This is the first in a series of posts which will explain my positions on various social and political issues. These posts will appear infrequently.
There is, perhaps, no subject which ignites the passions quite like abortion. Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, chances are that you have held your opinion for a long time, and because of an emotional component, you will likely hold this position into the foreseeable future. This emotional component is why this debate will always be with us; all at the same time this emotion compels us to defend our “side” while prohibiting us from reasoned discussion. It goes without saying that this post isn’t going to change anyone’s mind about abortion, so why do it at all? In the Arena of Ideas, all sides must be represented in order to allow a thoughtful choice to those who are new to the debate. It is in this spirit that I offer what follows.
Let us start at the beginning. The American Heritage Dictionary defines abortion as follows:
1.
a) Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
b) Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.
Sounds pretty innocuous, doesn’t it? Getting rid of something which is incapable of survival; it almost sounds like an act of mercy. However, look closer at the terms embryo and fetus. What do they mean? Back to our friends at American Heritage:
Fetus
1.
a) The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
b) In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.Embryo
1.
a) An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
b) An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.
c) The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
d) In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.
Reading these definitions and taking them at face value gives you a more complete picture. If you were to combine all of the above into one thought, it would read: Termination of a pregnancy and expulsion of an organism in its early stages of development or the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, which is incapable of survival. So, now what does it sound like? Not so innocuous, is it? This sounds more like the taking of a life, however a life which is unsustainable. A thin, moral line to be sure, but there it is.
Up to this point, we have a procedure which, on the surface, seems reasonable if not completely acceptable for some. Like I said earlier, it kind of sounds like an act of mercy to take the life of someone whose life is unsustainable. Sort of like pulling the plug on a person who is on life support in the hospital. Distasteful, but necessary.
Now, let’s look at how society sees the act of abortion. Since before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, feminists have claimed abortion as a right for women which they should be able to exercise at any time for any reason. Further, feminists also think that men should have absolutely no say in the matter other than whatever say the woman may grant him; after all, it is her body, not his. In fact, feminists believe that if an under-age girl becomes pregnant, that girl has the right to seek a government-funded abortion without the knowledge or consent of the girl’s parents.
People who are against abortion believe, for the most part, that there is never any reason for any abortion. Even in cases of rape or incest, they believe that the child should be brought to term and delivered so that the child can be adopted. Some even feel that even if the mother’s life is in danger the priority should be the baby’s life, even if the mother is sacrificed.
Two sides which stand at polar opposites. Can they be reconciled? I doubt it. Remember, all I’ve discussed so far are the nuts and bolts of this debate; the larger portion of this debate is fueled by emotion. Emotion distorts, emotion enrages, emotion screams; emotion strips all of logic and reason. This is why the two sides will never reconcile.
They way I see it is like this: Life begins at conception. Science has not even figured out what exactly causes a mass of tissues to become sentient, so I choose to err on the side of caution. Since life begins at conception, the next question is when does the unborn become capable of survival? I would argue that as long as the mother is healthy and the unborn is developing as expected, that the unborn are capable of survival from the moment of conception. Yes, they need the help of the mother, but that will be true until the child is around 16 years of age.
So, if the unborn are both alive and viable from the moment of conception, what would justify the termination of the life of the unborn? Obviously, if some incident were to occur which inflicted enough harm on the unborn as to make it non-viable, then an abortion would be necessary. Also, if some malady were to befall the mother which would necessitate a termination of the pregnancy, that also would make an abortion necessary. However, beyond those two restrictions, I find no reason for the procedure to be performed, with the two obvious exceptions being rape and incest.
Beyond the reasons stated previously, the only reason most women seek abortions is as a type of after-the-fact birth control. Personally, I find this offensive. Killing human life because two people were either too lazy or too stupid to use one of the many available birth control methods available, to me, is inexcusable. It is yet another way for people to excuse themselves of their personal responsibility for their actions.
