1

The inconsistency arises when we try to provide a moral foundation that includes AFG’s but excludes the human fetus currently in the mother’s womb. The first, and most obvious difficulty, is that AFG’s do not exist. While they may have the future potential to exist, they are currently included in the set of “entities that have no ontological existence.” In this respect, the fetus has an ontological priority -- and presumably should have a moral priority -- over the AFG.

Because the AFG does not exist, it has no intrinsic value, no moral standing, and no equality with already existing humans. From the pro-choice perspective, there is nothing inherently unfair about pushing a financial burden on to entities that don't exist. Nor would it even be immoral to actively prevent such beings from ever having the opportunity to exist.

Uh, false set of choices here: we know that people will be born, regardless of the status of abortion laws. You try to correct it slightly here:

What if every women were to choose to have an abortion every time she became pregnant. What if the “choice” were 100% in favor of abortion? Obviously, this prospect is unlikely to ever occur. But for the advocate of abortion rights, there is nothing morally unacceptable with the idea of every choice being an abortion.

And invoke a "straw man" argument in doing so, and in fact, denigrate Christian tradition and scripture to boot.

The fact is, acceptance of a woman's right to act according to her conscience in regard to reproduction means, inter alia, that said individual might- just might- consider it moral not to terminate a pregnancy. I know of no "advocate of abortion rights" who would argue with a straight face that "there is nothing morally unacceptable with the idea of every choice being an abortion." It's a straw-man argument, and through abstraction conveniently avoids some of the nastier realities that women faced with pregnancies often have. You have replaced an "abstract future generation" with an abstract future generation in fact.

And, one can also say, that Paul's recommendation to not marry (and hence not reproduce, and if everyone did that...) does not exonerate Americans from being responsible in their spending habits (and in particular, ensuring that those who benefit the most from the system we have pay the most, and those who reap little or no benefit pay little or nothing.)

2

Mumon,

And invoke a "straw man" argument…

You’ll have to explain why that’s a strawman. Either abortion rights advocates believe that every woman has a right to an abortion or they don’t.

… in doing so, and in fact, denigrate Christian tradition and scripture to boot.

What scripture are you referring to?

I know of no "advocate of abortion rights" who would argue with a straight face that "there is nothing morally unacceptable with the idea of every choice being an abortion." It's a straw-man argument, and through abstraction conveniently avoids some of the nastier realities that women faced with pregnancies often have.

You seem to be confused about what constitutes a strawman argument. Either it is morally acceptable to have an abortion or it isn’t. You are implying that abortion rights advocates think that choosing to have an abortion is sometimes moral and sometimes it isn’t. Assuming that all abortions were to take place early in the pregnancy, why would abortion rights supporters find them unacceptable?

And, one can also say, that Paul's recommendation to not marry (and hence not reproduce, and if everyone did that...) does not exonerate Americans from being responsible in their spending habits…

Paul’s recommendation would have no bearing on the argument. You might claim that the Bible requires that we pay our own bills but that does not help the abortion rights position.

(and in particular, ensuring that those who benefit the most from the system we have pay the most, and those who reap little or no benefit pay little or nothing.)

So why not leave it for the AFGs? After all, they benefit greatly by being allowed to exist. Why shouldn’t they pay their fair share for the system we have created for them? The ungrateful brats...

3

Either it is morally acceptable to have an abortion or it isn’t. You are implying that abortion rights advocates think that choosing to have an abortion is sometimes moral and sometimes it isn’t. Assuming that all abortions were to take place early in the pregnancy, why would abortion rights supporters find them unacceptable?

I'd answer "Yes, that's right" to your second sentence.

To the third I would reply: because what is acceptable is the ability of a woman, with others to act according to her conscience.

It is true that some people will - inevitably- not act according to their conscience, or may be pathologically without one, but from where I sit the harm is greater than any assumed good that will result.

You might claim that the Bible requires that we pay our own bills but that does not help the abortion rights position.

Well, actually I was thinking ( Corinthians 7:8-9. see also Matthew 19:10-12), that the "but they'll be nobody left argument" is just as absurd argued from a biblical basis.

But to your first sentence, I'd say, yeah, it goes further than that: giving to "Caesar" here means ...the American people... to whom enough is not given at present.

But hey, I voted for the other guy, and will be contributing more, thanks to all the money I've made recently betting against the dollar...

4

Either it is morally acceptable to have an abortion or it isn’t. You are implying that abortion rights advocates think that choosing to have an abortion is sometimes moral and sometimes it isn’t. Assuming that all abortions were to take place early in the pregnancy, why would abortion rights supporters find them unacceptable?

