The practical morality of abortion

[TemplarKormac]

This is a video I came upon this afternoon. It makes points I really hadn't considered before about the morality of abortion. I typed up the transcript for those who prefer not to watch the video, or have internet connections that cannot support streaming video content, or are just too plain dishonest to watch the video at all and throw random liberal talking points into the mix.

For those who will neither read nor watch the video, there is a reason why you are on my ignore list. For the rest of you, enjoy.





---Begin transcript---

Lets talk about one of the most emotionally charged subjects there is: Abortion--but in an unemotional way. Also, let's not touch on the question that most preoccupies discussion of the subject, whether abortion should be legal or illegal. The only question here is the moral one. Is ending the life of a human fetus moral?

Let's begin with this question:

Does the human fetus have any value and any rights?

Now, it's a scientific fact that a human fetus is human life. Those who argue that the human fetus has no rights, say that a fetus is not a person. But even if you believe that, it doesn't mean the fetus has no intrinsic value or no rights.

There are many living beings that are not persons that have both value and rights; dogs and other animals for example.

And that's moral argument #1:

A living being doesn't have to be a person in order to have intrinsic moral value and rights.

---Pause for effect---

When challenged with this argument, people usually change the subject to the rights of the mother. Meaning the rights of the mother to end her fetus's life:

1. under any circumstance
2. for any reason and;
3. at any time in her pregnancy

Is that moral?

It is, only if we believe the human fetus has no intrinsic worth. But in most cases, nearly everyone believes that the human fetus has essentially infinite worth, and an almost absolute right to live when a pregnant woman wants to give birth, then society and its laws regard the fetus as so valuable, that if someone were to kill that fetus, that person could be prosecuted for homicide. Only if a pregnant woman doesn't want to give birth do many people regard the fetus as worthless.

Now, does that make sense?

It doesn't seem to. Either a human fetus has worth, or it doesn't!

And this is moral argument #2:

On what moral grounds does the mother alone decide the fetus's worth?

---Pause for effect---

We certainly don't do that in regards to a newborn child, it is society, not the mother or the father that determines if the newborn child has worth and a right to live.

So, why should that be any different before the human being is born?

Why does one person, a mother, get to determine whether that being has any any right to live?

People respond by saying that a woman has the right to control her body. Now that is entirely correct! The problem here, however, is the fetus is not her body, it is in her body. It is a separate body.

And that is moral argument #3:

No one asks a pregnant woman "how's your body?" when asking about the fetus, people ask, "how's the baby?"

---Pause for effect---

Moral argument #4:

Virtually eveyone agrees the moment the baby comes out of the womb, killing the baby is murder.

But deliberately killing it a few months before birth is considered no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth!

How does that make sense?

---Pause for effect---

And finally, moral argument #5:

Aren't there instances in which just about everyone, even among those who are pro-choice, would acknowledge that an abortion might not be moral?

For example:

Would it be moral to abort a female fetus solely because the mother prefers boys to girls, as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere?

And one more example:

Let's say science develops a method of determining whether a child in the womb is gay or straight. Would it be moral to kill a gay fetus because the mother didn't want a gay child?

---Pause for effect---

People may offer practical reasons not to criminalize all abortions. People may differ about when personhood begins and about the morality of abortion after rape or incest, but with regard to the vast majority of abortions-- those of healthy women aborting a healthy fetus-- let's be clear, most of these abortions just aren't moral.

Good societies survive people doing immoral things, but a good society cannot survive if it calls immoral things moral.

---End transcript---

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Those who argue that the human fetus has no rights, say that a fetus is not a person. But even if you believe that, it doesn't mean the fetus has no intrinsic value or no rights.”

That an embryo/fetus has no rights is neither an 'argument' nor a 'belief,' it's a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law:

'”[T]he unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."'

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Consequently, the Court in its wisdom has appropriately left the matter for each individual to decide for himself, in accordance with his own good conscience and good faith, where the Constitution prohibits the state from compelling citizens to believe one way or another through force of law, and a woman's protected liberty of privacy is immune from attack by the state.

