1

Well said, Joe. Way to get at the nub of the issue.

2

The NYTimes Sunday Magazine has a cover story out about whether or not Post-Abortion Syndrome is real. Of course, the conclusion, drawn by former Mother Jones contributor Emily Bazelon, is no.

If you read her article carefully the gist of it is that women are placing the blame for depression or feelings of guilt on abortion, when it could be attributable to other things. It's a pretty sad effort.

I deconstructed it in a blog post.

3

test

4

A while ago I proposed a what-if scenero. What if instead of concentrating on making abortion illegal pro-lifers instead had concentrated on making it rare. Even conceeding the legal question to pro-choicers but going after both the causes for women to choose abortion over birth as well as trying to convince women and men in general to favor birth over abortion.

The pro-life movement, IMO, took the easy road and has suffered for it. They have firmly made themselves a tool of the Republican party and in exchange the GOP has only had to support judges who were anti-Roe.v.Wade which in the big scheme of things rests on a rather small legal question. On the international front this fetish for legalism over realism had seen pro-lifers declaring it a defeat when a country legalizes abortion but sees its abortion rate decline and a victory when abortion is made less legal but the rate increases!

We convince ourselves that they simply don't realize what they're doing. If only they could see the pictures. If only we could convince them that the "fetus" is a person. If only they knew it was a human life they were destroying. If they only knew, they wouldn't -- they couldn't -- go through with the abortion.

I recently perused a book called The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR. Its premise is that advertising is very expensive, very creative and very entertaining but at the end of the day it almost always doesn't work. Companies spend millions on creative ads that play during the Superbowl, they win awards and people talk about them but at the end of the day they buy the product. One of the prime reasons they don't work is that people know advertising is not truthful therefore while they may enjoy some of it they will not trust it to tell them the truth.

Quite frankly the reason your pictures haven't had the impact you wanted, Joe, is that people know pro-lifers are liars. They lied during the Schiavo fiasco. They lied about 'post-abortion syndrome'. They even lie with the pictures depicting babies that are nearly ready to be born as equal to a few days after fertilization. Even when the pictures are true, Joe, people know you are trying to sell them on something (don't have abortions)...hence they know to distrust your pictures, your articles, your doctors and so on.

[Yes I know abortion clinics have an interest in 'selling abortions' but honestly they do not advertise. People seek them out because they already want abortions so all they need to do is assure the woman that they are safe and legal. The larger pro-choice movement is a lot less about 'selling abortions' and more about the ideological question of Roe.v.Wade which is interesting but has probably received too much focus]

The pro-life movement, trying to take the legalistic, easy way out, has earned a reputation for being cold and callus. Joe's depiction of the women in the article as me-centered and selfish is a case in point. If Joe and other pro-lifers were not so blinded by the easy academic debates over whether or not privacy is in the Constitution and whether or not it covers abortion he would see that many of these women are hardly selfish and me centered. They clearly agonized over their decision and even years later wonder if they made the right call or not. If the pro-life movement was truely woman centered they probably would have done a lot more good by depicting woman less as selfish tramps who just want to find a legal loophole to abort their babies so they could go club hopping more than as agents of love who make the ultimate sacrifice by choosing to bring life into the world.

A reformed pro-life movement that followed this strategy probably would not accomplish making abortion illegal with no loopholes. But it could probably make abortion a lot less common than something 1/4th of women have done at some point in t heir lives. In fact, given what we know today making abortion illegal is going to probably end up being like making pot illegal. Yes people will get busted for it now and then but it will be something just about everyone has done at least once and the law will be widely broken.

5

A collection of cells is every bit a child in the same way an acorn is a tree. Let's just get that on the table immediately so that we aren't fooling ourselves into thinking that, for example, a 3 day old zygote is in anyway a "being" close in value or importance as the actual being that conceived it.

That said it's not hard to understand that women who have abortions would feel regret and/or concern for their soul as a result of the abortion. For years the church has argued that this unimportant collection of cells was some how screaming out "save me"..."Dont' kill me". It of course was not.

I suspect in the coming 12-24 months the abortion issue will be back on the table in various states where it will be made illigal. The political battle over abortion will finally show that those who argue there is some sort of soul inside a 3 day old zygote are in the minority. The Republican party does not want this battle becauese they only stand to lose.

I'm not sure the anti-abortion crowd has acheived much in the years since Roe...besides inflicting guilt where it need not be.

6

Darwin said: "for example, a 3 day old zygote is in anyway a "being" close in value or importance as the actual being that conceived it"

This is a scary thought. That some people have more value than others. Worse, one person's life is valued less than another's convenience.

7

So, would you say that Democrats should stop their opposition to "illegal domestic spying" and instead work to make it rare? Maybe those anti-war protestors should cut Bush some slack, because he probably agonized over every death he caused? Maybe instead of fighting poverty, we could do poverty education at school and let what happens, happens.

OR

Maybe, we could just call people we disagree with "liars" and everything they say is a lie. There are probably some websites that support our claim that the other side is lying liars. If we repeat it often enough, it becomes proof positive that people who disagree with us are lying liars who tell lies. Lying lies, in fact. Because it's not possible to have different interpretations of the same facts, or to do it in good faith.

8

So, would you say that Democrats should stop their opposition to "illegal domestic spying" and instead work to make it rare? Maybe those anti-war protestors should cut Bush some slack, because he probably agonized over every death he caused? Maybe instead of fighting poverty, we could do poverty education at school and let what happens, happens.

With the first items on your list you are talking about actions of the government. Since the government does not mandate abortion I would say the comparision is a poor one. In the later item I would say it would not be very useful to advocate making 'poverty illegal' but instead to seek policies that decrease poverty as much as possible (even though we probably would never eliminate it entirely). I think you'd probably agree that would be a wiser course of action.

Maybe, we could just call people we disagree with "liars" and everything they say is a lie. There are probably some websites that support our claim that the other side is lying liars. If we repeat it often enough, it becomes proof positive that people who disagree with us are lying liars who tell lies.

First off I didn't say everything you said is a lie. I said that your side has told lies and you should face it, it has. Second I said that people mistrust advertising and for good reason, advertising often is about telling a lie of some sort. So you shouldn't be surprised that your pictures and 'documentaries' have not been as effective as you would have wanted. People know you are trying to sell them something and people are savy enough know that salesmen are not to be trusted even when they seem to just be spouting 'true facts'.

Because it's not possible to have different interpretations of the same facts, or to do it in good faith.

True enough I agree that people can have a different interpretation and I'm sure that happens quite a bit when the topic is abortion. But let me ask you a question, suppose you sincerely believe that abortion is a horrible wrong equal to murder and making abortion illegal would be saving the lives of children. If you were presented with an opportunity to tell a lie that would seem to accomplish this goal wouldn't you be tempted to accept it as a lesser evil in support of a greater good? People have lied in politics where the stakes were a lot less important...in service of crop subsidies, import quotas, tax deductions etc. Or has the pro-life movement become so used to its self-righteousness that it can't stand to even hear the suggestion that its members might actually be human beings rather than larger than life saints or prophets?

9

"This is a scary thought. That some people have more value than others. Worse, one person's life is valued less than another's convenience."

This would be a scary thought...IF a 3 day old zygote were a "person".

10

Darwin This would be a scary thought...IF a 3 day old zygote were a "person".

Isn't it amazing how materialist become metaphysical dualist when it comes to abortion? We are solely material beings...unless we want to deny a particular material beings status as "human" and then all of a sudden we have some intangible concept of "personhood."

I can't imagine what it must be like to live with such a convoluted, nonsensical worldview as atheistic materialism.

11

Joe, I absolutely agree that, probably 99.9% of the time, abortion is a selfish action. Occasionally, though, it does come down to choosing between one life and another -- the mother's or the child's -- and such a decision must be awful. In such a case there are no easy answers.