Everyone is entitled to choose not to have sex and reproduce. It is morally acceptable for people to decide not remain celibate for life, no? Yet if everyone in one generation remained celibate then the human race would end once they died out. Is it therefore now immoral for people to decide to remain celibate since everyone choosing to do it would cause the end of the human race?

5

"Either it is morally acceptable to have an abortion or it isn’t."

Please, Joe, you can do better.

I'm a staunch opponent of anti-privacy Christian groups but that doesn't mean I believe that every abortion is morally "acceptable" (by which I assume you mean "defensible").

Undoubtedly if you look long and hard enough you'll dig up some psychotic woman somewhere who conceived a child with the express intent of aborting it. Do such people actually exist? I assume so, having visited the Walter Reed Pathology Museum and witnessing firsthand the bizarre things that human beings will do to their bodies (e.g., ingesting vast amounts of styrofoam, hair, or sewing supplies).

Is becoming pregnant solely for the purpose of aborting the baby a "morally" defensible act? I don't think so. Is it "immoral"? I could probably argue that if I were to measure morality by evaluating the good gained versus the harm done, at the end of the day we do not have much good gained. I might look to the effect on others for the harm done.

Should such actions be illegal? I don't see how making them illegal could accomplish anything so my answer would be no.

Such such actions be used to justify making abortion illegal for all women?

That's a frigging joke, considering that such actions are exceedingly rare.

Of course, denying this obvious fact is a widely-used and incredibly dishonest tactic of the typical anti-privacy Christian conservatives who want to ban abortions completely (abortions are currently regulated and restricted under some circumstances in every state in the union). These anti-privacy conservatives tend to portray groups such as Planned Parenthood and other women's health advocates as *promoting* abortion. The great irony, of course, is that the anti-privacy conservatives simultaneously spend a great deal of effort attempting to limit the distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information which would prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

The alleged "liberal inconsistency" Joe refers to above is a joke compared to the inconsistency and hypocricy of the self-proclaimed bible-thumping anti-privacy groups. In fact, it's a joke even without the comparison.

6

What's an "anti-privacy Christian groups"?
Like, a group that wants to make all houses see-through?
Or are you talking about gossip? That's certainly wrong, but off-topic.
I'm confused.

7

I disagree that a fetus has ontological priority over AFG. While a fetus physically exists, its existence is entirely dependent upon the mother’s body. In the same way, while AFG may not physically exist, they exist in practice in our minds and plans. Their existence is entirely dependent upon a mother generation. I don’t agree that a physical existence trumps the spiritual existence of the AFG.

Can you prematurely take a fetus out of a pregnant woman and have it live? Yes, but then it’s no longer a fetus. A fetus, by definition, is a potential for future human existence. An AFG also has the “future potential to exist”.

8

I think this is not a very convincing argument. The controversy abortion raises is not whether it is right or wrong to kill terminate a life, abstract or otherwise.

It is "When does that life begin?". For 1 simple counterexample would be, if we take the argument a step further as many pro-choice proponents have suggested, does male masturbation constitute the destruction of "abstract life"?

So the Verdon blog simply verifies the commonly accepted fact that life begins at some finite time and is endowed with certain rights at that time. What Verdon does not address is where we draw that line in time.

9

"So the Verdon blog simply verifies the commonly accepted fact that life begins at some finite time and is endowed with certain rights at that time."

Notes: those rights have never included included a right to have respiratory functions maintained by others interminably, even for born human beings who are killed every day when their life-support systems are removed based on arbitrary determinations such as the "likelihood" of returning to a "meaningful" existence.

10

Mr. Moderate: "Is it therefore now immoral for people to decide to remain celibate since everyone choosing to do it would cause the end of the human race?"

Or imagine if one day, everyone decided to become a florist. What would happen to the economy, if there were only flower shops, and nobody was a grocer, banker, fireman etc. I can only conclude that becoming a florist is a highly immoral act.

11

Jing: "For 1 simple counterexample would be, if we take the argument a step further as many pro-choice proponents have suggested, does male masturbation constitute the destruction of "abstract life"?"

As for sperm, Christians would probably counter that by saying that sperm is not human, whereas a fertilized egg is. But if sperm is not a human, it doesn't have any rights that we could violate. So what precisely is the problem of taking sperm and, perhaps with some radiation or chemicals, mutate its DNA payload creatively before letting it reach the egg? Since only already existing human beings have rights, exactly whose rights are being violated here?