Summing up, abortion should be legal, but should be used only in cases of rape, incest, physical health of the mother, or due to the non-viability of the unborn. In all other cases, the baby should be brought to term and delivered. If the mother can’t or won’t keep the baby, there are thousands and thousands of couples waiting on adoption lists all over the country who would be only too happy to give the baby a home. I would be much happier if I knew my tax dollars were going to support services which would allow the healthy birth of babies instead of going to organizations whose only agenda is to keep abortion available to any woman for any reason.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Good summary.
I disagree, though, on the rape/incest exception.
If our premise is that life begins at conception, then we must accept that the unborn life is a unique person. Thus understanding contradicts the “it’s my body” paradigm - and it is also correct, genetically and physiologically. The unborn life may be developing within the mother’s body, but it is not a *part* of the mother’s body.
How does this point relate to the rape/incest exception? Quite simple, really: a rape/incest exception allows for the death of life for the acts of another. That unborn life is punished for a crime of which he is innocent. Thus, such an exception is incongruous, both morally and ethically.
As for the final two exceptions:
If an unborn life is truly non-viable, the fetus, the mother, and the interaction between the two have inherent mechanisms for terminating the pregnancy. In fact, it is a common occurrence: a miscarriage. Anything beyond a natural miscarriage runs the risk of approaching the slippery slope toward eugenics.
If a mother’s life is truly at risk, to the point that a decision must be made between her life and the life of the unborn child, then may God have mercy on her. I would not wish this decision on anyone. That said, this decision almost never has to be made, in the context of the current state of medicine/health care. There are almost *always* alternatives that would preserve both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Good points, Chip. Here’s my side:
1. Rape and incest are crimes which are perpetrated on a victim. Therefore the fruit of that crime, in this case a baby, is “fruit of the poisonous tree” so to speak. Yes, it is not the baby’s fault, however it also isn’t the mother’s fault. Given all of this, I think the parents should have a choice in the matter. If a victim of rape or incest were to be forced to carry the baby to term, even if the baby were adopted out I fear the victims would never be able to put the incident behind them.
2. Again, in the case of a non-viable fetus due to injury or some other event, all I am saying is that abortion should remain an option if needed. There could very well be medical reasons to remove the damaged fetus (such as infection) as soon as possible, rather than waiting for a miscarriage to occur.
3. I agree; it is indeed rare for a couple to have to chose between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child, and I hope God has mercy on anyone who is forced to make this decision. However, as rare as it is, it does happen so there must be provisions for it in the law.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Thank you for that, Nick. The abdication of responsibility demonstrated in Chip’s position (”may God have mercy on her”) is a direct expression of the denial of God’s mercy through man. But the discussion of abortion so often devolves into a religious philosophical debate, and those issues are very hard to resolve, as you point out in your original post. I believe that religious issues should be kept out of the discussion of the legality of abortion, and you did a good job of doing that - for that, I congratulate you.
That said, I would like to address what you said here: “the only reason most women seek abortions is as a type of after-the-fact birth control.” I don’t know how many women you have talked to who have had abortions, but I do hope you will reconsider this point. I submit to you that there are at least as many reasons that women seek abortions as there are women - each woman’s circumstances are unique. I know how you despise “moral relativism” and think that we liberals only see things in “shades of gray” but if ever there was a can of (gray!) worms impossible to untangle, it would be the moral issues that come into play when a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Have you thought about the actual practical consequences of the position you have taken? Who do you think a woman should have to go to in order to get approval for her abortion? A judge? How much experience have you had with our court system? Can you not appreciate the unreasonable burden that such a requirement places on women who are already struggling to cope with the most profoundly personal (and often deeply humiliating and painful) dilemma of their lives? I believe that there simply is no government entity - no judge, certainly no bureaucrat - who has the moral authority to pass judgement on any woman who needs an abortion, and no woman should be made to go through the humiliation of having to justify her need to such an entity. I believe that the decision to have an abortion should be between a woman (or child) and her doctor, and that the decision about who to notify about it should also be between them. I also believe that if the “pro-life” crowd were to direct even a fraction of their self-righteous fervor toward helping the already-living through, say, better sex education and universal healthcare, we could all work together to build a better world in which the demand for abortions could be significantly reduced.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Well Nick, I spent about an hour this morning mulling over and writing a rather lengthy comment to this post - and I did my darndest to keep it respectful! - but when I hit “submit comment” it completely disappeared. No “awaiting moderation” - nothin. I don’t know if you have a way to retrieve such comments, but if you do, that would sure save me some time. Regards.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Nick,
1) Again, how is it right to murder an innocent life, in order somehow to atone for the crime of another? (This logic is all too parallel to the Muslim concept of honor killing.) Besides, there is no evidence whatsoever that ending the life of the unborn child will in any way atone for the original crime, or in in any way act as a salve for the victim. On the other hand, ample evidence exists of the physical and psychological damage to the mother due to abortion. Thus, aborting a baby solely because that baby is the product of a rape/incest crime needlessly takes an innocent life, does not provide justice for the original crime, and poses significant risk for further harm to the original victim.