I'm not clear on what is being said about approval=love in your last paragraph. I wouldn't say love is about approval, or even about finding the good in someone, although both may be part of love (at least in the "natural" sense). Love says, "It's good that you are in the world because it is God's doing (through either one's own means + another's, or others')." It has to do with Who owns life.

I also wonder whether a mother who's aborted needs to be told that it's a negation of love -- I think she already knows. However, she might need help in seeing or facing her denial of this.

Darwin, an acorn is not a tree; it's a dormant seed. A zygote is not dormant.

12

Let's talk about a convoluted, nonsensical worldview.

According to the position held by many Christians, including Joe, anyone who dies before the magic "age of accountability" gets a free ticket to heaven. Thus, the four million or so abortions since Roe v. Wade have resulted in four million souls going straight to heaven. If these had been born, it seems certain that many, if not most, would not have become Christians and thus would have gone to hell.

Instead of selfish, we must view these women as extraordinarily unselfish as they have sacrificed their own spiritual welfare to guarantee the salvation of their babies. These pre-born saints will join the millions (billions?) of others whom God (the great abortionist) has killed, or "has allowed to die," by miscarriage or in infancy or childhood.

By this logic, a number of unstable individuals have killed their own born children.

As evil as you consider abortionists to be, musn't you evangelicals admit that the killing of these fetuses has actually been better for them in the long run?

13

Darwin, an acorn is not a tree; it's a dormant seed. A zygote is not dormant.

True but even when an acorn switches from dormant to 'not dormant' it isn't a tree but still an acorn that has yet to become a tree. There's no metaphysical dualism there for the materialist. Both the acorn and tree are made of material but are seperated not by an intangible concept but just a tangible concept that's more complicated but real nevertheless.

14

Boonton

For starters, my point was that your suggestions are silly. My three examples were situations where I doubt the Left would be pacified by being told to accept things the way they are and just try to ameliorate the effects. It's like when Democrats suggest that if Republicans only accepted liberal projects (or nominated liberal candidates, or whatever) everything would run smoother.

Second, your position "Well, you should just acept that your side has told lies." So what? That only matters if my "side" has told lies pertinent to the matter or has told so many lies that the whole credibility is in tatters. To the first charge, you have thrown in Terri Schiavo and post-abortion studies. In my experience, people have a position and choose data interpretations to match; for my part, I believe I have both logic and prudence on my side. I can respect your disagreement until the "lying liars" argument (which I admittedly stole from Al Franken, and I believe he used to parody Rush Limbaugh) comes up. On the second part, I see no evidence of widespread lying, although I do see systematic accusations of lying from the Left to the Right. The whole "your leaders and movement are lying liars" is an argument I find both petulant and puerile. To the extent I have projected it onto you undeservedly, I apologize.

Finally, since I believe in a just God whose special concern is the poor, the oppressed, widows, and orphans, I don't feel any impetus to lie, steal, or murder as a means to a good end, and I condemn those who do. For what it's worth, my observation is that "ends justify the means" people come from the secular left because there is nothing greater to them than this world and no power to right wrongs other than humans. Christians have plenty of flaws, not the least of which is the tendency to enforce good behavior rather than produce good hearts, but doing evil so that good might arise isn't generally one of them.

15

About the acorn and the tree:

An acorn is not a tree, but both are oaks, just at different stages of development. A fetus is not a child, which is not an adult, but all 3 are human. Which is the entire case against abortion (in a nutshell, so to speak).

I used to be pro-choice on the libertarian grounds of minimal government interference (fortunately, I was too young to vote). I went to a pro-life rally and the speaker was someone who had survived being aborted. That's when I realized that abortion isn't about legal arguments and political games, but who lives and who dies.

We can argue all day about whether acorns are like trees, or if women who have abortions suffer from the abortion itself or society's perception of the act, but in the meanwhile real human beings are dying. There's a whole industry grown up around killing human beings with considerable political influence for maintaining the killing of human beings. That ought to give sober men pause.

16

When you define what is a person by way of adjective (skin color, gender, age, etc.) you have denied anyone's objective right to value...unless of course they meet your standard...and you have opened the door to tyranny. The one in power gets to decide what adjective gives us value. The rest are subject to extinction.

when you define what is a person by way of a noun—that is to say, all humans are by definition persons—you have granted objective rights to all.

If the fetus is NOT a person, then no justification for abortion is required.

If the fetus IS a person, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

17

Joe said:

Isn't it amazing how materialist become metaphysical dualist when it comes to abortion? We are solely material beings...unless we want to deny a particular material beings status as "human" and then all of a sudden we have some intangible concept of "personhood."

I can't imagine what it must be like to live with such a convoluted, nonsense.

This is straw-man. For your average, run-of-the-mill materialst who wishes to make a distinction between human begin and person, the difference results from the degree of development of the central nervous system. What makes a human being a person on this view is that the cns of that human being has reached a state of maturation sufficient to do such things as this: make a plan of action, form a conception of self, feel pain, etc.

What's nonsensical about this? Surely the cns develops over time, and there's nothing in that assertion to contradict materialism. Moreover, as it develops, it can come to do certain things it couldn't before in virtue of novel forms of organization of its constituent neurons, and again there's nothing in that to contradict materialism. What, then, is nonsensical about the attempt to identity persons as human beings with central nervous systems sufficiently developed?

Perhaps the materialists are wrong, Joe, but some of them are thoughtful and articulate. They don't make the sort of stupid mistakes of which you accuse them. (I seem to recall that I've had to make this comment many times before. You seem often to assume that your philosophical opponents are fools. This is simply false.)

18

"Isn't it amazing how materialist become metaphysical dualist when it comes to abortion? We are solely material beings...unless we want to deny a particular material beings status as "human" and then all of a sudden we have some intangible concept of "personhood."

I can't imagine what it must be like to live with such a convoluted, nonsensical worldview as atheistic materialism."

It's not that difficult to do. When you realize that the notion of a "soul" is similar to the notion of the boogyman and when you realize that there is very little about a 3 day old zygote that is close to similar to a REAL person and when you realize that the value of 3 day old Zygote can't possible approach that of a a 30 year old woman, then it becomes quite easy to recognize the ridiculousness of calling a 3 day old zygote a "person".

19

"We can argue all day about whether acorns are like trees, or if women who have abortions suffer from the abortion itself or society's perception of the act, but in the meanwhile real human beings are dying. There's a whole industry grown up around killing human beings with considerable political influence for maintaining the killing of human beings. That ought to give sober men pause."

Well...not SO real. Let's face it, the anti abortion crowd would argue that a zygote of 2 days and a few hundred cells is the same thing as a productive 45 year old woman who is responsible for real people and who has a consience and an ego and self consciousness. The 2 day old zygote has none of this. The notion that they are of similar value is simply poppycock.

20

"what is a person by way of adjective (skin color, gender, age, etc.) you have denied anyone's objective right to value...unless of course they meet your standard...and you have opened the door to tyranny. The one in power gets to decide what adjective gives us value. The rest are subject to extinction.

when you define what is a person by way of a noun—that is to say, all humans are by definition persons—you have granted objective rights to all.

If the fetus is NOT a person, then no justification for abortion is required.

If the fetus IS a person, then no justification for abortion is adequate."

This strikes me as perfectly correct.

21

Alexander

For starters, my point was that your suggestions are silly. My three examples were situations where I doubt the Left would be pacified by being told to accept things the way they are and just try to ameliorate the effects.

1. Illegal domestic spying - This is an explicit act of government. To solve any problem with illegal domesticy spying the government simply has to stop doing it....unless you're talking about other types of illegal spying like peeping toms or whatnot?