We can take this concept of "abstract life" to create even further problems. Suppose I meet a sexy and beautiful Christian woman, and ask her to come and have sex with me for us to conceive a baby together. If she refuses my offer, doesn't she grossly violate the rights of the potential baby that would have been conceived as the result of us having sex? Surely this potential baby would rather exist than not exist.

12

What an amazingly weak argument you've presented here about future generations.

Yes, abortion potentially could lead to human extinction due to everyone choosing to abort. The same could be said about having the options of celibacy or birth control, or exclusive homosexual relationships, or vasectomies/tubal ligation.

And this shows how the conservative Christian misunderstands the Choice movement. Just because people want a choice available, doesn't mean they want everyone (or even anyone) to take advantage of it. Most of the women I've known who had abortions, went on to have babies when they felt the time was right or when the fetus was healthy. They weren't anti-birth or anti-children. But, at a particular point in their life, they felt backed into a corner with no escape other than the terrible choice of abortion.

Yes, much of the pro-choice community does find abortion a bad choice. If the evangelical community would put aside their distaste for sex and would ramp up support for private and public means of supporting poor children, the pro-choice community would find common ground with them and together they could work towards reducing abortions via education, cheap or free birth control, and providing a safety net for the poor and/or unhealthy children which are brought to term.

But evangelicals often seem very unconcerned about future generations. They want to eliminate choice but they don't want to pay for any sort of welfare system or safety net or sex education. The majority of them seem unconcerned about the environment, thinking we can do anything we want because 'Jesus is returning soon and so whatever we do doesn't matter because he's just going to destroy the world.'

13

CS,

And this shows how the conservative Christian misunderstands the Choice movement. Just because people want a choice available, doesn't mean they want everyone (or even anyone) to take advantage of it.

Why not? If there is nothing morally problematic about having an abortion (after all, a fetus is merely a clump of cells) then what is the problem?

Most of the women I've known who had abortions, went on to have babies when they felt the time was right or when the fetus was healthy. They weren't anti-birth or anti-children. But, at a particular point in their life, they felt backed into a corner with no escape other than the terrible choice of abortion.

Is abortion ending a human life or isn’t it? If it is, then abortion is always immoral. If it isn’t then I’m not sure why you have a problem with it.

If the evangelical community would put aside their distaste for sex and would ramp up support for private and public means of supporting poor children, the
pro-choice community would find common ground with them and together they could work towards reducing abortions via education, cheap or free birth control, and providing a safety net for the poor and/or unhealthy children which are brought to term.

I doubt that even you believe that old canard. Many of the abortions that occur in the US are had by women who know enough about sex and are currently using birth control. And if you’re claim is that poor women are unable to support the child and therefore justified in their choice, then what's the excuse of middle and upper class women?

I appreciate your point of view but I think that you misunderstand the "choice" movement. They want unrestricted abortions, not more restrictions. They want more acess to abortion, not to make them less necessary. I have never heard a prominent abortion rights supporter claim that the choice of abortion should only be made under the most dire of circumstances. Their position is that it truly is a woman's choice -- no matter what.

14

And this shows how the conservative Christian misunderstands the Choice movement. Just because people want a choice available, doesn't mean they want everyone (or even anyone) to take advantage of it.

But the point is that pro-choicers (myself included) would allow this to happen, since the mother's right to medical decisions outweigh the fetus's right to exist.

To the extent that a more likely AFG's rights are negligible, then, how can we grant ethical weight to AFG's whose potentiality is lesser?

That seems to be the crux of the argument. Since it seems awfully Thomistic (degrees of being and potentiality and whatnot), and I've never been particularly adept at making sense of Thomistic arguments, I'm can't be sure I'm reading it right. But, if the point about potentiality and ontology is right (which seems to me to be an open question), then the tax shift argument that proceeds from our ethical obligations to not-yet AFGs is, in fact, inconsistent.

Maybe evangelicals don't give a hoot about future generations, either, or maybe they do, but that's a different matter.

15

Ilkka: “Christians would probably counter that by saying that sperm is not human, whereas a fertilized egg is”.

As a Christian, I say a fertilized egg is NOT a human. It’s a potential future human. Just like a sperm is or an egg is. In vitro fertilization fertilizes many eggs but only implants a small fraction.

It’s what Jing was saying – it’s a question of when life begins:

“What Verdon does not address is where we draw that line”

Where we draw the line is the interesting part. The supposed liberal hypocrisy Verdon points out is red herring. Equating a discussion of our larger stewardship obligations to future generations with our responsibility to create just laws (whether they are protecting women’s privacy and safety or protecting an infant human) might be fun but it’s counter-productive.

Do potential future humans have inherent rights? No. Do we have a responsibility to actual future humanity? Yes.