2) I can see your point here. If the unborn child dies in utero, and the body for whatever reason does not reject the fetus, then intervention should take place. However, in this case, the baby is already dead. In the circumstance in which the child does not die, “viable” and “non-viable” are rather difficult to discern. If the child is still viable, it will continue to develop. If it is non-viable, then at some point it will cease developing, and the miscarriage process should take over.
3) I will concede this point, if even one example of medical necessity of abortion can be demonstrated, when that option exists in lieu of any other option that preserves the life of both mother and child. I don’t believe any such circumstances truly exist in modern medicine.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Besides, there is no evidence whatsoever that ending the life of the unborn child will in any way atone for the original crime, or in in any way act as a salve for the victim.
Where do you look for such “evidence” Chip? Furthermore, where is the “evidence” that “atonement” is the primary motivation for women who seek abortions? I suggest to you that the far more common motivation for women who have been raped is the mitigation of damage which is already substantial, rather than “atonement” for the “original crime” (surely you don’t mean “original sin”) - Your whole point here is confusing; who do you imagine is seeking “atonement” for these crimes of rape? The victim? In addition, you should know that the theory of “post abortion syndrome” or the idea that women who have abortions suffer psychological trauma as a result, has been significantly challenged. It is, to say the least, far from a given.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Ann:
There is no other comment from you in the moderation queue. I’d really like to read your comment if you can recreate it.I found it in the spam filter. I have removed it from the filter and approved it.Chip:
I never said that aborting a baby which is the result of rape or incest would “atone” for the crime. Since neither the mother nor the child is responsible for the crime, how can they atone for the crime? However, after having unwillingly suffered through the violence and humiliation of either of these crimes, I would be loath to force the victim to then endure the pregnancy against her will. I just couldn’t do it.
Again, I feel that these restrictions on the practice of abortion will make it much more rare without denying it to the people who need that option. I mean, I think I’ve pretty much limited it to either medical necessity or in the case of rape or incest.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Ann:
I kept religious issues out of the post because, like emotion, it tends to drive the debate into an emotional tailspin. I didn’t want that.
Now, as to the reasons women want abortions (outside of the exceptions I outlined, I don’t think anyone “needs” an abortion), almost all of these reasons should have driven the couple (it does take two people to make a baby) to use one or more of the many types of birth control available. This right here is the rub between our two viewpoints. If a couple does not want to have a baby, the time to act on that belief is before they hop into bed, not after the woman misses her first period. Just think, a moment or two of thought prior to engaging in the horizontal bop and this situation would never come up.
I also never said that a woman should have to go to a court for permission; I feel that the restrictions I outlined should be put into law and enforced. This removes the choice and eliminates any type of hearing where the woman would have to justify anything. If she meets the criteria, she can have the procedure; if she doesn’t, then she can’t.
As for notification, if the person seeking the abortion is under the age of majority, the parents need to be notified. I mean, if the child can’t even take an aspirin for a headache at scholl without a parent’s permission, I don’t see why this is any different.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Nick,
You stated:
“If a victim of rape or incest were to be forced to carry the baby to term, even if the baby were adopted out I fear the victims would never be able to put the incident behind them.”
This statement implies that the act of aborting the baby would in some way server to “put the incident behind” the victim. Perhaps my use of “atone” did not apply, but it was this sentiment - that aborting the baby would help the mother put the incident behind her - against which I was arguing.