2. War - Another explicit act of government.

3. Poverty - This is not an act of government and yes the left would be wiser to seek policies that ameliorate poverty rather than trying to 'make poverty illegal'. I think most would agree simply declaring poverty or unemployment or whatnot 'illegal' would do nothing to actually eliminate or decrease those things but simply have them called by a different name.

So yes indeed most people on the left, right and everywhere else implicitly know there are real limits to solving problems by simply making things we don't like illegal.

Second, your position "Well, you should just acept that your side has told lies." So what? That only matters if my "side" has told lies pertinent to the matter or has told so many lies that the whole credibility is in tatters.

Well the answer is clearly yes to the first and to the second I suppose it's a judgement call. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that I pulled Schiavo into the conversation but I think pro-lifers have been very explicit in stating that they consider her case to be part of their cause as well.

Now I think you recognize how it is easy for people to fall into lies, especially when they think it might be in service of some much greater good. I'll try to keep my point brief, I see the pro-choice movement pushing a relatively simple argument while the pro-life one has attempted to push several:

Pro-Choice:
Abortion is a right under the Constitution

Pro-Life
Abortion is not such a right
Abortion is wrong
Abortion should be banned.

Right off the bat the pro-choice argument has fewer opportunities for lies. The argument over the constitution is a rather academic one and even though there are people that are passionate about it it remains rather dry for most people. In fact some pro-choicers have criticized their movement for being too focused on arcane legal and philosophical arguments which are distant from the experiences of everyday people.

On both sides I think the question of whether or not there is a right to abortion is probably the most honest aspect of the debate. Most of the disagreement, I believe, is based on an honest difference in intrepretation.

On the latter two issues I believe there are more lies from the fact that they are more suspectible to propaganda. However there are more propaganda opportunities from the right here than left. The left can maybe use the danger of unregulated underground abortions as propaganda but IMO that's about it. The right, of course, can use cute babies and there are few propaganda tools as effective as casting your argument as one that is for 'the children'.

Another reason I believe there are more lies on the right here is the fact that the left does not usually engage the last two arguments that the pro-lifers make. In fact the pro-choicers that Joe cites more or less come right out and say they gave little consideration to the issue of abortion beyond the question of Constitutional rights. If abortion is a right then from a legal POV it being wrong does not matter much. It's wrong to support Nazism, for example, but it isn't illegal so you don't hear much public policy debate about what to do with Nazi supporters because in America at freedom of expression is basically assumed by most people.

For what it's worth, my observation is that "ends justify the means" people come from the secular left because there is nothing greater to them than this world and no power to right wrongs other than humans. Christians have plenty of flaws, not the least of which is the tendency to enforce good behavior rather than produce good hearts, but doing evil so that good might arise isn't generally one of them.

For what its worth I don't base my analysis here on any self-righteous assumptions. I don't assume pro-choicers are inherently better people or that pro-lifers are some type of inherently evil people. I simply assumed that both sides are human beigns and will be equally inclined to tell lies when the opportunity appears apt.

22

As evil as you consider abortionists to be, musn't you evangelicals admit that the killing of these fetuses has actually been better for them in the long run?

We evangelicals are honor-bound to go by what scripture says. Therefore, if your theory is correct (granted that some evangelicals agree with you), I'd like to see a good biblical argument that all aborted fetuses go to Heaven. I don't think there is one. I'm not talking about the argument that goes "What kind of God would send a baby to Hell who had never been born and never had a chance to accept Christ or not?". And I'm not necessarily talking about a silver bullet verse. I readily accept arguments extrapolated from the Bible. Honestly, any time I've ever heard anyone say "all aborted babies go to Heaven", it comes out as an argument from emotion with little biblical substance. If the kindest, most decent friend I've ever known (at least outwardly) was a Muslim, and he's going to Hell without Christ (which I believe he is), then how do we know one way or the other what the eternal fate of aborted babies is?

23

For what its worth I don't base my analysis here on any self-righteous assumptions. I don't assume pro-choicers are inherently better people or that pro-lifers are some type of inherently evil people. I simply assumed that both sides are human beigns and will be equally inclined to tell lies when the opportunity appears apt.

Well, I don't accuse you of such, but I did say that there is a difference in the kind of wrong behavior that religious and non-religious engage in. And I said that secularists, left or right, are more prone to "means-ends" justifications because of their beliefs. I think this is borne out by observation. Religious people tend to be more intolerant. Which is why being called intolerant doesn't faze me but charges of lying (not that you have directed any at me) are offensive. So the ratio of opportunities is irrelevant because the assumption that both groups act the same is wrong.

I guess my specific point of disagreement with you is my observation that Christians are less likely than secularists to lie in order to advance a cause.

24

An acorn is not a tree, but both are oaks, just at different stages of development. A fetus is not a child, which is not an adult, but all 3 are human. Which is the entire case against abortion (in a nutshell, so to speak).

I think you recognize the weakness in this argument at the end of your post:

We can argue all day about whether acorns are like trees, or if women who have abortions suffer from the abortion itself or society's perception of the act, but in the meanwhile real human beings are dying..

This is just a semantic game. If I were to go on your property and cut down your oak tree you could sue me for potentially thousands of dollars. If I just stepped on an acorn you'd be laughed out of court. A dead body is also human yet it is not considered a person so we keep going around the circle.

Franklin
Perhaps the materialists are wrong, Joe, but some of them are thoughtful and articulate. They don't make the sort of stupid mistakes of which you accuse them. (I seem to recall that I've had to make this comment many times before. You seem often to assume that your philosophical opponents are fools. This is simply false.)

Ironically Joe's anti-materialism stance is even more open to tyranny and oppression. Joe's basic argument is that humans have some non-material X that grants them personhood and therefore entitles them to respect and dignity. (For X read 'soul') Hence the fertilized egg, having X, should be treated no different than, say, George Bush even though the fertilized egg has only a single cell and no physical mechanisms to equal even George Bush's brain power.

However this descends into nothing more than a shouting match over when and where X is present. Early Christians believed that X became present at quickening (the moment a baby's first kicks could be felt). Before then abortion was not murder (but that's not to say it was approved). What to make of the racist who says Jews and Blacks don't have X? It's nothing more than one unprovable assertion against another. If a groups of people or individual person doesn't have X then what is done to them doesn't matter much no matter how cruel. Even though they act like us, feel pain like us, they aren't us because they lack X. It's easy to see how the doctrine of X can be warped to justify a lot of cruel behavior but at least the materialist doctrine doesn't have as much wiggle room. If something meets the definition then it is protected no matter if it's an alien, a mentally retarded human, or whatever.

Alexander
Well, I don't accuse you of such, but I did say that there is a difference in the kind of wrong behavior that religious and non-religious engage in. And I said that secularists, left or right, are more prone to "means-ends" justifications because of their beliefs.

I think "means-ends" justifications are more apt to be used when the ends appear to be worth a great deal and the means appear to be very minor. If the end is believe to be saving children and the means is believed to be telling lies then human beings are more likely to engage in such behavior.

25

Every person is created in the image of God. Every person has an immortal soul. And that is why every life has value.

26

Also let's not forget the point about advertising. Whether it's to convince you to buy a car, vote for a candidate or do or not do something people know advertising is something with an ulterior motive. That doesn't make it automatically dishonest but it does mean that it is inherently distrusted for that reason.

Any campaign premised on advertising (which is what a "let's just show them the pictures" strategy is) will automatically suffer from that handicap. Pro-choicers have an edge from the simple fact that their position is the default public policy, libertarianism. By default we are free to do as we will. People have to work to get laws passed to inhibit us.

Now we have plenty of examples of people getting stuff passed to inhibit our freedom (speed limits, no smoking in bars, no smoking in cars if your kids are in them etc.) the fact remains our society is premised on us being able to do anything unless it is prohibited. It is not premised on us only being allowed to do what has been authorized.