What about a fetus in the womb? Is that potential or actual? I don’t know. It seems to me that after it has brainwaves and a heartbeat you shouldn’t go aborting it, but on the other hand it’s nothing more than a parasite.

So what should we be doing in the meantime? Well, since most of us would prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to human life, let’s reduce pregnancy. How? Education, literacy among women and contraceptives are all proven methods. If you have a problem with one (e.g. contraception), you can work with one of the other methods.

What cs points out are very valid criticisms of the pro-life movement. The Catholic Church has done a lot to promote the idea that contraception is bad.

As for the florist scenario, yes, becoming a florist would be immoral in that scenario. 300 years ago I’d have no problem with you killing a whale. These days I would.

16

Remember Folks, Larry & Friends think this (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20041201/D86MGQT80.html) is progress for privacy. *snickers*

Quote: Yes, much of the pro-choice community does find abortion a bad choice.

Why would it be a bad choice?

17

Do potential future humans have inherent rights? No. Do we have a responsibility to actual future humanity? Yes.

I actually considered this tact, but thought it was splitting hairs. Typically, an ethical obligation or responsibility entails some right on the part of the other against me; there's a logical symmetry between right and obligation (unless maybe we're talking about supererogatory ethical acts, but those aren't obligations, strictly speaking). For example, the government has an obligation not to search my house without a warrant, and I have a corresponding right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

Unless rights and obligations aren't symmetrical in the above way, then this distinction doesn't cut much ice.

18

I am an evangelical and a moderate Democrat.....a reformed Republican. And am basically pro-life, with a few early-term exceptions. Your comments here are interesting if a bit confusing. Abortion is THE wedge issue between Republicans and Democrats, though, and a dialog certainly needs to be started. Roe v. Wade is incredibly flawed and needs major modifications. I just wrote an essay entitled "Abortion Is the New Prohibition - A Plea to Democrats" at my blog. Please take a minute and read it...would love to hear your thoughts on it.

19

Joe writes

"Is abortion ending a human life or isn’t it? If it is, then abortion is always immoral."

Don't be lazy, Joe. Do I really need to show you that you can't believe what you clearly imply here (that ending a human life is always immoral)?

20

Larry,

Don't be lazy, Joe. Do I really need to show you that you can't believe what you clearly imply here (that ending a human life is always immoral)?

Okay, I'll grant that my wording is rather sloppy. Still, I think that if one grants that abortion ends a nascent human life then it becomes more difficult to justify ending that life for purely individualistic reasons.

21

Quote: I say a fertilized egg is NOT a human.

Sir, you are retard. How many times do I have to say this? A zygote is NOT an EGG. EGGS are haploid. Zygotes are Diploid!

From Wikipedia: In biology, a zygote is the RESULT (as in past tense Dennis em. mine) of fertilization. That is, two haploid cells—usually (but not always) a sperm cell from a male individual and an ovum or ovule from a female—merge into a single diploid cell called the zygote. The zygote then undergoes multiple cell divisions in gametic and sporic meiosis (see biological life cycles) to become an embryo.

Note the last line: The Zygote (starting immediately) undergoes (i.e. before intentional abortion is possible) cell divisions to become what? An Embryo! Shocking!

From wikipedia: An embryo is an animal or a plant in its earliest stage of development.

So if the zygote in about 5 hours (I'm guessing here, too lazy to look up the estimated cell division rate) is technically an Embryo and therefore an animal.

So if the Zygote 5+ hours in is an animal; what animal is it? Hint: This shouldn't be hard...

...unless you are Larry whom I henceforth dub as "Obakasan." I urge others to do the same and also check out Larry's favorite music to which he writes all of his posts: http://www.funet.fi/pub/culture/russian/html_pages/soviet.html and he's also quite fond of this one as well: http://www.geocities.com/liedderdeutschen/

22

Sorry about the error in paragraph five. I meant to say : The zygote in about 5 hours (I'm guessing here, too lazy to look up the estimated cell division rate) is technically an embryo and therefore an animal.

23

Are there instances in which taking a human life is morally acceptable? Certainly -- but those are exceptional cases. It most certainly is NOT acceptable for matters of convenience, such as wanting to avoid financial hardship or damage to one's career path.

24

This is a good demonstration of why this topic is so difficult.

Joe starts with: Is abortion ending a human life or isn’t it? If it is, then abortion is always immoral.

Which, to say the least, is an extreme summary of one side of a complex, deeply felt, human issue. Then, when pushed, Joe modifies it to this:

...if one grants that abortion ends a nascent human life then it becomes more difficult to justify ending that life for purely individualistic reasons.

