The abortion thing

[NecCat]

Trying really hard to let the liberal v conservative thread get back on track, I have decided to answer the question raised about abortion here.

(With apologies - If I knew how to quote someone from another thread in this one I would)

HYHYBT: As for abortion, I don't get the absolutist nature of one side of the argument. Why the absolute insistence that a fertilized egg and a fully gestated baby are the same? Flour, sugar, eggs, etc. are not a cake. Even mixed together, while they have the potential to become a cake, they are only batter. In the oven, they gradually become a cake over time. Why, other than the result being a human rather than a dessert, is it any different?

To me it's clear that, while a fully gestated baby and a fertilized egg aren't the same, they are at least as the same as a baby, teenager and old man. People love to classify things, we have all sorts of classifications of people based on age, race, hair colour etc. but that doesn't change that they are all fundamentally human beings. In any other species classification scientists refer to species/life stage. Drosophilia melanogaster (embryos), drosophilia melanogaster (larvae) etc. Yet the pro-choice side continues to argue that foetus and zygote are somehow different than homo sapian, as opposed to just another life cycle stage of the species.

[HYHYBT]

Thank you. I believe this is the first attempt I've ever seen at a serious answer to that question.

It seems to me this relies on the vagueness of the language used: nobody (that I know of) is saying an embryo is a wholly separate thing, nor that it's not our species. Only that it doesn't qualify as a separate life; that it's not a *person,* whatever term you like here that doesn't imply the answer you want within itself. (And no sneaky defining "person" specifically to include it to get around the problem.)

[Kheldarson]

. Only that it doesn't qualify as a separate life; that it's not a *person,* whatever term you like here that doesn't imply the answer you want within itself. (And no sneaky defining "person" specifically to include it to get around the problem.)

Except I fully believe, as do others, that a person is defined as someone with a soul. And a child, even in the womb, has one. So are we saying that we have a basic definitional error to begin with?

[NecCat]

...nobody is saying an embryo is a wholly separate thing.... Only that it doesn't qualify as a separate life; that it's not a *person,*

I have millions of cells in my body, and with exception of reproductive cells they all carry identical DNA to each other. I share this trait with every person. An embryo, as soon as it implants, gains a blood source and starts cell dividing, also has many cells, all with identical DNA to each other. This DNA is different than the mother who is hosting it, it is a different, separate person.

The fact that it is parasitic at the embryotic stage doesn't mean it isn't a life. Hell babies are pretty parasitic, they can't live 'on their own', but they are granted this 'person' status.

ETA: I'm not sure how you can't answer that to include the definition of person to fit the explanation, I believe it's a person, this is why.

[HYHYBT]

OK... I spent an hour reworking my above post as an edit, then realized it had been long enough there might be more replies. So first a response to part of one of them, and then the post I'd much rather had gone where mine is above.

Except I fully believe, as do others, that a person is defined as someone with a soul. And a child, even in the womb, has one.

That's putting the cart before the horse. You change the language used from "person" to "someone with a soul," and then declare as if it were obvious to everyone that the soul is there throughout gestation. That's no answer at all; just a rephrasing of the question with the same absolute, no-room-to-recognize-genuine-disagreement position at the end.

Now for what I was trying to say.
---

Thank you. I believe this is the first attempt I've ever seen at a serious answer to that question, and a separate thread is a good idea. But we've had lots of threads about abortion, and it was the second part of the question, which you don't address, which I was most hoping for an answer to, and also, I believe, is more likely to bring fresh discussion.

Maybe it would be more clear this way. Take two questions:
1) Is abortion the same as murdering a baby?

2) Which is more probable:
-A) Around half the population, give or take, disagrees with your answer to Question 1, or
-B) They agree with you on that, but approve of killing babies

The question, then, is why, since A is obviously more likely, people insist on speaking and arguing as if B were not only true, but the only possible answer.

(I run into the same thing at the intersection of gay and Christian: the disagreement is usually about whether something is inherently sinful or not, but there are always people jumping in insisting everyone agrees on that and that we're really arguing over whether sin is bad. But I'm just throwing this in to give a separate example of the same underlying question, not to throw things off into yet another overworn topic.)

[Kelmon]

Yet the pro-choice side continues to argue that foetus and zygote are somehow different than homo sapian, as opposed to just another life cycle stage of the species.