IMO a non-legalistic strategy by pro-lifers would turn that advantage around. Rejecting abortion would be a presented as one of individual choice rather than compulsion. Wasn't 'choose life' once a motto? It was a lot more positive than "life or we'll force it on you at the point of a gun!"

27

Boonton:

"However this descends into nothing more than a shouting match over when and where X is present."

This puts the burden of proof on the pro-abort crowd, doesn't it? If there's any doubt, any confusion, we must opt for life.

We know that "X", personhood conferring a right to life, exists for at least some "human creatures", at least some of the time. The pro-abortion people need to prove, using non-materialistic arguments, when X doesn't hold for various human creatures.

28

"Every person is created in the image of God. Every person has an immortal soul. And that is why every life has value."

If this were the only rational by which to assign value to folks then you'd see atheists running around today arguing not only that abortion should be legal but that killing anyone of any ages is ok. But of course you dont' see that despite the fact that there are millions of atheists in America.

29

"This puts the burden of proof on the pro-abort crowd, doesn't it? If there's any doubt, any confusion, we must opt for life.

We know that "X", personhood conferring a right to life, exists for at least some "human creatures", at least some of the time. The pro-abortion people need to prove, using non-materialistic arguments, when X doesn't hold for various human creatures."

If the anti-abortion crowd is arguing that X is the soul, then firsrt the existence of the soul must be demonstrated in this particular argument.

In general however you are asking what criteria ought to be in place in order that protection be provided.

Prior to birth I'd argue some sort of demonstrated self consciousness. This clearly happens before birth, but not at conception.

30

This puts the burden of proof on the pro-abort crowd, doesn't it? If there's any doubt, any confusion, we must opt for life.

We know that "X", personhood conferring a right to life, exists for at least some "human creatures", at least some of the time. The pro-abortion people need to prove, using non-materialistic arguments, when X doesn't hold for various human creatures.

The burden might be so if X is non-material but if it is material (such as a central nervous system of a certain degree of functioning) then such a burden can be accomplished. If it's non-material you quickly fall into the trap of just shouting. Why not play it extra safe, how do we know that X doesn't reside in the sperm cell thereby making every non-procreative sex act a slaughter of thousands? Or an egg cell making each period a silent death? Perhaps women should take those birth control pills that stop periods until the point they are willing to have a child?

31

Darwin-

"If the anti-abortion crowd is arguing that X is the soul, then firsrt the existence of the soul must be demonstrated in this particular argument."

I'm not arguing that X is anything in particular, (at least not at the moment), only that we all concede that at least some human creatures, i.e., living creatures that are genetically human, have a right to life. Do you dispute this?

Something they possess confers that right. It simply strikes me that to make a pro-abortion argument one to find a non-materialistic means to deprive some humans of that right. Pro-lifers aren't inventing a "right to life" out of whole cloth.

32

Isn't it amazing how materialist become metaphysical dualist when it comes to abortion? We are solely material beings...unless we want to deny a particular material beings status as "human" and then all of a sudden we have some intangible concept of "personhood.

Zygotes are human. I'm a materialist. You've made a false generalization.

Do all evangelicals make false generalizations? ;)

I can't imagine what it must be like to live with such a convoluted, nonsensical worldview as atheistic materialism.

Perhaps it's like being a Christian, only less so. :)

Seriously, Joe Carter, don't you know any materialists or atheists or agnostics or skeptics whose views and/or intellect you can respect?

It's one thing to be a Christian apologist. To that I salute you with a hearty, "Good on you, sir!"

It's another thing to lash out disdainfully against folks, many of whom (most of whom?) bear you no ill-will whatsoever.

You earn my respect on a weekly basis by putting out an excellent blog in your "spare" time. Why do you try to negate that with mean-spirited outbursts?

All the best,
Matthew

33

I think we can all agree that the question at the heart of this debate is: When does personhood begin? At one extreme would be those who believe it begins at the moment of conception. At the other extreme would be those who believe it only begins at the moment of birth (or even later). Like the vast majority of Americans, I believe that it is somewhere between those two points. Surveys consistently show that about 2/3rds of Americans support the right to abortion in the first trimester and 2/3rds oppose abortion in the third trimester. FWIW, about 80% of abortions in the U.S. occur in the first trimester (prior to week 13). Another 10% occur in weeks 13-20. Only 1.4% occur after 20 weeks.

When does X occur? I believe a good case can be made that it occurs when there is "integrated brain functioning" towards the end of the first trimester. After all, we consider brain death to be the moment when X dies. Otherwise, we would keep humans who are brain dead alive for years or decades. I therefore support the right to abortion in the first trimester and oppose it, except to save the life of the mother, in the second and third trimesters.

(see wikipedia article on abortion for stats and references)

34

Ex-preacher,

I left a comment for you, comment 71, in last Thursday's comment thread about Iraq.

35

For your average, run-of-the-mill materialst who wishes to make a distinction between human begin and person, the difference results from the degree of development of the central nervous system. What makes a human being a person on this view is that the cns of that human being has reached a state of maturation sufficient to do such things as this: make a plan of action, form a conception of self, feel pain, etc.

I find this view to be problematic in a number of ways. First off, cns development is continuous, so it is impossible to break it down into separate stages without
being arbitrary; you don't suddenly reach this state of maturation overnight and it takes a long time to fully develop. Secondly, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, but this stage isn't usually reached until later in infancy, if even by then, and some people, such as those with severe cognitive disabilities, don't fully reach it at all. People who develop dementia or become comatose may lose these abilities. That basically excludes them from personhood, and makes personhood something that must be earned and can be lost, which to me seems quite inhumane. In this view, non-voluntary euthanasia of infants, the severely disabled, the comatose, and those with dementia would be ethical. I find this view, coming at a time when we have a growing population of elderly people in our midst who some may see as an inconvenience, as well as expected legalization of non-voluntary euthanasia of disabled infants in the Netherlands, to be quite troubling. Personhood theory has a way of excluding those whose existence is the most inconvenient to us.

As far as pro-lifers having told lies goes: I accept that we have and, the fact that we are imperfect beings besides, find it inexcusable. Personally, I side with the pro-life movement because I find the ideas to be right, not because I believe the people supporting them are any better or more virtuous. There are going to be honest people and dishonest people in every movement, and some movements do have a greater motivation for lying than others, and it is inexcusable if they do, but the people do not make the ideas better or worse. By all means the lies should be pointed out and corrected (and I am perfectly willing to do that for the lies of my own side) but we should not let debates devolve into an argument over who tells more lies than whom, and which side has better, more virtuous, more compassionate people etc. I also believe that if I have to lie or intentionally use fallacies of logic to support an idea, it is probably not an idea worth supporting, and furthermore, the ends do not justify the means. All that being said, I am familiar with both sides of not just this issue (having been a former leftist myself), but many other issues, and one thing I can tell you is that both sides of just about every issue are guilty of their share of lies, distortions, and omissions with the assistance of the media.

I agree that we should be focusing on real people and the real-world impact of our ideas (and I think a lot of pro-lifers-for instance, the ones that run and staff CPC's on their own time and money, the ones who adopt, the ones who are out there helping women and children, do), but I don't see anything wrong with debating the ideas in the abstract or legal sense simply because while it can be very, very dangerous to go on logic instead of emotion, it can also be dangerous to go by emotion instead of logic. Both are needed for good decision making. However, we perhaps often do focus too much on the logical side of things. I wouldn't say that makes us cold and callous though, since an unborn baby is a living, breathing thing, not an idea.

Occasionally, though, it does come down to choosing between one life and another -- the mother's or the child's -- and such a decision must be awful. In such a case there are no easy answers.

