus is a person depends upon evidence and/or arguments that fetuses have certain physical attributes that merit our treating them as ontologically analogous to persons (in the physical sense). If we used different words to refer to the moral category “person” and the ontological category “person” (say, by using “human being” in the latter instance), the nature of the argument as a non sequitur would immediately be obvious
MP: All persons have a right to life
mp: A fetus is a human being
C: Therefore, a fetus has a right to life
Second, the argument fails to recognize both that categories (such as “person”) are fuzzy, and that rights are nearly always conditional. The fact that even most pro-lifers agree that women should be able to abort a pregnancy in cases of rape or incest, and the fact that they are generally not in favor of charging women or their doctors with murder for having or performing abortions, suggests that at an intuitive level they don’t really feel that fetuses and persons enjoy the same moral or ontological status. But when they have to make arguments explicitly they feel bound by logic to go the full Monty. This is really an instance of consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds.

By: Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus

Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:02:42 +0000

OMG, the above is a superior offering to Tpyos

By: Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus

Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:01:53 +0000

Well, one of my favourite games to play with anti-choicers, especially those driven by abortion porn is to ask them whether they consider this to be a baby and equal in worth and value to a woman. It is, infact, an elephant embryo... No, religion is no source of morality. The Catholics and the Lutherans here will tout how our values and morals are derived from god and the bibile and 400 years ago they touted the exact opposite morals and values and fought tooth and claw against those very values they promote totday. If we sould end up in a world where contraception and abortion are a non-issue and totally regarded as the medical decision of the individual woman and those churches should still be around they will have a 100% logical explenation as to why that is actually what god always meant.

By: sheila

sheila — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:33:06 +0000

Libby Anne just had a great post on abortion. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html) She points out that it doesn’t make sense for the religious right to claim that pro-unborn-life is about saving babies.

1) They don’t do anything to make it easier to keep the baby (unless you’re a member of their church). In fact, they’re solidly against anything to help poor families.

2) Making abortions illegal doesn’t reduce the number of abortions. If you don’t know that, you haven’ been paying attention, ergo you’re not that interested in what will save babies. Making abortions illegal just kills desperate women.

3) It’s blindingly obvious (and backed up by data) that the way to reduce abortions is to make contraceptives available. Obamacare will reduce the number of abortions annually by up to 75%. But the religious right is screaming that this is immoral.

4) Millions of zygotes that fail to implant. According to the religious right, these already have a human soul, but they’re making precisely zero effort to save these zygotes.

Even if you believe that a zygote is fully human, none of their policies make any sense at all. It’s not about saving babies: it’s about controlling women’s sex lives.

By: No Light

No Light — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:58:03 +0000

Gregory – the device is a del’em. When Baby Bush was still in power some of my American friends were worried about Roe being overturned.

They intended to do what was often done pre-Roe, make the devices and offer a “menstrual extraction” service.

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

Now, of course, you can get Mexican or Indian misoprostol online, as mentioned above. Two pills under the tongue, and the result is the uterus expelling it’s contents. More importantly, should the woman require medical help, she’s indistinguishable from someone who’s had a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage).

By: StevoR

StevoR — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 08:33:23 +0000

We are now “pro-life” enough that political candidates can do things like claiming that pregnancies resulting from rape are “God’s will” and not watch their political careers end.

I wouldn’t speak too soon on that maybe.

Hopefully that Murdough (right name /spelling?) douchebag and Todd Aikin will both lose their elections badly. They’ve both gotta be unelectable now.

Surely?

Or am I over-estimating humanity and the US voters again?

By: Gregory in Seattle

Gregory in Seattle — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 06:04:26 +0000

@mouse #7 – The interview was from the early 1980s, long before safe drugs had been invented. The home “kit” was basically a suction device, very similar to what was being used in clinics at the time.

By: mouse

mouse — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 02:04:15 +0000

Your point was excellently set up and executed. I think I will borrow this example at the earliest opportunity.

Greg in Seattle – the “home abortion kit” is so ironic, given that so many of us have performed an abortion in just that manner. Take two pills, get really sick, and it’s over. The horror!