I can't say I have ever heard anyone claiming that.

It feels like especially in discussing this topic, a lot of people get hung op on the worst possible literal interpretation on what someone said, without spending a single thought on what that person probably meant to say. And I hate how the discussion mostly boils down to "creatively" re-defining and twisting words. (e.g. embryos are babys, babys are human beings, a human being is a person, the law says killing a person is bad, etc.)

Except I fully believe, as do others, that a person is defined as someone with a soul. And a child, even in the womb, has one. So are we saying that we have a basic definitional error to begin with?

Unfortunately, religious dogma ("People have souls") of one particular religion is an utterly useless basis for a discussion about ethics, such as this, or for defining common terms. I'm pretty sure no dictionary will have "Person, noun: Someone with a soul" as an entry.

[Kheldarson]

Unfortunately, religious dogma ("People have souls") of one particular religion is an utterly useless basis for a discussion about ethics, such as this, or for defining common terms. I'm pretty sure no dictionary will have "Person, noun: Someone with a soul" as an entry.

Except the initial statement was that HYHYBT couldn't understand the absolutist nature and trying to separate the gestation period away from our birth and thenceforth.

The issue is, from a more absolutist side, is that there is no separation. Since from a religious standpoint, there is no difference between a child in the womb and a child outside of it because of the presence of a soul, then it follows, ethically, that we cannot define a certain time period as a time where a person is not a person and, therefore, can be eliminated at whim.

And, as a note, it's not a worthless basis for a discussion of ethics as, for a number of people, ethics and morals are very similar. What's important is to recognize the root of each factions' logic and try to discover any common or similar grounds.

[NecCat]

The question, then, is why, since A is obviously more likely, people insist on speaking and arguing as if B were not only true, but the only possible answer.

For the same reasons people who are pro-choice insist on speaking as if abortion was not the same as killing a baby, as if that were the only possible option, even though around 1/2 the population disagrees with them. For the same reason that someone who is pro-choice will insist on speaking about abortions with me as if it were not equal to killing a baby, even though I 100% disagree with them. When you are sure that the your particular answer to question 1 is correct, there is no option A.

[NecCat]

Unfortunately, religious dogma ("People have souls") of one particular religion is an utterly useless basis for a discussion about ethics, such as this, or for defining common terms.

I certainly see what Kelmon is saying. Unless everyone in the world is willing to follow every religion simultaneously, saying 'because my God told me so' is only an argument to people that already believe everything about that god. When you are discussing things that relate to laws passed by governments, or cause an effect across all of society each person's religious beliefs become moot.

[Kheldarson]

I certainly see what Kelmon is saying. Unless everyone in the world is willing to follow every religion simultaneously, saying 'because my God told me so' is only an argument to people that already believe everything about that god. When you are discussing things that relate to laws passed by governments, or cause an effect across all of society each person's religious beliefs become moot.

Not really; governments have to keep all religions in mind when they pass laws in order to make sure they do not conflict with or support any particular religion (see First Amendment and Separation of church and state). That's far from becoming moot.

That's why this is a hot button issue on multiple fronts. If my religious and ethical beliefs say that this is the blatant killing of a person, then how can I support it, or a politician who supports it, or, perhaps most importantly for a more secular discussion, be expected to pay into a system that would give funding to such a program? If we pass laws legalizing it, how soon until my tax dollars go to fund clinics or my insurance company underwrite the procedure? Now I'm being forced into an untenable position.

These are the things the government has to pay attention to.

[Gravekeeper]

I feel compelled to point out that even the western religious basis here is relatively young from a historical perspective. Early Christianity did in fact mark a distinct point where the soul entered the fetus based on Greek philosophy. The Hebrew bible even makes a distinction between abortion and murder ( One is a fine, the other is a crime ). Similar beliefs are part of early Islam as well.

So lets not pretend the sanctity of life is a religious absolute in Abrahamic religions.

For the same reason that someone who is pro-choice will insist on speaking about abortions with me as if it were not equal to killing a baby, even though I 100% disagree with them.

I won't even bother wading into that quarmire. However, I will say that access to safe, legal abortion services is one of the single greatest indicator's of women's health and status in the entire world. So frankly, I don't give a shit who disagrees with it or why. From a pragmatic standpoint of achieving the least amount of human misery and greatest amount of gender equality, it is a net positive force, regardless of what you think of it.