I am totally in agreement with Boonton here. Believing that the lives of both the mother and fetus have value makes this situation very difficult indeed, and it calls for compassion and flexibility. This one area where I think some in the movement are too rigid and don't consider the mother and child to be of equal worth, but the child to somehow be of greater worth than the mother.

36

Boonton, why argue about X? Why not use a scientific and logical process to derive a definition. For example, "life begins at conception; or in the case of twinning, at the point when the blastula splits."

37

test

38

IMO a non-legalistic strategy by pro-lifers would turn that advantage around. Rejecting abortion would be a presented as one of individual choice rather than compulsion. Wasn't 'choose life' once a motto? It was a lot more positive than "life or we'll force it on you at the point of a gun!"

The problem with this is that we believe that the unborn, being human beings, have moral status, and thus it would be as absurd for us to say that people ought to have a choice in whether or not to take their lives as it would be to say that people ought to have a choice in whether or not they take the lives of teenagers.

I think we can all agree that the question at the heart of this debate is: When does personhood begin? At one extreme would be those who believe it begins at the moment of conception. At the other extreme would be those who believe it only begins at the moment of birth (or even later). Like the vast majority of Americans, I believe that it is somewhere between those two points. Surveys consistently show that about 2/3rds of Americans support the right to abortion in the first trimester and 2/3rds oppose abortion in the third trimester. FWIW, about 80% of abortions in the U.S. occur in the first trimester (prior to week 13). Another 10% occur in weeks 13-20. Only 1.4% occur after 20 weeks.

When does X occur? I believe a good case can be made that it occurs when there is "integrated brain functioning" towards the end of the first trimester. After all, we consider brain death to be the moment when X dies. Otherwise, we would keep humans who are brain dead alive for years or decades. I therefore support the right to abortion in the first trimester and oppose it, except to save the life of the mother, in the second and third trimesters

This seems to me a bit arbitrary and leads to a circular argument-if I were to ask, "why should intergrated brain functioning at the end of the first trimester be the criteria for personhood?", the response would probably be, "because you should have a brain to be a person," or something like that. Brain death is different than the development of a brain; it is considered to be the point at which we die, but we are, scientifically speaking, alive before we have a brain. The question isn't whether we're alive or dead, it is whether or not a living organism has status as a person. You could say that people with brains have the ability to understand and appreciate their existence, think, etc., but these abilities don't actually come until much later than the first trimester. Plus, the development of the brain is slow and continuous; it doesn't just suddenly appear. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with those who say that those higher forms of brain functioning should be the criteria for personhood, but it is at least more consistent to me. Personally, I reject personhood theory altogether. A zygote is, scientifically speaking, a living human being, and I believe in universal human equality-that is, that all human beings have worth and do not have to earn it.

39

This puts the burden of proof on the pro-abort crowd, doesn't it? If there's any doubt, any confusion, we must opt for life.

We know that "X", personhood conferring a right to life, exists for at least some "human creatures", at least some of the time. The pro-abortion people need to prove, using non-materialistic arguments, when X doesn't hold for various human creatures.

The burden might be so if X is non-material but if it is material (such as a central nervous system of a certain degree of functioning) then such a burden can be accomplished. If it's non-material you quickly fall into the trap of just shouting. Why not play it extra safe, how do we know that X doesn't reside in the sperm cell thereby making every non-procreative sex act a slaughter of thousands? Or an egg cell making each period a silent death? Perhaps women should take those birth control pills that stop periods until the point they are willing to have a child?

gwenhwyfar:
I find this view to be problematic in a number of ways. First off, cns development is continuous, so it is impossible to break it down into separate stages without ..

This is true but nature does appear to be continuous and fuzy in many of the lines it draws. There is a real difference between a child and an adult yet there is no really definitive test that says one is an adult and the other is a not. Yet we need some legal coherence so we pass laws saying 18 is the test but at the same time we acknowledge that is fuzzy and arbitrary so even there we permit exceptions to be made.

A 'play it safe' policy probably would kick in gradually as a pregnancy progressed which would also fit our traditions whether that be Roe.v.Wade which made a sliding scale based on trimester, the old 'quickening' belief or the fact that people mourn stillborns more than miscarriages at the 5th week. Of course there's a danger we may get it wrong just as with defining death we used to treat a stopped heart as a definitive indicator when now it is only a sign and hardly a definitive one. Legally this still leaves open the question of which rights dominate. Even if you have both considered full human persons 'with X' you still require a bit more to argue that the mother has no right to say no to hosting an unborn baby.

Secondly, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, but this stage isn't usually reached until later in infancy, if even by then, and some people, such as those with severe cognitive disabilities, don't fully reach it at all. People who develop dementia or become comatose may lose these abilities. That basically excludes them from personhood, and makes personhood something that must be earned and can be lost, which to me seems quite inhumane.

In reality this bar would be set very, very low. While we use things like the ability to plan or think as the definition of what makes us human it is only a description of an average human just as saying humans walk upright is only a description of the average human...some humans don't and many humans don't walk at all! I would say the definition would be a sufficiently complicated central nervous system that is functioning or if it isn't functioning cannot be repaired or restored by current technology. This would exclude silly arguments like you're no longer a person while you're taking a nap or if you're in a coma. At a certain degree of brain damage, though, it very well might kick in.

40

gwenhwyfar makes a good point. Let me add, are rights something inherent to being human; or are rights something earned (by having feelings or being born, etc.)? If we must constantly prove our rights, then we can be stripped of those rights arbitrarily.

41

Arguing that pro-lifers should take a measured response that reduces the abortion rate ignors the centeral moral argument if you are a pro-lifer.

The pro-life argument rests on the axiom that the unborn are human beings identical in moral, ethical and legal stature to every human being that has ever lived. Even though their motive potential is dimminished and they are subject to particular hazards of sitiuation the unborn is a human being. Destroying the unborn (by that definition) is murder.

For a pro-lifer abortion is a greater evil then slavery, because it is the not just the removal of liberty but of life and a chance at libery. A government which endorses that evil in its laws is always a great evil regardless of its effect on the abortion rate.

This is equivelent to if New York made the murder of the homeless legal. Even if the rate of murder fell, it would still be wrong. The actions of the government and its laws are the moral responsibility of all its people, to allow immoral laws (even if they slow the rate of immoral action) is never justifed. Sin is never a good idea.

The responses of the women in the story sickened me, how one could understand the hummanity and defenslesness of the unborn and still go through with an abortion I will never understand. I hope that these women find forgivness and redemption, in prison. Though God will forgive even the greatest sins, the state has a duty to protect its members and punish evil. A duty that I hope will soon be reestablished.

Those who steal, wether they be doctors or mothers, a life that does not belong to them but to God. Must via due process and with great solemnity, saddness and pity have their own lives taken from them.

42

Wow, what a chilling article. Thank you for posting it.

43

When life begins is not the relevant question. Live sperms impregnate live eggs. Life began a long time ago. The relevant question is, "When does an individual genetically distinct human life begin?" The only biologically defensible position is at conception (or at the time the blastula splits to form multiple birth.)
All long before a pregnancy is recognized.
That the individual living human being must reach some arbitrary "x" condition before he or she can be regarded as worthy of life is a metaphysical imposition. It isn't that evangelicals are arguing that embryos acquire a "soul" at some early point of development. It is that materialists suggest that there is something to this soul business after all. It's just that it doesn't kick in till they feel like acknowledging it.

44

I'm not given to much emotion, but I was torn between the the reflex to gag, and then upon reflection the desire to weep for the innocent children.

More than anything else; more than the rank apostasy and heresy of the professing church, more than the unspeakable wickedness perpetrated upon man by man, and more than the horror of natural disasters, the appalling act of abortion makes me cry out the loudest, "HOW LONG OH LORD?"