Some would say he "weakened" the statement, but he actually made it more "flexible" which in this case gives it a bit more strength. Still, it remains extreme, offering nothing to the people that don't agree with what seems to me to be his very pure anit-abortion stance.

As other's have already commented a fundamental disagreement is about when life begins. If all we do is hammer away at this issue, I don't see much hope for a productive exhange of ideas.

To quote a Christian ethicist who wrote a report looking into why the abortion rate has increased under the Bush administration:

Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs, health insurance and support for mothers.

As a staunch pro-choice, pro-privacy, pro-health individual, I see value in discussing more than simple-minded exercises in elementary logic. Let's talk about the whole human picture. From the left it seems like hard-line pro-choicers want to force all mothers to bring all fetuses to term and then forget about them, as if that "nacsent" life had more value that an actual infant. As much as folks like to bash Hillary, it does "take a village" to raise a child. It takes people with decent jobs and wages, it takes access to good health care, it takes good education, child care, community support, etc.

Let's talk about the real the world and the real suffering that might be alleviated.

25

AndyS,

Some would say he "weakened" the statement, but he actually made it more "flexible" which in this case gives it a bit more strength. Still, it remains extreme, offering nothing to the people that don't agree with what seems to me to be his very pure anit-abortion stance.

I’m not sure I understand why the protection of human life is considered an “extreme” position.

As other's have already commented a fundamental disagreement is about when life begins.

I have to disagree with you on this one. There is actually no dispute at all about when human life begins – it begins at conception. The point of disagreement is when personhood begins or when life becomes intrinsically valuable.

To quote a Christian ethicist who wrote a report looking into why the abortion rate has increased under the Bush administration:

Stassen’s claim has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere so I won’t go into it here. Needless to say, the claim that being “pro-life” requires advocating health insurance for all people is an absurd claim to make, particularly for a Christian ethicist.

As a staunch pro-choice, pro-privacy, pro-health individual, I see value in discussing more than simple-minded exercises in elementary logic.

The problem is that the lack of elementary logic is the primary reason this issue is so difficult to resolve. Pro-choicers often make moral claims that don’t stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. Instead, they prefer to try to change the subject to other issues rather than defend their position that killing humans is justified if it fits their individualistic agenda.

From the left it seems like hard-line pro-choicers want to force all mothers to bring all fetuses to term and then forget about them, as if that "nacsent" life had more value that an actual infant.

While that claim is often made by the Left, they never seem able to back it up. Who is advocating that the child be forgotten after it is born?

As much as folks like to bash Hillary, it does "take a village" to
raise a child.

Um, no, it takes parents to raise a child. Chelsea was not raised by the city of D.C.

It takes people with decent jobs and wages, it takes access to
good health care, it takes good education, child care, community support, etc.

You know, I don’t think my parents had any of those things and they still managed to “raise” me (how well, of course, is a matter of dispute).

Let's talk about the real the world and the real suffering that might be alleviated.

Yes, let’s do. Let’s start with alleviating the suffering of all the innocent children that are being slaughtered. Wait, that’s not what you meant was it?

26

Wow, these are some bad arguments!

1.) Celibicy isn't really a moral course of action in Christianity. God said to be fruitful...

2.) If everyone became florists tommorow, the economy, AS WE KNOW IT, would cease to exist. As long as people remembered to eat, and traded with flowers, economies, in some sense, could still be said to exist. There are very few morally valid courses of action available to an individual, if any, that if exercised on a universal level would destroy humanity, or even appear immoral. In fact, I can think of one moral advantage that a world of florists would have over ours: there would be no abortionists.

27

"From the left it seems like hard-line pro-choicers want to force all mothers to bring all fetuses to term and then forget about them, as if that "nacsent" life had more value that an actual infant."

This should be easily infered from Joe's last post, but:

From the right, it seems like hard line pro- choicers [I assume you meant "lifers" in the above quote.] want to judge whose lives are and aren't worth living.

28

Corrections- "inferred" and "celibacy"

Sorry for the spelling errors.

29

What about a fetus in the womb? Is that potential or actual? I don’t know. It seems to me that after it has brainwaves and a heartbeat you shouldn’t go aborting it, but on the other hand it’s nothing more than a parasite.

By definition a parasite is a member of a different species, not offspring developing in a womb intended for that purpose.

When abortion-rights advocates use the term "parasite," it is as a term of vilification, not biology. The same empty rhetoric has been used in the past of Jews and farmers who refused to collectivize . . .