The only possible objection is on religious basis. Which makes it a moot argument in the face of secular society and the separation of church and state. From an ethical perspective, far far FAR more human suffering and misery is caused by not having access to safe, legal abortion services.

Don't like it? Don't get one. But leave everyone else alone and let them make their own decisions.

[NecCat]

However, I will say that access to safe, legal abortion services is one of the single greatest indicator's of women's health and status in the entire world.

It is one of the indicators. I would say that access to safe, legal birth control is a far greater boon to women's health, and the ability for a women to have and safely raise a baby, or exist with a surprise pregnancy without fear is a far greater indicator of a women's status as a person.

From a pragmatic standpoint of achieving the least amount of human misery and greatest amount of gender equality, it is a net positive force, regardless of what you think of it.

Legalized abortion is the single greatest source of gender inequality I have seen introduced into law in the western world recently. It's the womans baby, it's entirely her decision, and she can have an abortion no matter what the father wants. Unless of course she decides to have the baby, in which case the father made it, he can damn well pay for it, whether he wanted it or not.

The only possible objection is on religious basis. Which makes it a moot argument in the face of secular society and the separation of church and state. From an ethical perspective, far far FAR more human suffering and misery is caused by not having access to safe, legal abortion services.

Don't like it? Don't get one. But leave everyone else alone and let them make their own decisions.

I don't claim to know what anyone's God wants of me, and I wouldn't want governments to start making laws based on religions. I know that when looked at from a scientific point of view, an embryo is alive (go check any scientific definition of living thing, and check it off against what an embryo is), and is a unique person (see DNA above), that is completely incapable of making it's own decision. It is up to society to protect it's weakest members, and it's up to the government to make laws to effect that.

[Blue Ginger]

Talking about when the 'soul' enters and trying to classify abortion and murder around that is a very religious point of view. While your religion should help shape your moral compass, it should not be the only thing to guide it.

Not everyone is -insert your religion here- or even religious at all and holding everyone to one religion, or even group of shared religious ideals, isn't going to help anyone.

There are many reasons women have an abortion or even simply use the morning after pill (which can be really hard to get if all the pharmacies/chemists in the area are religious. But that's another rant).

The reasons can be anything from the -insert birth control here- failed, it was a one-night stand, already have too many kids, in an abusive relationship and can't bring a child into it or a whole host of medical problems that can be made worse, or even kill, while pregnant. And that doesn't even list the truly horrible reasons a woman or girl may need or want an abortion.

Me, personally, will not and can not have children because of very dodgy hips that would mean being flat on my back from about 4 months, followed by a c-section, a double hip replacement (ball and socket) and between 3-6 months of rehab to re-learn how to walk. Then add in an extremely high potential for my kidneys to fail under the added stress and a 90% chance of being added to the transplant list. Oh, yeah, and a high potential for my clinical depression to come back.

Yep, if that little stick ever said I was pregnant, I will be making an immediate appointment at a clinic.

And anyone standing in my way will get a very fast lesson with some very bad language.

My body, my choice. Your body, your choice.

Anyone who has a problem with their health insurance providing cover, or access to these services, that badly should either find one that doesn't or you (generic 'you') could always start your own with fellow -insert religion here- believers.

[Sleepwalker]

The woman makes the decision because it is her body that the surgical procedure is being performed on. Nowhere else does the law allow or require one private person to arrogate the flesh of another. Neither the father nor the child can force the mother to have or not have a surgical procedure, no matter how they would benefit from it. The father cannot be forced to donate blood to the child- not even if the father shot the child and is the only possible donor. It's a bit much to argue that the woman should be forced to donate her entire body for 9 months. 'The fetus will die if this procedure is performed'. Well, yes, and? This principle doesn't apply at any other time in the fetus' projected lifespan.

[s_stabeler]

There are several reasons NOT to believe a foetus is a separate person the moment it is conceived, actually:

1) not all foetuses implant in the womb wall- if they don't, then the fertilized egg goes straight out in a similar fashion to if the woman had a period. Would it be fair to blame the woman then? (incidentally, this is how the morning-after pill works- it prevents implantion of the foetus, which is why I don't consider it abortion the egg never gerw beyond a small ball of cells)
2) miscarriages- if a foetus is alive from conception, do you blame the mother for miscarriages- especially in the first trimester, when the risk is highest.