Forgive us Father...

45

This is equivelent to if New York made the murder of the homeless legal. Even if the rate of murder fell, it would still be wrong. The actions of the government and its laws are the moral responsibility of all its people, to allow immoral laws (even if they slow the rate of immoral action) is never justifed. Sin is never a good idea.

Paul two important differences are at play here...

The first is something Joe touches upon in his post but doesn't really connect too. That is the creation of new life is uniquly tied to the woman and her body. Just as Joe recognizes that the act of a woman bearing a baby is an act of love the fact is love is fundamantally something that is voluntary. Even if abortion itself is illegal the law cannot really mandate a mother's love. This is different from whether or not a homeless person can be murdered. If I'm a homeless person I don't need you to love me. I just need you to not kill me (something I would appreciate even if I wasn't a homeless person). Even settling the question of when a fetus becomes a human beign does not settle the issue of where the law can force itself. This relationship is unique because not only do you need the law to keep the woman from killing the unborn baby you need the woman as a partner in bringing the unborn baby into the world. The law requires nothing of me in regards to NY's homeless population. For me not to kill them does not require any sacrifice on my part at all.

Second even in your example de facto laws only have surface importance. Lynching was technically illegal in the South after the Civil War. What good was that? What sense would it make if it was illegal to kill homeless people in NYC but it was known by everyone that there would never be a prosecution for doing it?

46

This is equivelent to if New York made the murder of the homeless legal. Even if the rate of murder fell, it would still be wrong. The actions of the government and its laws are the moral responsibility of all its people, to allow immoral laws (even if they slow the rate of immoral action) is never justifed. Sin is never a good idea.

Paul two important differences are at play here...

The first is something Joe touches upon in his post but doesn't really connect too. That is the creation of new life is uniquly tied to the woman and her body. Just as Joe recognizes that the act of a woman bearing a baby is an act of love the fact is love is fundamantally something that is voluntary. Even if abortion itself is illegal the law cannot really mandate a mother's love. This is different from whether or not a homeless person can be murdered. If I'm a homeless person I don't need you to love me. I just need you to not kill me (something I would appreciate even if I wasn't a homeless person). Even settling the question of when a fetus becomes a human beign does not settle the issue of where the law can force itself. This relationship is unique because not only do you need the law to keep the woman from killing the unborn baby you need the woman as a partner in bringing the unborn baby into the world. The law requires nothing of me in regards to NY's homeless population. For me not to kill them does not require any sacrifice on my part at all.

Second even in your example de facto laws only have surface importance. Lynching was technically illegal in the South after the Civil War. What good was that? What sense would it make if it was illegal to kill homeless people in NYC but it was known by everyone that there would never be a prosecution for doing it?

47

Boonton,

True but even when an acorn switches from dormant to 'not dormant' it isn't a tree but still an acorn that has yet to become a tree...

Forgive me, but this sounds like dualism to me...

48

Perhaps but a child will become an adult but that doesn't mean a child is an adult. So is that dualism? If so how about the fact that a child will become a teen who will become an adult? Is that triism? If we come up with a bunch of more names for stages between teen and adult or child and adult we can create any ism you want.

The acorn is a good example because materialism is easier to accept there since few invest the acorn with much thought.

49

I want to jump on a tangent, if possible.

From above:
'A woman has about 30 years of potential fertile sex. That's a long time to go without a slipup.'

The assumption behind this is that consequence-free-sex is a right. Where does this assumption come from? From whence this right?

It seems that the push for abortion 'rights' coincides with the push for women's rights. Since men can have sex without worrying about pregnancy, women should be able to do so as well. Abortion enables women to be equally promiscuous as men and thus is sancrosanct.

Are we sick or what?

50

Just sit back and learn to enjoy pita & hummus and wait for a generation to let Islam correct the situation.

The femmies that gave us all this will be taught manners at the point of a scimitar and beneath showers of the proper-sized stones.

Payback.

51

Darwin,

World estimations of the number of terminations carried out each year is somewhere between 20 and 88 million.(likely 55 to 60)

Over 3,500 per day / Over 1.3 million per year in America alone.

50% of that 1.3 million claimed failed birth control was to blame.

A further 48% had failed to use any birth control at all.

And 2% had medical reasons.

That means a staggering 98% of unwanted pregnancies may have been avoided had an effective birth control been used.

I am a 98% pro-lifer, 2% Pro-choicer, who has no religious convictions at all . I didn't need the fear of god or anything else to come to my decision, just a good sense of what is right and wrong.
You see we were all once a fetus. Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that when your mother first learned she was carrying you, she may have considered her options? What if she had decided to terminate? Would that have been OK?
You would not exist, if you have children they would not exist, and your (husband or wife) would be married to someone else. You would have been deprived of all your experiences and memories. In this day and age with terminations being so readily available and so many being carried out, if you make it to full term you can consider yourself lucky.
Lucky you had a mother that made the choice of life for you.

Don't you think they all deserve the same basic human right, LIFE?

At the point of conception is when life began for you. This was the start of your existence. Your own personal big bang. Three weeks after conception heart started to beat. First brain waves recorded at six weeks after conception. Seen sucking thumb at seven weeks after conception.

Though it pains me to say it , there may always be a need for the 2% medical reasons and such, but that's all.

So how do we get the other 98% to be responsible...................

How do we get them to be honest with themselves, about when life begins.

egg+sperm = human being

Sadly many prefer an occasional abortion, over using birth control, they have all kinds of reasons, each of them selfish.

Then there's the christian impossition,and their men in high places.(all a bit talibanish, church and state should never entwine) their stance against birth control has only added to the numbers.

People should be able to choose to use birth control, to avoid having to make another choice.

I'd like to see effective birth control made available to all who can't afford it.

Sanity must provale, abortions should remain available and safe to the 2% and such, and the rest need to have a good look at themselves and get their act together.

I'd also like to see a 4D ultrasound in every clinic to provide a more informed choice,
before going through with something they may regret.

If you think the point of conception is NOT when life begins, and all you have is a clump of cells and not a living human being.
Then at least concider this -

Soon after you were conceived you were no more than a clump of cells.
This clump of cells was you at your earliest stage, you had plenty of growing to do but this clump of cells was you none the less.
Think about it.
Aren't you glad you were left unhindered.... to develope further.
Safe inside your mother's womb until you were born.

Want to know how to find humanity-?

True humanity can only be achieved, by concidering others/ caring about others, as much as, if not more than yourself.

Until we do we are no more than an uncivilisation,

with all the uncivilised things that we do...

52

Sure, the acts of crushing acorns and cutting down trees are different if they are someone else's acorns or trees, but you can cut your own tree down whenever you please; there is no ethical dilemma.

The analogy sounds nice, but if we didn't expect to feel guilt from the mere act of cutting down a tree, then why would we be surprised not to feel guilty from crushing an acorn? Your cutting down my tree is only bad in the same way that your taking a hammer to my computer is bad -- it matters because of the value to the owner and not the thing's inherent value.

But laws forbid the killing of newborns not because that child is useful to its parents, but because of the human-ness of the child. So humans are (not surprisingly) quite different from trees; you see, it wasn't the tree-ness of the tree that made cutting it down wrong.

Analogies are powerful: you can most always come up with a few ways that any two things are alike, and then by extension make any point you wish.

Even if you do not consider those cells a life, you will at least agree that they have the potential for life -- that, if untouched by abortion, they would one day become what we all agree is a life. That is what I find so tragic: what could have been a beautiful life is not even given a chance.

Indulge me one analogy: how many times have I heard feminists mourn the "loss of potential" in a bright woman who leaves the work force to stay at home with her children? How much more potential is lost when a life does not even get the chance to begin!