30

Nathan-

and oddly enough, to those of us on the left...it seems like hard line "pro-lifers" want to judge whose lives are and aren't worth living, and how they should be lived. (I personally prefer more balanced terms like "pro-fetus-death" advocates versus "pro-mothers-who-abort-death" advocates.)

Joe-

...what's the excuse of middle and upper class women?

I don't know many "upper class" women, but I do know a lot of women who'd be in poverty but for a few breaks either way.

You also wrote

Is abortion ending a human life or isn’t it? If it is, then abortion is always immoral. If it isn’t then I’m not sure why you have a problem with it.

People die- fetuses and zygotes die, regardless of whether we confer human status on them.

To kill is generally wrong (from a Buddhist perspective) when it is based on greed, hatred and ignorance, but to sustain life may also be based on greed hatred and ignorance. It takes skill and insight and a reliance on one's conscience to discern an appropriate course of action.

If you say zygotes are human, then you have a problem because some 2/3 of zygotes are spontaneously aborted anyway, and must reconcile that with - from what I think would be your perspective- a deity that would put humans into an existence where 2/3 of all conceived "human beings" die without ever having been born.

Traditionally there has been degrees of distinction between zygotes and humans in this matter (abortion as an absolute evil is a relatively recent phenomenon in Christian morality, and there's the famous concept of "limbo.")

31

Hmmm.

The best part of an abortion thread is watching the pro-abortion crowd twist their position into a humanitarian one. It is amusing to hear "feminists" on the air say that Scott Peterson should be charged with one homicide and not two, meaning that he could walk with parole in only a few years' time. Is that good for women? No. But the idea that an unborn child has any rights at all undermines their position--even the right not to be butchered by anyone besides an "abortion provider".

As to the deficit spending, those who use "future generations" to militate against it are on weak footing indeed. Is it okay to borrow money to win the war against Islamic extremism, or not? Was it okay to borrow money to win the war against Naziism and Japanese Imperialism? Is it okay to borrow money to build highway systems and dams that will benefit future generations more than myself, particularly if these dams are out West, and the highways in the Northeast?

No, Joe's analysis is quite sound here. The abortionist community cannot on the one hand say that Connor Peterson has no rights, yet condemn deficit spending on the basis of the fact that Connor Peterson, had he been allowed to live, would be helping to pay the bill.

32

Mumon writes, "Traditionally there has been degrees of distinction between zygotes and humans in this matter (abortion as an absolute evil is a relatively recent phenomenon in Christian morality, and there's the famous concept of "limbo.")"

The Didache was written as early as the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., as late as 120 A.D. depending upon whom you ask, higher critics of course say later. It was thought of so highly that some highly orthodox fathers included it in the canon.

"Thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide" Didache 2:2

I should think history disagrees with you, mumon.

33

Kevin W: "The abortionist community cannot on the one hand say that Connor Peterson has no rights, yet condemn deficit spending on the basis of the fact that Connor Peterson, had he been allowed to live, would be helping to pay the bill."

Good thing then that the abortionist community does not claim that the deficit spending hurts Connor Peterson. They condemn the deficit spending on the basis of the fact that the people who happen to be born into the future generations would be helping to pay the bill.

We don't know yet who these people are going to be, since we don't know who is going to mate with who and how their genetic mix is going to turn out. But we do know with 100% practical certainty that there will be some future people.

Just like when I shuffle a deck of cards, I don't know what order they will be dealt out in until I actually deal them out, but I already do know for a fact that they will come out in some order.

34

Dennis wrote, "As a Christian, I say a fertilized egg is NOT a human. It’s a potential future human. Just like a sperm is or an egg is. In vitro fertilization fertilizes many eggs but only implants a small fraction."

I can't say your definition agrees with Christianity. On the definition of life, you are not a Christian.

35

"As much as folks like to bash Hillary, it does "take a village" to raise a child."

Joe wrote, "Um, no, it takes parents to raise a child. Chelsea was not raised by the city of D.C."

She didn't even go to public schools. :) Good point Joe!

36

>So what's a good pro-choice advocate to do?

What else?

"It's All The Republicans' Fault,
The Republicans Are To Blame;
It's All The Republicans' Fault,
The Republicans Are To Blame;
It's All The Republicans' Fault,
The Republicans Are To Blame;
It's All The Republicans' Fault,
The Republicans Are To Blame..."

37

Again, Ilkka makes my point for me.

The pro-abortionists stance is this: the unborn child, which is a living, breathing being, has no rights whatsoever, including the right of protection from physical harm or death. But abstract, yet-to-be-conceived persons of future generations need protection from deficit spending, even if said spending will be beneficial to them.