Rape is not something that victims “get behind” them in a matter of nine months. The process takes years, or even decades. The nine months required to bring the baby to term will not impact this process for the mother.
The issue I cannot get past, though, is that this position completely ignores the fact that the unborn child is a unique person, with an equal claim to the endowment of inalienable rights including the right to life. Abortion is the murder of innocent life, period. If our position is that life begins at conception, then we cannot hold any other view, and remain intellectually honest and consistent in our views.
And on that point, I must ask: why would one be more loath to see a woman carry a baby to full term (even considering the considerable physical and emotional trauma that the pregnancy would involve), than to see an innocent life murdered?
Pregnancy takes nine months. Murder is permanent.
Ann,
Greater than 90% of abortions (closer to 98%) are carried out not for rape, incest, or risk to life of the mother, but solely because the mother chooses not to continue the pregnancy. Call it after-the-fact birth control, convenience, or whatever you wish; the inescapable fact is that it is solely because the woman chooses to have the abortion (regardless of the reason for making that choice).
I think my viewpoint renders the question moot, but on the matter of decision-making and notification, the unborn baby equally “belongs” (I cringe to use the term in this context) to the father as to the mother. Also, an underage person cannot legally make such decisions, and her parents are still legally responsible for her; therefore, they must be notified - if not the ones to make the decision itself.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Let me interject a little contrarianism while I argue that “life” does not, in fact, begin with conception. I do not believe that life as we understand it begins until the brain is fully developed, something that does not happen until well into the third trimester of pregnancy.
Without higher brain function, a fetus or embryo has no awareness of its existence. It is physically part of the mother until that point and cannot exist outside the womb even with all of our modern technological advancements.
Therefore, I do not believe it is murder to end a pregnancy prior to that point. Today, about 90 percent of all abortions take place during the first trimester. I do believe there is the potential for life and I think it is sad and tragic whenever a pregnancy is terminated at any stage of the fetal development, but it is not murder and should not be viewed as such under the law.
On the religious/philosophical side of the question, some will argue that there is a soul in play that must be considered. I have entertained the idea of the soul being attached to the embryo at conception. I have suggested that pregancies that are ended after this point result in “soul recycling” because I cannot accept that God would create all of these souls and then not allow them to be born so that they may fulfill any kind of purpose with their lives. But I think as a practical matter that it makes more sense for the soul to come into play only after the brain is developed to avoid a situation where you have all these “homeless” souls resulting from the millions of miscarriages (25 percent of all pregnancies) that occur every year.
It has been demonstrated time and again that desperate women faced with an unwanted pregnancy will find a way to end it, legal or not. Keeping abortion legal prevents the inevitable deaths and mutiliations that result from back-alley abortion operations. To reduce the number of abortions, then, we must do more than apply harsh legal restrictions. We must promote economic and social policies that will create circumstances where these women will either not get pregnant in the first place, or will not feel compelled to end the pregnancy once it occurs.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Generally I agree with your summary position - didn’t think I would, considering what preceded it. And I do think regulation is too loose at present.
But “life begins at conception” is not convincing or, uh, viable. Both sperm and egg are `alive` before meeting - the egg generally for some years, albeit the sperm for not all that long. This is why some consider [male] masturbation a “sin” - for the `religious`, they should actually read about “The Sin of Onan” which was his refusal to impregnate his brother’s widow so as to provide an heir for his brother’s estate and which if he were to follow through today would be decried as “immoral”.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“Therefore, I do not believe it is murder to end a pregnancy prior to that point. ”
We can logically presume, then, that AFTER that point (i.e., third trimester) you DO believe it is murder to end a pregnancy.
Do you support Partial Birth Abortion? Before you answer in terms of “health of the mother”, abortion providers themselves have statistics stating 90% of PBAs have no health issue involved, and of the remaining 10%, most of them are for “mental duress”. The “health of the mother” exception is, as Chip has shown, largely mythical.
So: PBA = murder. Yes or no?
April 24th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Mike Thomas,
You stated:
“…I do not believe that life as we understand it begins until the brain is fully developed, something that does not happen until well into the third trimester of pregnancy.