Citizens are therefore allowed to believe that abortion is 'immoral,' or that an embryo/fetus has 'rights,' and refrain from having an abortion accordingly, or advocate in the context of private society that abortion is 'wrong'; citizens are also at liberty to seek to end the practice of abortion, provided such a solution comports with the Constitution and its case law.

That the practice of abortion must end is not at issue, at issue is the means by which that will be achieved, as not to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[TemplarKormac]

“Those who argue that the human fetus has no rights, say that a fetus is not a person. But even if you believe that, it doesn't mean the fetus has no intrinsic value or no rights.”

That an embryo/fetus has no rights is neither an 'argument' nor a 'belief,' it's a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law:

'”[T]he unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."'

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Consequently, the Court in its wisdom has appropriately left the matter for each individual to decide for himself, in accordance with his own good conscience and good faith, where the Constitution prohibits the state from compelling citizens to believe one way or another through force of law, and a woman's protected liberty of privacy is immune from attack by the state.

Citizens are therefore allowed to believe that abortion is 'immoral,' or that an embryo/fetus has 'rights,' and refrain from having an abortion accordingly, or advocate in the context of private society that abortion is 'wrong'; citizens are also at liberty to seek to end the practice of abortion, provided such a solution comports with the Constitution and its case law.

That the practice of abortion must end is not at issue, at issue is the means by which that will be achieved, as not to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Hate to break it to you:

First, in the case you cite, the court upheld all but one of the restrictions in that Pennsylvania law:

"In a bitter, 5-to-4 decision, the Court again reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement. The opinion for the Court was unique: It was crafted and authored by three justices."

Planned Parenthood v. Casey | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Second, we have the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which acknowledges the personhood of a human fetus in the womb. Moreover, two years prior to the case you cite, the Supreme Court upheld a Missouri Law which stated that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being."

The SCOTUS ruling is below.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490 (1989)

Learn to read and recite case law you idiot. Stop acting like a wannabe constitutional scholar.

 

[PK1]

This is a video I came upon this afternoon. It makes points I really hadn't considered before about the morality of abortion. I typed up the transcript for those who prefer not to watch the video, or have internet connections that cannot support streaming video content, or are just too plain dishonest to watch the video at all and throw random liberal talking points into the mix.

For those who will neither read nor watch the video, there is a reason why you are on my ignore list. For the rest of you, enjoy.





---Begin transcript---

Lets talk about one of the most emotionally charged subjects there is: Abortion--but in an unemotional way. Also, let's not touch on the question that most preoccupies discussion of the subject, whether abortion should be legal or illegal. The only question here is the moral one. Is ending the life of a human fetus moral?

Let's begin with this question:

Does the human fetus have any value and any rights?

Now, it's a scientific fact that a human fetus is human life. Those who argue that the human fetus has no rights, say that a fetus is not a person. But even if you believe that, it doesn't mean the fetus has no intrinsic value or no rights.

There are many living beings that are not persons that have both value and rights; dogs and other animals for example.

And that's moral argument #1:

A living being doesn't have to be a person in order to have intrinsic moral value and rights.

---Pause for effect---

When challenged with this argument, people usually change the subject to the rights of the mother. Meaning the rights of the mother to end her fetus's life:

1. under any circumstance
2. for any reason and;
3. at any time in her pregnancy

Is that moral?

It is, only if we believe the human fetus has no intrinsic worth. But in most cases, nearly everyone believes that the human fetus has essentially infinite worth, and an almost absolute right to live when a pregnant woman wants to give birth, then society and its laws regard the fetus as so valuable, that if someone were to kill that fetus, that person could be prosecuted for homicide. Only if a pregnant woman doesn't want to give birth do many people regard the fetus as worthless.

Now, does that make sense?

It doesn't seem to. Either a human fetus has worth, or it doesn't!

And this is moral argument #2:

On what moral grounds does the mother alone decide the fetus's worth?

---Pause for effect---

We certainly don't do that in regards to a newborn child, it is society, not the mother or the father that determines if the newborn child has worth and a right to live.

So, why should that be any different before the human being is born?