More mental gymnastics. You get an 8 from the Russian judge.

38

This issue of "fairness" is actually consistent with pro abortion argurments.
Whatever the arguements are, fairness is the overriding factor.

It's not fair to bring this baby into the world.

This baby has a genetic problem, it's not fair to bring it into the world. You should abort it.
It's just going to be unfair to the parents, to society, to raise this baby with all it's problems.

This baby has a cleft lip. It won't be fair to bring it into the world.
This baby is a girl. It won't be fair to bring it into the world. It's unfair to future generations.

The fact is, the baby is already in the world,
abortion just removes it.

Greenspan warned Congress of a "debt maelstrom" Sept. 8 because demands on federal programs will rise as the 84 million members of the baby-boom generation -- those born between 1946 and 1964 begin to retire in 2010.

It's unfair to to have to support those 84 million baby-boomers.

39

gedi:

And Thomas Aquinas disagrees with you, at least to the extent of considering abortion "murder."

Kevin W:

Is it okay to borrow money to win the war against Islamic extremism, or not? Was it okay to borrow money to win the war against Naziism and Japanese Imperialism?

The wrong questions. The right question is: is it OK to give a tax cut to benefit mostly wealthy people who are not sacrificing their sons and daughters for a misbegotten adventure in Iraq which is making a struggle against religious extremism more difficult?

We raised taxes during WWII and borrowed money.

Is it okay to borrow money to build highway systems and dams that will benefit future generations more than myself, particularly if these dams are out West, and the highways in the Northeast?

Depends on the revenue generated in the future, and the environmental impact.

40

Kevin W:"the unborn child, which is a living, breathing being, has no rights whatsoever"

The unborn child is not a person. The people who exist in the future will be persons in the future, and in the future they will have the rights that belong to persons.

It will be wrong to violate those rights in the future, but it is also wrong to at this moment to set up a chain of events that is bound to violate their rights in the future.

If I bury a landmine and someone walks over it and dies, I have violated that person's rights, even if we don't know which unlucky person is going to walk over it first. But if it is a special landmine that is designed to lie dormant for a hundred years and activate only after that, I still violate the rights of the first person who walks over it, despite the fact that me burying the mine now and the mine exploding occur a hundred years apart in time. What makes this a violation of somebody's rights is that that somebody is a person at the moment of explosion, even though he only exists as an abstract potential person now, Dec 1 2004. We don't know who that somebody will be, but then again, we don't know who the unlucky somebody will be with an ordinary landmine.

But enough of that. I am slowly starting to think that medical science should simply solve this whole abortion issue by coming up with a method to remove the zygote/fetus from the womb without changings its physical structure in any harmful way, as if it had been teleported (or perhaps to use a more appropriate term here, "raptured") out.

Then the unborn child would be free to live outside the womb as it pleases, and nobody's rights would be violated.

I don't see how someone who consists of a total of, say, twenty or so cells, can breathe at all, but even so, this little person would be free to live its life as well as it can.

"even if said spending will be beneficial to them."

Anyone can correct me here if I'm wrong, but I have understood the conservative economic stance to be that with the exceptions of military and law enforcement, government spending is never beneficial to anyone. Or even if it happened to be somewhat beneficial, it is still less beneficial compared to "letting people keep their own money" and allowing them to spend it as they please.

(There might be exceptions to wealth transfers from Blue to Red states, though, since most conservatives don't seem to oppose them very much.)

41

Ilkka,

The unborn child is not a person. The people who exist in the future will be persons in the future, and in the future they will have the rights that belong to persons.

But “people who exist in the future” are not persons either. They are an abstraction. Simply claiming that they might someday exist does not make them any less of an abstraction nor does it provide a reason why we should act morally toward that particular abstraction.

It will be wrong to violate those rights in the future, but it is also wrong to at this moment to set up a chain of events that is bound to violate their rights in the future.

But using your reasoning we could conclude that it is wrong to establish an abortion policy since we don’t know which “unlucky person” will be aborted. You can't seperate the abstract beings who manage to slip through and eventually exist from those that don't because it is possible that if every woman chose an abortion that no one would exist. Since no one has to exist there is no reason we should have to act morally toward their potential existence.

42

Illka wrote, "The unborn child is not a person."

What is "it" then? If it is not a person, what is the grown up form of the child species of which it is a member?

43

Joe Carter: "But “people who exist in the future” are not persons either. They are an abstraction."

They are an abstraction now, but they will be concrete persons in the future at the time when the landmine actually explodes, which is why we consider burying the landmine today wrong. Doing so will hurt a concrete person in the future.