“Without higher brain function, a fetus or embryo has no awareness of its existence. It is physically part of the mother until that point and cannot exist outside the womb even with all of our modern technological advancements.”
I question this premise on several points:
1) There are living, breathing individuals today, who were the products of abortions at during the fifth - or even fourth - week of pregnancy. Thus, the assertion that the fetus cannot exist outside the womb (until higher brain function develops in the third trimester) is clearly false.
2) From the moment the zygote first undergoes mitosis, it is undergoing self-directed development. The zygote has unique DNA, and directs its own growth and development. It meets all definitions of a living organism. The question of sentience is only marginally relevant, and introduces the matters of religion/philosophy that Mike has endeavored to exclude from his explanation.
3) The only thing provided by the mother is a conducive environment (the womb) and nutrients (through the placenta - which is, coincidentally, developed by the fetus, not the mother). Thus, the assertion that the embryo/fetus is physically a part of the mother is also clearly false.
Lack of medical knowledge of the conducive environment for the embryo/fetus does not dictate that an embryo/fetus could *not* survive outside the womb; rather, it merely indicates medical ignorance.
The inability of the embryo/fetus to survive without the environment and nutrients provided by the mother does not diminish the inherent worth of that embryo/fetus, nor its inherent right to life. A newborn can no more provide for itself a conducive environment or proper nutrition than an unborn embryo/fetus, yet we do not question the newborn’s inherent worth or right to life.
Finally, I don’t think I will ever except the “back-alley abortions” argument as valid - nor do I find the “safe, legal, and rare” approach to abortions to be tenable. This view comes from my belief that life begins at conception, thus any abortion is the murder of an innocent life.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Nick, I give you major points for recognizing that forcing a rape (or incest) victim to carry her baby to term is inhumane. But, once again, I must ask you to consider the brass tacks of the position you take:
I feel that the restrictions I outlined should be put into law and enforced. This removes the choice and eliminates any type of hearing where the woman would have to justify anything. If she meets the criteria, she can have the procedure; if she doesn’t, then she can’t.
No one knows what percentage of rapes go unreported in this country, but most experts agree that it is quite high. So Nick, if a woman finds herself pregnant against her will, who is supposed to determine whether or not she “meets the criteria” according to your proposal?
April 24th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Ann:
If the woman was raped, she qualifies under what I have said. Surely a woman who can seek an abortion can also be truthful about why she wants that abortion? Nobody is asking her to press charges, and nobody is asking her to go on TV. All I am asking is that she report the rape.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Once again, Nick, report it to whom? The police? Have you thought about why so many rapes go unreported in the first place? You say “all I am asking” as if this is a minor thing. It isn’t. Many women who are raped feel deep shame and humiliation because of it, many women know that they would face terrible retribution from an abusive parent or husband should their pregnancy be found out. Nick, there’s a whole world of factors that come into play when a woman is facing the decision to have an abortion. I just believe that no one outside her world is fit to judge her. And I’m sorry, Chip, but that whole life-begins-at-conception-abortion-is-murder line is just nonsense to me. It’s the already-born that I’m worried about.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
@teqjack:
You stated:
“But “life begins at conception” is not convincing or, uh, viable. Both sperm and egg are `alive` before meeting - the egg generally for some years, albeit the sperm for not all that long.”
Arguing that “life begins at conception” is not convincing because both sperm and egg are ‘alive’ before meeting is specious. First, sperm and egg exist, separately, at a point clearly *before* conception; therefore, the nature of life of sperm and egg is irrelevant.
Comparing the nature of life of sperm and egg as a means to discredit that the zygote (or any developmental stage thereafter) does not constitute human life is likewise specious. Sperm and egg are gametes - by definition, only half of the genetic makeup of a human.
This line of argumentation leads nowhere, and does not aid your cause.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Life does begin at conception. The inescapable fact is that if those first two cells do not meet, then the rest simply does not happen.