--

I noticed ausblog's comments after I wrote this, and I am glad to see someone take abortion as a common sense issue; it has always seemed to me that you don't have to believe in God to arive at the belief that abortion is wrong. I do believe in God, but I've never seen anything in the Bible to make it clear at what point one becomes a human being. It just seemed like common sense. It's hard to say that a heartbeat is not evidence of life.

As a Christian, the most Biblical guidance I feel on the point is to "defend the rights of the poor and needy," but I think I'm in agreement with the Left in that virtue. I get so frustrated when people take the position that "it's obvious why you are pro-life and I am not; you believe in God and I don't." Well, we're both human, and, as ausblog put it so well, we were both a collection of cells at one point. Look to the Golden Rule: if you're enjoying being alive, let someone else enjoy it, too!

53

Here's something else-

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law which defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two persons: the woman and the fetus she carries. [1] This law was passed in 2004 after the murder of the then pregnant Laci Peterson and her fetus, Connor Peterson.

Hi, Laura :)

54

Nice post, Laura. I've been trying to put together something similar, but have been in meetings for the past 2 days. Last summer, I cleared out a bunch of trees in my backyard and didn't lose a moments sleep, but if I were to do the same thing to my family...

55

The "born alive" rule is a legal principle that holds that various aspects of the criminal law, such as the statutes relating to homicide and to assault, apply only to a child that is "born alive". Recent advances in the state of medical science have led to court decisions that have overturned this rule, and in several jurisdictions statutes have been explicitly framed or amended to include unborn children.

The born alive rule was originally a principle at common law in England that was carried to the United States. Its original basis was that because of the (then) state of medical science and because of the rate of still births and miscarriages, it was impossible to determine whether a child would be a living being. This inability to determine whether a child in the womb was in fact alive, and would be successfully born, had ramifications with respect to the laws relating to assault and to homicide. (It is not possible to kill a child that has already died, for example.) Thus the act of a live birth was taken to be the point at which it could be reliably determined, in law, that the various laws applied.[1][2]

However, advances in the state of the art in medical science, including ultrasonography, foetal heart monitoring, and foetoscopy, have since made it possible to determine that a child is alive within the womb, and as a consequence many jurisdictions, in particular in the United States, have taken steps to supplant or abolish this common law principle.[1]

As of 2002, 23 states in the United States still employed the rule, to lesser or greater extent.[2]

The abolition of the rule has proceeded piecemeal, from case to case and from statute to statute, rather than wholesale. One such landmark case with respect to the rule was Commonwealth vs. Cass, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the court held that the stillbirth of an eight-month-old foetus, whose mother had been injured by a motorist, constituted vehicular homicide. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that the foetus constituted a "person" for the purposes of the Massachusetts statute relating to vehicular homicide. In the opinion of the justices, "We think that the better rule is that infliction of perinatal injuries resulting in the death of a viable foetus, before or after it is born, is homicide

56

Bryan K Mills nicely illustrates most of what is wrong with the pro-life movement:

The assumption behind this is that consequence-free-sex is a right. Where does this assumption come from? From whence this right?

It seems that the push for abortion 'rights' coincides with the push for women's rights. Since men can have sex without worrying about pregnancy, women should be able to do so as well. Abortion enables women to be equally promiscuous as men and thus is sancrosanct.

All of this bluster from the simple statement:

'A woman has about 30 years of potential fertile sex. That's a long time to go without a slipup.'

Notice the tone of the pro-choice quote from Bryan's? The underlying assumption of the last quote is that people are human and will get themselves into bad situations. The underlying tone of Bryan's quote is that everyone but him are essentially whores who need to be controlled with the stick of government regulation. I know there's plenty of self-rightousness on the left to go around but few can hold a candle to many pro-lifers.

Anyway no one has a right to consequence free sex as the Glamour article Joe cited shows. What you're doing though is getting the thing backwards. For good or bad life makes the consquences not the government. For example birth control makes it possible for some people to have affairs without worrying about illegitimate children or catching STD's while for others it makes it possible to have more healthy relationships. Those are consquences but it isn't the role of the gov't to, say, order condom manufacturers to put little chips inside them that will cause them to tear when they are used for having extra-marital affairs!

Laura
Analogies are powerful: you can most always come up with a few ways that any two things are alike, and then by extension make any point you wish.

I agree, this is also why analogies are weak. No matter how hard you try there is always going to be a difference between the two things you're trying to use an analogy with. Unlike trees and acorns there's the very powerful difference in that if you own a tree it has no impact on me.

An analogy I have also used is a blood or organ transfusion. Suppose you needed a bone marrow transplant and I'm the only known match but because I have philosophical or religious objections (or just because I'm not a nice person) I refuse to donate my marrow. My decision would result in your death, no one argues you are not a living human being with an equal right to life to me and donating would not cause me any harm. Yet the law would be firmly on my side. I cannot be forced to make even minor donation of my body (minor compared to 9 months of pregnancy) for the sake of yours.

57

ex-preacher (re 32):

Once again, you and I have some common ground. With respect to where the law of the state should draw the line, I think the conclusion reached in Roe is a very reasonable one and probably the right one, for exactly the reasons you cite. (As a constitutional originalist, I think Roe is a travesty and would love to see it overruled. I strongly believe that abortion law should be left to the legislatures of the states, even though many states would reach outcomes I personally disagree with.)

All of that said, if one accepts the concept of sin (which I obviously do), I think it's very hard to argue that an abortion of convenience is not a sin. And my sense is that the great majority of abortions are essentially abortions of convenience, broadly construed. (And I acknowledge that sometimes having the kid would be really, really inconvenient.)

Although Boonton's original comment detracted from its primary point by including unfortunate ad hominem, that point was pretty good: shouldn't we really focus our efforts on encouraging pregnant women to make the choice to give birth rather than to abort?

58

test

59

Even better, couldn't we all agree on encouraging the use of birth control by sexually active people who don't want children? I don't have the figures at hand, but I know that the countries of Western Europe have far lower abortion rates than the U.S. It obviously isn't because they're more religious, but because they emphasize birth control.

I realize that the most fervent anti-abortion folks are also against teaching birth control to nonmarried (or, in some cases, married) people, but isn't that a lesser evil than abortion?

60

Has anyone here noticed that sometimes their comments are held for a moderator to review?

61

I don't have the figures at hand, but I know that the countries of Western Europe have far lower abortion rates than the U.S. It obviously isn't because they're more religious, but because they emphasize birth control.

I am usually skeptical of such statistics, because different countries count things differently. For example, many folks tout Cuba's healthcare system and use their infant mortality statistics, which are ostensibly better than the US's to prove the superiority. But how many people go to Cuba to have their baby or for that matter to have any medical procedure. Heck, even Castro appears to import doctors when he is sick.

62

Laura wrote:

"Indulge me one analogy: how many times have I heard feminists mourn the "loss of potential" in a bright woman who leaves the work force to stay at home with her children? How much more potential is lost when a life does not even get the chance to begin!"

and

"Look to the Golden Rule: if you're enjoying being alive, let someone else enjoy it, too!"

Couldn't this reasoning be applied to birth control as well? I've heard people say that so-and-so was the twelfth child and that today he would have been aborted and the world deprived of his great talent. Actually, today he would never have been conceived since very few people have more than three kids. So should everyone have at least twelve kids to make sure we don't miss the next great inventor, poet, etc.? Perhaps we should save every woman's egg (and every man's sperm?) to make sure that we don't deprive any potential human of life.

63

ex

What would you rather have? A few months of existence or no existence at all? The usual answer pro-lifers give is for people to exercie abstinence or birth control which means not more babies but no existence at all...

64

Ex-preacher (56),

Yep, birth control is better yet. Hopefully you wouldn't have a fit if we mentioned abstinence too. :)

65

Boonton: "Has anyone here noticed that sometimes their comments are held for a moderator to review?"