Abortion, on the other hand, eliminates only a potential person instead of a concrete person. At no moment of time, either now or in the future timeline, is there a concrete person who gets killed, only potential persons.

This is just like a woman's refusal to have sex with me to create a baby, which eliminates only the potential person who would be the combination of our genes. Her refusal does not hurt any concrete persons right now or any time in the future, which is why we have no moral problem with such decision.

It is not possible to hurt a potential person. You can only hurt concrete persons, although with some persons, you necessarily have to wait some time until they become concrete.

"Simply claiming that they might someday exist"

It is a different thing to claim that somebody will exist in the future than it is to claim that some particular person (e.g. Connor Peterson) will exist in the future.

"But using your reasoning we could conclude that it is wrong to establish an abortion policy since we don’t know which “unlucky person” will be aborted."

Assuming that fetuses are not persons, no person is nor will ever be aborted. And of course, the whole question ultimately boils down to the question when a fetus becomes a human or a person. I actually agree that at eight months it is quite lot a person, but at two or three days the personhood is somewhat hard for me to see. Especially since most people in both left and right tend to loudly claim that we are much more just than our genes.

44

Joe Carter: "But “people who exist in the future” are not persons either. They are an abstraction."

Actually, people who exist in the future include, for actuarial purposes, people like my 3 year old son, who most definitely was born, and, if he stays in the USA with the Bush administration continuing its profligate ways, will most certainly see a dramatic reduction in the standard of living here.

Check out my blog for nice info on "Social Security Reform," and the "liberal" NY Times for example.

45

im glad this discussion has progressed to the point where we are addressing when human life begins.

Because this whole article has nothing to do with that and this whole "AFG" business is really nonsense and has nothing to do with abortion.

Im not pro or anti abortion, but the argument linking national debt to abortion is simply very not well thought out.

46

I'm a simple minded conservative christian. I'm a single mother. I choose to allow my little zygote develop into a child. You see, you will never get a child if the zygote is not formed. That is the beginning of life. Without it, you do not have a child. A child doesn't just magically appear. It has to grow and develop inside the mother where it's life officially begins. You can't say that it's not a child because it's not on the outside of the mothers body. That does not make sense. Of course, I am pro-life so that means that I could possibly be lacking mentally.

47

God bless you Deb and your blessed little zygote!

48

Joe et al,

No one appears to have noticed that the argument in your article cuts both ways. And this goes straight to the heart of my own unease with both sides of politics today.

Very simply, if it is inconsistent for a 'liberal' to have concern for future generations re national debt but have no concern for the tangible future generation in the womb re abortion then it is also inconsistent for conservatives who are concerned for the life of the unborn to show little or no concern for future generations re national debt, social security or preemptive war.

Personally, I consider myself an evangelical Christian and am both pro-life as in anti-abortion and pro-life as in anti-preemptive-war/pro-welfare etc.

I take it from the triumphalist tone of your blog regarding the '04 elections that you virtually unreservedly support Bush - only asking that he remember who put him there and carry out the relevant parts of the conservative christian agenda - in the case that this is true, you too have to face this criticism and ask yourself are you being inconsistent? Have right-wing christians sold out their core values for political influence? Note: by core values I mean the Bible (_including_ Matt 25 et al) not the pro-life and gay-marriage issues alone.

This is not meant to be an outright condemnation, there is some very good stuff on your blog - notably the Know Your Evangelicals series. However, as an evangelical who nevertheless finds himself on the political left I am continually frustrated with the inconsistent polarisation of the political sphere into (a) "do whatever you like at home but let's stop those murderous corporate tyrants" vs. (b) "I'll tell you exactly how you are to live your personal life but who cares how much raping and pillaging the corporations do so long as the money keeps flowing in".

You've picked this up in the other side but have ignored the log in your own eye. Instead of "liberal-baiting" (in the CafePress ad) how about a little 'love your enemies' from the Evangelical Outpost?

Blessings,

jim

49

Just to throw this out there, perhaps it would be important/interesting to look to Christianity's Jewish roots to see where the 'other' people of the bible (or half of the Judeo-Christian value system) stand on abortion.

Jews in general do not support wreckless application of abortion (for example as birth control or for family planning, etc), but make allowances for cases in which carrying the baby to term is a dire threat to the mother's health. It's a bit of a more nuanced view and one that can't be simplified to "pro-life" vs "pro-death" because Jews view it as a debate between two lives and therefore have flexibility in the application.

If you're interested in reading more about it, Aish.com supplies a nice overview: Abortion in Jewish Law

Another article: Jewish Beliefs on Abortion

or of course you can just hunt around google on your own.