In my opinion if an abortion is chosen for a reason that does not fit one of Nick’s exceptions than the parents are simply shucking their responsibility. If they were responsible then they would have used one of a number of birth control methods that were available to prevent them from having a child they did not want.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
And God forbid that anyone should get away with being irresponsible! Please. Doesn’t it occur to you that there are times when the most responsible thing a woman could do would be to have an abortion?
April 24th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Mike wrote: “We must promote economic and social policies that will create circumstances where these women will either not get pregnant in the first place, or will not feel compelled to end the pregnancy once it occurs.”
Mike, are you under the impression that all or even most of the abortions which occur are performed on poverty-stricken single mothers? How would certain economic and social policies prevent the abortions of the middle and upper class women who find it inconvenient to have a baby because of, say, college or career considerations?
April 25th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Chip wrote: “There are living, breathing individuals today, who were the products of abortions at during the fifth - or even fourth - week of pregnancy.”
You’ve either misread something or have been misinformed. The record for the earliest premature birth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_birth#Records
is 21 weeks. And most children need to be in the womb for at least 36 weeks to avoid serious postnatal complications.
In his post, Nick says “Science has not even figured out what exactly causes a mass of tissues to become sentient…”
But a “mass of tissues” is NOT sentient. Sentience is defined as the ability to percieve things subjectively. That requires a functioning brain.
The fact that a zygote meets the criteria for a “living organism” means very little. So does a petri dish full of bacteria. There is the potential for human development, but it is not at that point fully human and should not be designated as such.
Once a fetus has reached a stage of viability outside the womb, I believe every effort should be made to bring it to full term. However, I do not believe the government should be in a position to overrule the judgement of a doctor on whether or not the health of the mother may be impaired.
Ultimately, the decision will always rest with the mother no matter what laws we put in place. We cannot and we should not force women to bear children that they do not want. It should not be treated as a form of punishment for having unsafe sex.
It is sad when a woman chooses to abort a healthy pregnancy for any reason. But it is also sad that 25 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Such is life. There must be some reason why God gave women more eggs than they could ever use and gave men an unlimited supply of sperm. What was the expectation there?
April 25th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Nick, here’s a scenario for you - and you too “Aquinas”: College coed attends frat party where she is drugged and raped. She doesn’t know who raped her, or how many for that matter. She is devastated with shame and humiliation and she doesn’t report the rape. Three weeks later, long after any evidence supporting her claim of rape has disappeared, she discovers that she is pregnant. How inconvenient for my college and career considerations!, sez Mz. UpperMiddleClass, right Aquinas? Please consider this, Nick. Who should this woman have to go to in order to “meet the criteria” and get an abortion?
April 25th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Ann, here is what I would like to see happen. Your mileage may vary.
Coed goes to clinic/family doctor/OBGYN and makes a request for an abortion. Under my scenario, the doctor would then ask a series of questions which would determine why the patient needs an abortion. At this point, we could do a couple of things. We could have the doctor report the rape to authorities, however this would entail the coed having to speak to the authorities. We could have the doctor swear out an affidavit to the effect that the coed told him she was raped, and that to the best of his knowledge she was telling the truth and therefore he performed the procedure. The affidavit could be a part of the coed’s medical record, therefore keeping it private. The consequence here is that the doctor would be on the hook if it turned out that the coed was not telling the truth.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
*Arguing that “life begins at conception” is not convincing because both sperm and egg are ‘alive’ before meeting is specious. First, sperm and egg exist, separately, at a point clearly *before* conception; therefore, the nature of life of sperm and egg is irrelevant.*
But they are “alive,” and could potentially develop. There are at least two species of insect which consist only of females, so an egg can mature even in “normal” circumstances - if not in humans. And while rare almost to the point of non-existence, some years ago I read that there have been (in over 150 years, to be sure) six acknowledged (among hundreds of spurious) cases among humans of the egg retaining/acquiring a full set of genes from mother alone resulting to full-term pregnancy. So, is menstruation tantamount to murder?
I don’t like abortion, I do not approve of the near-total access to it. But I do not want to go all the way back to outlawing it entirely. I do not want to see a thirteen-year-old rape victim having to be smuggled out of the country to safely abort the rapist’s get, any more than I want to see her forced to have an abortion.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
It sounds like you are setting up a situation where women would be encouraged to make bogus claims of rape. (”I was drunk at a party and got raped. I don’t know who did it.”)