Why does one person, a mother, get to determine whether that being has any any right to live?

People respond by saying that a woman has the right to control her body. Now that is entirely correct! The problem here, however, is the fetus is not her body, it is in her body. It is a separate body.

And that is moral argument #3:

No one asks a pregnant woman "how's your body?" when asking about the fetus, people ask, "how's the baby?"

---Pause for effect---

Moral argument #4:

Virtually eveyone agrees the moment the baby comes out of the womb, killing the baby is murder.

But deliberately killing it a few months before birth is considered no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth!

How does that make sense?

---Pause for effect---

And finally, moral argument #5:

Aren't there instances in which just about everyone, even among those who are pro-choice, would acknowledge that an abortion might not be moral?

For example:

Would it be moral to abort a female fetus solely because the mother prefers boys to girls, as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere?

And one more example:

Let's say science develops a method of determining whether a child in the womb is gay or straight. Would it be moral to kill a gay fetus because the mother didn't want a gay child?

---Pause for effect---

People may offer practical reasons not to criminalize all abortions. People may differ about when personhood begins and about the morality of abortion after rape or incest, but with regard to the vast majority of abortions-- those of healthy women aborting a healthy fetus-- let's be clear, most of these abortions just aren't moral.

Good societies survive people doing immoral things, but a good society cannot survive if it calls immoral things moral.

---End transcript---

---
The biggest problem is defining "practical morality".

From my view, it is practical for a pregnant woman to decide her body's fate, including the embryo or fetus within her womb.

It is not moral to hurt or kill a conscious sentient being out of the womb, whether that being is human, chimp, dog, cat, pig, cow, or other such being whose behavior reflects affect & consciousness.
.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If a woman chooses to have an abortion it's nobody else's business except her's and that of the doctor performing the procedure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fertilized human egg has no intrinsic value. If you insist that it does, for whatever reason,

then you must concede that the unfertilized human egg has intrinsic value, as then does the sperm cell.

Then where are you at, 'morally'?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The fertilized human egg has no intrinsic value. If you insist that it does, for whatever reason,

then you must concede that the unfertilized human egg has intrinsic value, as then does the sperm cell.

Then where are you at, 'morally'?

The Middle Ages.

 

[LittleNipper]

If one is going to kill a developing baby because the mother was raped, then the rapist who perpetrated the crime should also pay with his life. If we cannot execute the convicted rapist, why should we execute the baby who is innocent of any crime? And if a woman is willing to destroy a developing baby within her but unwilling to have the male perpetrator hung, electrocuted, thrown in acid, or dismembered ---- is she not as evil as the rapist --- if not more so?

Is there no pity for the innocent? And when there is, doesn't that make the rape victim more noble in the eyes of God if not society?

 

[whitehall]

"Practical morality"? Hollywood propaganda has promoted the "practical morality" of murder for the better part of a hundred years and Nazis had a dandy justification for the Holocaust that can be translated as "practical morality". What's next for the idiot generation raised on violent videos and disregard for the rule of law?

 

[PK1]

If one is going to kill a developing baby because the mother was raped, then the rapist who perpetrated the crime should also pay with his life. If we cannot execute the convicted rapist, why should we execute the baby who is innocent of any crime? And if a woman is willing to destroy a developing baby within her but unwilling to have the male perpetrator hung, electrocuted, thrown in acid, or dismembered ---- is she not as evil as the rapist --- if not more so?

Is there no pity for the innocent? And when there is, doesn't that make the rape victim more noble in the eyes of God if not society?

---
4 Q's.
A1: The embryo or fetus is not yet a person.
A2: No.
A3: Yes, if a person.
A4: WTF?
.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If one is going to kill a developing baby because the mother was raped, then the rapist who perpetrated the crime should also pay with his life. If we cannot execute the convicted rapist, why should we execute the baby who is innocent of any crime? And if a woman is willing to destroy a developing baby within her but unwilling to have the male perpetrator hung, electrocuted, thrown in acid, or dismembered ---- is she not as evil as the rapist --- if not more so?

Is there no pity for the innocent? And when there is, doesn't that make the rape victim more noble in the eyes of God if not society?