That only kicks in when you post more than two million words on any given thread. So ever since Larry Lord got banished you are the only one that happens to.

66

The born alive rule was originally a principle at common law in England that was carried to the United States. Its original basis was that because of the (then) state of medical science and because of the rate of still births and miscarriages, it was impossible to determine whether a child would be a living being. This inability to determine whether a child in the womb was in fact alive, and would be successfully born, had ramifications with respect to the laws relating to assault and to homicide. (It is not possible to kill a child that has already died, for example.) Thus the act of a live birth was taken to be the point at which it could be reliably determined, in law, that the various laws applied.[1][2]

However, advances in the state of the art in medical science, including ultrasonography, foetal heart monitoring, and foetoscopy, have since made it possible to determine that a child is alive within the womb, and as a consequence many jurisdictions, in particular in the United States, have taken steps to supplant or abolish this common law principle.[1]

67

That only kicks in when you post more than two million words on any given thread. So ever since Larry Lord got banished you are the only one that happens to.

I was wondering why we don't hear as much from Gordon anymore! Seriously if this policy is in place could Joe at least tell us about it. If so I'll try to limit my posting to various threads.

However, advances in the state of the art in medical science, including ultrasonography, foetal heart monitoring, and foetoscopy, have since made it possible to determine that a child is alive within the womb, and as a consequence many jurisdictions, in particular in the United States, have taken steps to supplant or abolish this common law principle.[1]

Something about this seems odd. It sounds like the 'born alive rule' was created because if a man killed a pregnant woman there was no way of knowing she was really carrying a live child. Perhaps the child was already dead.

But even with our state of the art advances we have the same problem today. Unless a person kills a pregnant woman right after she walks out of a clinic that performed ultrasonography, feotal heart monitoring, or feotoscopy on her you still don't really know if the child she was carrying hadn't died before she was killed?

Even hundreds of years ago unborn babies could be felt kicking inside the womb. There was tests that could at least determine if the child was alive.

68

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law which defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two persons: the woman and the fetus she carries.

This law was passed in 2004 after the murder of the then pregnant Laci Peterson and her fetus, Connor Peterson.

If it is right for a man (or woman) to be charged for homicide and sentenced to prison ( or worse) for killing the unborn (and rightfully so) then shouldn't the unborn have equil consideration in relation to abortion..?

Is a fetus earmarked for abortion of any less value to a fetus killed by violence ?

Is not abortion a violent attack on an inocent life just the same ?

I think it's not ethical to protect one without the other.....they're one and the same........

What do you think.........?

69

ausblog,

I think you have to overcome the problem that outlawing abortion doesn't just protect the fetus but infringes on the fundamental freedom of the woman by forcing her body to be used on behalf of another. I used the hypothetical of a bone marrow transplant where you are the only compatitable donar. While the harm to you is minimal and the benefit is that you will save someone else's life the law cannot force you to donate against your will. At the end of the day there's a limit to what the government can and should be able to command.

70

Boonton

If two people have sex without effective birth control, a pregnancy could be the result. People know that.
The only way I can see a woman having a pregnancy forced on them is if she were raped.

Pro choicers should be demanding their right to choose to use birth control,
so they don't have to make another choice.

71

ausblog

1. Pregnancy can result even with effective birth control.

2. Are you saying in cases of rape abortion should be permitted? But that flies in the face of your argument about the unborn baby being equal to the woman in terms of rights.

3. It seems like your argument is along the lines of a type of consent. If you have sex you are giving implied consent to use your body for any baby that might result and you cannot revoke that 'offer'. Ironically, though, minors are not permitted to legally consent to contracts so this logic leads to an interesting regime where abortion is legal for teens but not adults. (which might make sense....if you're 16 you can be excused for 'not knowing any better' but not if you're 26).

72

Regarding EO's topic title, all culture (and all life) is about "me." The sentiments living things have evolved, and that human beings have expanded and enhanced, are beneficial and even beautiful, but in the final analysis, the benefits are always for "me." After all, my theist friends, what's a Heaven for? And you who so thoughtlessly use the phrase "giving life;" do you actually think you "gave the gift of life" to your children? Before the child existed, there was nothing there to whom you could present a gift. The gift was to yourself. And whether the gift you presented yourself turned out to be a blessing or a curse, you are obligated to that child's welfare for as long as you both live. For it was you who sinned in creating him, just as your mythical "God" would have sinned in creating sentient, suffering beings, human or otherwise.
What a great silliness, all these god and creation myths!

Abortion is a thorny and irresolvable problem. The best achievable solution is probably the status quo, that the law permits it, within limits, to those who need or require it, and that the "pro-lifers" are free to rave and pray.

The best human beings are instilled with what is sometimes characterized as a "reverence for life." The wisest humans among these also possess an understanding of the nature of things, and are not overly handicapped by superstition. What is of primary importance is suffering and alleviation of suffering. While it would be peachy if there were no need or excuse for abortions, they are negligible "sins" as compared to others perpetrated by virtually all of us on a fairly regular basis. How many among you who oppose abortion cheered when you saw the TV pictures of the not-so-"smart" bombs exploding over Iraq? And how many children among the five million that starve every year might you have saved while you were instead devoting time to stopping the aborting of insensate zygotes?

A.Scott believes "in a just God whose special concern is the poor, the oppressed, widows, and orphans...," as I'm sure most other "believers" do. Has one of you ever wondered (critically, I mean) why God's "special concern" is not just being thwarted, but is steadily losing ground?
The human population has been steadily increasing since it got off the ground. With every increase has come a proportionate increase in the number of "the poor, the oppressed, widows, and orphans...." Is this as God wishes; and are you who oppose abortion and you who oppose contraception not promoting the increase in human misery?

AUSBLOG, if the fetus that eventuated in "Darwin" had been aborted, "Darwin" would have been deprived of nothing. He would never have existed and could not have cared; nor could his "spouse" (totally imaginary spouse!) or anyone else have cared. The fetus's creators may have lamented the loss of "a child" that never came to exist, but their grief--real though their grief would have been--would have been for an imaginary "child." It would, in truth, have been for themselves.

It is all about "me," folks. It is "me" who will get to Heaven, and you who have a good chance to roast in Hell. But while we await the judgement and terrible reward of that loving and merciful God, we must live and contend with one another in this defiled Eden. If we were wise, I think we would exercise our reason to make our lives as comfortable as possible, instead of worrying about our "souls" and trying to decipher devine messages. Religion is a disingenuous proposal to rescind natural law. If "God" is, then natural law is the law of God. In either case, it will not be rescinded. ──Thorngod

73

Want to know how to reduce the number of abortions?

Don't just remove the unwanted fetus...
remove the whole uterus.......
They simply don't deserve to have one.......

If only people would choose to use an effective birth control,

They wouldn't have to make another choice........

http://www.sexual-health-resource.org/hormonal_birth_control.htm

74

Abortion numbers are far too high…

Over 3,500 per day / Over 1.3 million per year in America alone.

50% of that 1.3 million claimed failed birth control was to blame.

A further 48% had failed to use any birth control at all.

And 2% had medical reasons.

That means a staggering 98% of unwanted pregnancies may have been avoided had an effective birth control been used.

There are an estimated 34 million women in need of contraceptive services in America — those who are not sterilized, pregnant or trying to conceive.

34 million…if the pill is 99% effective that means 1% of 34mill = 340,000 + 26,000 for the 2% = 366,000…………….

366,000 abortions per year..Doesn’t that sound better than 1.3 million…
And it could be even less, some of the implants are 99.9% effective….
0.1% of 34mill = 34,000 + 26,000 for the 2% = 60,000………WOW……..