Why as a matter of public policy would we make these women jump through these hoops? To assuage your moral qualms?
Forcing women to bear children when they do not want them is horrendously bad public policy. It results in both unsafe and illegal abortions and the subsequent deaths and maimings that go with it/ and/or it results in unwanted, unloved children that become a burden on society.
You say, better to be unloved and unwanted than never to have been born at all? But who is to say that God would not have placed that soul in a different body and a chance at a better life?
God gave the responsibility of birthing children to women and that is where the decision making needs to remain. The government should not be stepping in and forcing women to bear children as some kind of punishment for what society deems to be irresponsible behavior. Let God be the judge.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Ann and Mike,
I actually agree with you both on everything that you have said here. This is not always the case since I am married to this Conservative Dialysis guy.
Nick and I are simply unable to discuss abortion, because we always end up in a roaring fight. Is Nick right?, am I right? Or are we both wrong. This is an argument about very passionate beliefs. How will we ever know the right answer?
The only thing that I know for sure is that Chip is an idiot, and his remarks insult every woman who has been raped or has been a victim of incest and has found herself pregnant because of it.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Mike, look at what you wrote: God gave the responsibility of birthing children to women. That’s right, it is a responsibility. I’m pretty sure God gave that responsibility to women because he thought that they would carry it out; not decide to kill the child before it could be born.
Yours and Ann’s arguments all boil down to basically this: Women have the uterus, so women can do with an unborn child whatever they want for whatever reason they want. When a life is involved, I can’t support that.
Yes, women get humiliated and shamed when they are a victim of rape or incest, and yes, it isn’t their fault. However, if they feel they have to end the life of the unborn child I don’t think it is too much to ask that they go on the record somehow and state that they were a victim of either rape or incest.
I realize that making a victim “jump through hoops” is neither pleasant nor convenient, but we’re not talking about throwing away a piece of trash here.
Finally, you proceed from a false assumption when you say: “You say, better to be unloved and unwanted than never to have been born at all? I never said or inferred that. As I have said previously, right now there are thousands of couples waiting to adopt newborns on adoption lists across the country. If you think for one minute that any woman who didn’t want their child would be forced to raise it, well you’re just plain wrong. The better life you speak of would be available to the child via an adoption; the child needn’t be killed so that God could recycle the soul.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Chip,
I have been thinking about that fact that I just called Chip an idiot due to his position on this subject. I shouldn’t have done that, because I don’t approve of name calling. If I can’t call him a idiot, what can I say……hum?
Nothing …. Other than the fact that I deeply feel Chip’s position to be highly “idiotic”. Chip, do you have any respect for women at all. You speak as though we are just incubators for a cluster of cells put there because of a depraved rapists act. We are not incubators; we are women who should have the ultimate say about our bodies after a rape. Don’t you believe that women deserve that one right if nothing else? We are talking about women who have been violated in the worst possible way. Help them with your words, don’t hurt them anymore then they have already suffered.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
This has been a very good discussion - thanks Nick. And thank you, too, Rene.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
ANN: “Three weeks later, long after any evidence supporting her claim of rape has disappeared, she discovers that she is pregnant.”
Shall we go to Huntsville and interrogate the convicted rapists regarding the whereabouts of their children…and then go kill those children?
Why should an innocent unborn child be allowed to be killed because its father was a rapist?
MIKE speculated about time of ensoulment in terms of defining life as “human” (although he has been conspicuously silent on the PBA question). Here is analysis arguing ensoulment itself to be irrelevant to the right to life debate. This is in the context of destroying human embryos for medical research, but obviously is makes an even stronger case in relation to abortion. Yes, the author is a Catholic priest…with a PhD in neuroscience from Yale.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
RENE: “we are women who should have the ultimate say about our bodies after a rape”
The problem is, we are not talking about only YOUR body, but also the body of your unborn child.
Pregnancy after rape is certainly the most gut-wrenching, heartbreaking instance in the abortion debate. But no matter what, you simply cannot deliberately end an innocent human life. You cannot. Period. It is the basic premise of morality: you cannot do evil even if good should come from it.
