Before jumping to your pat answer for why you defend the legality of abortion, take a moment to think. We know what abortion is, we know what it does. Why do you believe abortion is worthy of support? Is there something attractive about the nature of abortion? Something women should not be denied? If so, what?
Many people support some form of universal healthcare because they believe healthcare is a basic human right. Many people support a voting system with few encumbrances because democracy is the foundation of freedom. The list goes on. The point is that these things have support for good and noble reasons, there are higher principles involved; there is no “just because.” So if you believe abortion is worth defending because, for example, a woman should be able to do with her body what she wills, expound on that: why does that justify abortion. If it’s because you think a mother should be able to decide when to reproduce, why does that justify aborting what’s already been reproduced?
Is there something good and noble about abortion that begs your support? Or, are you a “just because” supporter?
This is no gotcha question. I know why I oppose elective abortion; I’ve said so many times. What I want to know is why elective abortion is worthy of support? The reasons I hear seem to be general and rhetorically-driven. They are unconvincing. So, once and for all, why do you support abortion?
Sifting Reality 
During debates I’ve had, when all the usual responses have been countered with data, pro-aborts usually fall back to one thing: a woman should be free to not be pregnant if she doesn’t want to be, therefore we must allow her to have an abortion any time she wants. Also, the state should pay for it. At the same time, she must be free to have sex any time she wants; any objections to that gets derided as slut shaming or they bring up the rape/incest argument.
I support abortion because it is not killing a person. My definition of a person is an individual who can communicate using language. Defining a person by species is just an arbitrary group membership not related to the attributes of the individual. For this same reason I support infanticide and killing the retarded or demented who can no longer communicate. The choice as to whether to kill would be made by those responsible for the non-person just as pet owners are responsible for their pets. I would also not spend state money on human non-persons for the same reason that we don’t spend state money on pets.
Thats rather candid Jeff. At least youre fairly consistent. One more question, would you be ok with mutilating a baby in the womb? For example if you could surgically snip off the feet and fingers of the fetus for no reason at all?
Also, why is personhood and your standards relevant?
No, I would not be ok with mutilating a baby in the womb for the same reason I would not harm my cat. I would think it is immoral to let a deformed human to become a person. I do support creating human embryos for experimental purposes because they will be destroyed before they become persons..
I don’t understand your second question. The reason I pick my definition of personhood is that it is consistent with why killing healthy adult humans is immoral but killing those of other species is not immoral.
So its ok to kill it because it doesnt matter what it will become, but we cant mutilate it because of what it will become? Wow, reeaaaally inconsistent.
Either what it will become is relevant or it isnt. Either what it is now is relevant or it isnt. Youre shuffling betwen the two with utter arbitrariness.
I don’t see the inconsistency. If you want the fetus to become a person then mutilating the fetus that will become a person is to also harm that person. This is also why I support the abortion of deformed fetuses to prevent them from become deformed persons.
Jeffrey,
This is the stupidest comment so far this week. Your support of abortion is based on a totally subjective, arbitrary individual opinion. One, I might add, that would technically allow a newborn to be slaughtered. Seriously, the newborn is not self-aware or self-conscious by any psychological definition, and certainly cannot communicate individual needs, wants, or desires. Therefore, by your logic, it would be morally okay to kill that child. Nice. Real nice.
I can tell you’re not a very bright person. You just got done offering us a completely arbitrary definition of personhood that no reasonable person could accept, yet in the next sentence you suggest that our definition is arbitrary. Stupid. Our view holds that human life is precious in all stages of development. Teenagers are no more valuable than toddlers and adults no more than teenagers. All stages of human life and development is worthy of protection.
You’re a disgusting human being. You make value judgments on human life based on an individual’s psychological and physical ability. Fortunately for you, we don’t execute people for being psychologically deficient.
My opinion on the definition of a person is shared by many others including Catholics. At http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm a person is defined as a rational individual. Setting the bar at communicating using language is for operational reasons as it is an easy test even if the bar is set rather low for rational.
Why is human life alone precious while all of our cousins in the tree of life are not precious? If life on this planet had evolved differently there may have been two species of Homo on this planet. If this had happened would you still claim that only those of your species, Homo sapiens, was precious but not another species of the Homo genus?
If you have not yet accepted the fact of evolution see http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/
In my opinion what makes us precious as indivuals is our rational mind. If another species on this planet could communicate with us using language then they would be persons. Some chimpanzees can communicate using sign language and I would consider them a person.
Jefferey,
You linked to an encyclopedia that is NOT affiliated with the Catholic Church. Simply read the about page. Furthermore, if you read the listing you’ll discover that it describes the definition as it relates to philosophical writings.
And you must have missed this part:
Newborns are not capable of communicating their needs, wants, or desires. At best, they cry and wail and leave the caretaker guessing as to what exactly they want. So in no sense can a newborn communicate with any sense of operational efficiency, so are you saying, here and now, that you have no problem with parents euthanizing an otherwise healthy baby? Taken to its logical conclusion, your definition of person would make allowance.
I’m not going to answer to a bunch of nonsensical hypothetical situations, but I will give you a clue. We have laws on the books that protect species other than our own.
And why is human life so precious? Evolution is your answer. We have an obligation to protect our species, to see it advance and grow. Our evolutionary instincts alone dictate laws that protect human beings in ALL stages of development. To kill members of our own species indiscriminately is a violation of evolutionary instincts, it would seem.
Of course, I have other reasons for protecting human life; I believe in God. But to a godless psychopath like yourself, evolution would be an acceptable answer.
And yet you are anything but rational.
I see. So you would protect an adult chimpanzee from being slaughtered, but not a newborn human?
Yes, you are a psychopath. I don’t even have to respond to you because everyone reading this must be rolling their eyes at the asininity of your arguments. You are a joke.
From http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm
God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions.
The above definition would seem to imply that non-rational humans are not persons.
To kill members of our own species indiscriminately is a violation of evolutionary instincts, it would seem.
Killing members of your own species is not against evolution but is actually common, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)
I would have no problem with parents killing their children before they could talk. Most parents would not choose to kill a healthy child but may choose to kill a sick child and replace it with a healthy child to not waste resources on raising a sick child.
Youre sick and need help. For real, all hyperbole aside.
John,
Jeffery is an idiot. The definition of person is self-evident and not included in the Bible. All this talk about God creating man as a rational being is certainly true, but the person must first fully develop. Not fully developing simply means the person is not rational; it doesn’t mean the person is not a person. To even suggest such a thing is simply stupid.
He also doesn’t understand human evolution. If we indiscriminately killed members of our own species, how then could hunter/gatherer societies have developed and flourished? Nobody would trust one another.
He’s a sick pig. I would recommend blocking him.