In your subjective opinion, not as a fact of law.

And you're entitled to your opinion, you have the right to not have an abortion, and counsel others to do the same, based on your subjective, personal opinion – that's your right as recognized and codified by Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey, the jurisprudence that safeguards your right to privacy, where your subjective, personal, private beliefs and opinions are immune from unwarranted attack by the state.

 

[LittleNipper]

If one is going to kill a developing baby because the mother was raped, then the rapist who perpetrated the crime should also pay with his life. If we cannot execute the convicted rapist, why should we execute the baby who is innocent of any crime? And if a woman is willing to destroy a developing baby within her but unwilling to have the male perpetrator hung, electrocuted, thrown in acid, or dismembered ---- is she not as evil as the rapist --- if not more so?

Is there no pity for the innocent? And when there is, doesn't that make the rape victim more noble in the eyes of God if not society?

---
4 Q's.
A1: The embryo or fetus is not yet a person.
A2: No.
A3: Yes, if a person.
A4: WTF?
.

The embryo or fetus is not yet a person.------------------- By WHOS definition?

 

[2aguy]

The fertilized human egg has no intrinsic value. If you insist that it does, for whatever reason,

then you must concede that the unfertilized human egg has intrinsic value, as then does the sperm cell.

Then where are you at, 'morally'?

No...fertilized the human life has begun, separate, the sperm and egg will never be a human life.

 

[2aguy]

Face it...any abortion that isn't solely for saving the life of the mother is an act of convenience.....every single one. In the hard cases, rape and incest....the child created in rape is innocent and has done no wrong to anyone. For the woman to give birth to that child is a hardship, both emotional and physical......but once the child is born it can be given up for adoption and live it's life......it is easier to kill the baby and harder to carry the baby to term......it is convenient to end the life rather than allow it to go forward....a hard truth, but it is still the truth...

and the same goes for the baby created through incest....the baby has done nothing wrong, the mother is again a victim of a crime, carrying the baby to term is a hardship both emotionally and physically, and unjustly placed on the young girl. However, the life is still innocent of all wrong doing.....and carrying the baby to term allows a human being to live...ending the life is easy...carrying the baby to term is hard.....it is more convenient to end the life than to allow it to live...if you can kill a baby for that reason...that is another hard truth....but it is still the truth.

 

[2aguy]

If a woman chooses to have an abortion it's nobody else's business except her's and that of the doctor performing the procedure.

It is kinda the babies business......isn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a woman chooses to have an abortion it's nobody else's business except her's and that of the doctor performing the procedure.

It is kinda the babies business......isn't it?

No.

 

[2aguy]

If one is going to kill a developing baby because the mother was raped, then the rapist who perpetrated the crime should also pay with his life. If we cannot execute the convicted rapist, why should we execute the baby who is innocent of any crime? And if a woman is willing to destroy a developing baby within her but unwilling to have the male perpetrator hung, electrocuted, thrown in acid, or dismembered ---- is she not as evil as the rapist --- if not more so?

Is there no pity for the innocent? And when there is, doesn't that make the rape victim more noble in the eyes of God if not society?

Excellent point which brings up a question for pro abortionists.....

If the mother is allowed by society to kill the baby created through rape, thereby executing the death penalty on the new human life, then you must also support executing the rapist...since it was his act that ended the life of the baby...right?

 

[2aguy]

If a woman chooses to have an abortion it's nobody else's business except her's and that of the doctor performing the procedure.

It is kinda the babies business......isn't it?

No.

Yeah...it is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Good societies survive people doing immoral things, but a good society cannot survive if it calls immoral things moral.

---End transcript---

All morality is a judgment call.

Ex:

Can a society survive if it calls a woman's right to choose to abort a fetus 'moral'?

Yes or no?

 

[Davros]

If a woman chooses to have an abortion it's nobody else's business except her's and that of the doctor performing the procedure.

It is kinda the babies business......isn't it?

First trimester it is not a baby. Has no consciousness or thoughts. Reacts to stimuli in only a very primitive manner very late in the first trimester.