Ethical debate - Abortion and the greater good

mattpegher

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2006
2,203
0
71
If you believe the authors of "Freakanomics", there is a correlation that suggests causality between the sudden drop in crime, including murder rate, that occurred in the 1990's and the legalization of Abortion. They suggest that there may be a causality between unwanted pregnancy and raising a child that will engage in criminal behavior. This seems reasonable as poor parenting, resentful parenting and the inability to provide a stable home would likely increase both the tolerance and acceptance of antisocial behavior and the socioeconomic factors that lead to crime. Not that individual personality cannot lead to these behaviors or that good parents cannot produce bad offspring. However, with regard to large populations, and multifactoral causal processes the ability to chose to terminate a pregnancy may play a significant role in avoiding the environment that leads to criminal behavior.
With this in mind, is it more ethical or moral for Christian leaders to oppose abortion as evil to the individual or to support it as minimizing evil (ie, murder, violent crime etc) across society.

That be said, the same question can be posed regarding birth control especially in areas of the world where the use of it may lead to less suffering in children born in to starvation or less disease.

In otherwords, is microscopic or macroscopic evil worse?
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
19,407
12,931
136
The question is irrelevant since the pro-life argument revolves around abortion being murder and the implication being that any counter-argument is just trying to get around their assertion that it is murder. If one accepts that abortion = murder, then any counter argument logically is just the 'bargaining' stage of denial.

PS: I'm pro-choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandorski

mattpegher

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2006
2,203
0
71
The question is irrelevant since the pro-life argument revolves around abortion being murder and the implication being that any counter-argument is just trying to get around their assertion that it is murder. If one accepts that abortion = murder, then any counter argument logically is just the 'bargaining' stage of denial.

PS: I'm pro-choice.
But only if you allow two premises. One that murder is different that killing a human for any other reason. In otherwords, is killing in defense of self, others or country not murder? If you are going to allow the use of the word "murder" to become some unforgivable form of killing than the parties need to agree on a definition.
Two, that killing a fetus is the same as killing a sentient being. Scientifically we know that the act of procreation leads to the death of millions of sperm and that ovulation alone leads to the death of at least one ovum each month. And such the combination of the two should not magically lead to any difference with regard to sentience even if you believe in a soul as it's one cell, then 2 then 4 then 16. even in the first 2 weeks there isn't any structure to differentiate it from a colony of bacteria. And certainly no neurologic network to suggest the ability to suffer or perceive any sensation especially pain.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
19,407
12,931
136
But only if you allow two premises. One that murder is different that killing a human for any other reason. In otherwords, is killing in defense of self, others or country not murder? If you are going to allow the use of the word "murder" to become some unforgivable form of killing than the parties need to agree on a definition.
Two, that killing a fetus is the same as killing a sentient being. Scientifically we know that the act of procreation leads to the death of millions of sperm and that ovulation alone leads to the death of at least one ovum each month. And such the combination of the two should not magically lead to any difference with regard to sentience even if you believe in a soul as it's one cell, then 2 then 4 then 16. even in the first 2 weeks there isn't any structure to differentiate it from a colony of bacteria. And certainly no neurologic network to suggest the ability to suffer or perceive any sensation especially pain.

You're asking me to play devil's advocate for a position that I don't deem to be logical once further evidence is factored in. TBH I think the pro-life argument begins and ends with what I previously posted; for example after Ireland's recent referendum, a rep from the 'no' campaign argued that a slippery slope would occur as a result of the ban being repealed. Logically their position isn't one saying, "our situation isn't perfect yet while we agree with the basic spirit of the ban, we're happy to negotiate a better solution", it's one saying that they don't think anything should change despite actual examples of people dying / being put at high risk of fatality on purpose as a result of the ban.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
You're asking me to play devil's advocate for a position that I don't deem to be logical once further evidence is factored in. TBH I think the pro-life argument begins and ends with what I previously posted; for example after Ireland's recent referendum, a rep from the 'no' campaign argued that a slippery slope would occur as a result of the ban being repealed. Logically their position isn't one saying, "our situation isn't perfect yet while we agree with the basic spirit of the ban, we're happy to negotiate a better solution", it's one saying that they don't think anything should change despite actual examples of people dying / being put at high risk of fatality on purpose as a result of the ban.
Any anti- abortion argument (i refuse to use the phrase pro life as that is a misrepresentation of the argument) that anchors itself on the notion of murder is intellectually lazy and not worth any serious discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: William Gaatjes

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
19,407
12,931
136
Any anti- abortion argument (i refuse to use the phrase pro life as that is a misrepresentation of the argument) that anchors itself on the notion of murder is intellectually lazy and not worth any serious discussion.

How many other pro-life arguments are there? There's the standard victim-blaming routine I suppose which usually quickly tails off when countered with domestic violence / rape examples.

I guess all-in-all the pro-life mindset revolves around "this is how civilised people should behave in our opinion" (ie. implied victim blaming) and largely ignoring that real life mostly falls outside of those circumstances.