Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Does one have a moral right to argue for the morality of the circumstances which allowed them to be born?

Let us assume all human beings have a 'right to life' started at conception, as those who are pro-life argue. And, let assume the validity of the Bible verse Jeremiah 1:5- "Before I formed you in the belly I know you; and before you came out of the womb I sanctified you and ordained you a prophet to the nations."

Accordingly, my life is justified (not meaning saved or anything of the sort, but made permissible by) by God. My question is, does that mean that whatever happened in my parent's life is ultimately justified because they met and had me, even if the individual actions may have been detestable?

If the response is yes, and the entirety of their actions were justified because I was able to be created because of it, then why would not every individual action have to be justified, and therefore moral. And please respond to this extension: other cases of that immoral action, if the immediate conditions were the same, therefore could be considered moral even if that case did not lead to my (or any) birth.

Now consider that immoral action was abortion, performed by the mother when she got pregnant as a result of consensual intercourse in college, while she was working a job with dangerous chemicals in order that she would be able to pay for college. Would that abortion, after I were born (with another father), be morally justified because of my 'right to life'? Or does the right of the unborn baby's life remain transcended and immoral and lead to my birth being immoral because the circumstances required for it to be achieved were immoral?

As a side note, in my opinion so do base your answer on this and if you wish to respond do so separately, the last case is Biblically justified, because both the unborn and me were sanctified by God, and he/she was a prophet to the nations by extension through me who is as well ordained as a prophet of the nations that this message about abortion being morally justifiable be spread. Therefore, the unborn child's purpose was in fact fulfilled.

Update:

To clarify, to be "immoral" in my mind is something that one cannot accept in one's own conscience as acceptable. You can keep it in quotes if you prefer.

And what I meant to postulate in the penultimate paragraph was that if the abortion was necessary to get the desired birth, was it proper or acceptable, considering that it allowed the desired birth to be achieved. Hope that clarifies it somewhat.

3 Answers

Relevance
  • ?
    Lv 6
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    It certainly is a well thought out piece. Due to some grammatical issues toward the end, however, I'm not exactly sure what's actually being postulated; If the abortion was BOTH necessary AND proper to achieving the DESIRED birth in question, however, than the poetic flourish of "immoral" demands the use of notaries such as quotes to denote the questionable nature of the metaphor "immoral".

  • 5 years ago

    Though oversimplified, there may be a few reality to this declaration. Morality evolves together with our tradition, potential, and attention. Things that have been viewed "ethical" 100 years in the past are viewed terrible now, in view that we all know extra and society has transformed. Slavery, the witch trials, loss of rights for ladies- those are all well examples of this precept. Religion mainly would possibly not always be dangerous for morality on this feel on account that a few religions are really tolerant or enable for alterations in idea. SPECIFIC religions, nonetheless, are a undertaking to the evolution of morality. Christianity is certainly one of them. There isn't any room for difference or progress in its ethical code, even though so much Christians will recognize a need for difference on this identical code from Old Testament to New Testament (they name it the New Covenant, and its most often an convenient means of explaining why the horribly immoral codes of the Old Testament "do not depend anymore"). The massive 3 religions are not high-quality for society on this means while taken actually, nonetheless it have to be taken into consideration that almost all of men and women in the ones religions are actually moderates and no longer the extremists that get probably the most awareness in boards like this.

  • PoBoy
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    I did not read the entire argument. I don't have to. My right to control my body supersedes your argument.

    If you don't want an abortion don't have one is the simplest way to put it. The government does not have the power to control my body also applies.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.