BTW, your half-hearted apology to Chip is utterly inadequate. He has expressed his views cogently, patiently and with laudable lack of stridency, in complete conformance with the rules laid out by Nick. Your response of childish namecalling, first of Chip personally and then of his position, is shamefully juvenile.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Nick,
I can certainly sympathize with the “thousands of couples waiting to adopt newborns” because for many years I was in the same boat. For 14 years my wife and I tried unsuccessfully to have children. We looked into the adoption process and were surprised by how expensive it is. Most agencies require a $15,000 to $20,000 up front investment. That is why so many couples turn to foreign adoptions, because even with all the travel expenses, they tend to be cheaper.
Fortunately for us my wife was finally able to get pregnant (only after having major surgery to remove fibroids in her uteris) and then we had a second child two years later.
We count ourselves as extremely fortunate today. I could not imagine aborting a child after waiting so long to have one. But at the same time I saw that going through a nine-month pregnancy is no walk in the park for the woman. I can understand why a woman who does not want a child would not want to go through that. So I cannot condone a government that would force women into bearing children like they were cattle.
As I said, God gave women the responsibility of birthing children. He also gave them their own minds with which to make decisions and free will. Who are you to question God’s judgement in this case?
Life does seem to be grossly unfair sometimes. When so many couples desperately want children and can’t have them, while women who don’t want children get pregnant so easily. It is easy to get angry and blame God for this sad state of affairs. I don’t know why it is this way. All I can do is try and follow Jesus’ example to the best of my ability - love people for who they are, try not to judge and be forgiving and charitable.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Why should an innocent unborn child be allowed to be killed because its father was a rapist?
Because its birth would cause manifold horror and misery for its mother. That question is not difficult for me. Let me ask you a related question: Why should a rapist be rewarded with progeny?
Shall we go to Huntsville and interrogate the convicted rapists regarding the whereabouts of their children…and then go kill those children?
Of course not - because those children are already born. I also do not have a problem making a clear distinction between the born and the not-born.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Mike, I’m not questioning God’s judgment about anything; I questioning the woman’s judgment. Certainly you are not saying that God would be in favor of abortion?
April 25th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
But no matter what, you simply cannot deliberately end an innocent human life. You cannot. Period. It is the basic premise of morality: you cannot do evil even if good should come from it.
Tell that to GWBush and the military generals who order “targeted air strikes” knowing that there will be “collateral damage.” (Sorry Nick - I know you won’t like that one, but I had to.) The fact is, Aquinas, that yes, you can and we can and we do end innocent human life in certain circumstances, and as a society we have determined that it is justified. I suggest to you that one also cannot “do evil” in order to avoid evil. What you are saying is that in order to avoid the “evil” of abortion a woman must be forced to bear a child she does not want, which most thinking, humane people also consider “evil.”
The problem is, we are not talking about only YOUR body, but also the body of your unborn child.
That’s right. An unwanted pregnancy is not just about the fetus, it is also about the mother.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Mike Thomas,
My mistake; that one was a typo. That should have read “month”, not “week”. I am having difficulty finding the reference I was thinking of, but I think my original point will suffice with your link (premature birth at 21 weeks), as well as this story of a 23rd-week abortion survivor:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2005/NRL03/BriefNews.html
You said:
“But a “mass of tissues” is NOT sentient. Sentience is defined as the ability to percieve things subjectively. That requires a functioning brain.”
Actually, we still do not have any scientific understanding of the relationship between the brain and human consciousness. In fact, human sentience is one of the primary hindrances to the theory of evolution, as random, natural selection has absolutely no explanation for humans’ development of consciousness. Thus, we cannot say with certainty that sentience requires a functioning brain.
“The fact that a zygote meets the criteria for a “living organism” means very little. So does a petri dish full of bacteria. There is the potential for human development, but it is not at that point fully human and should not be designated as such.”
You seriously equate the life of bacteria with human life? Seriously? The bacteria will never develop into anything other than bacteria. The human zygote will develop - on its own, self-directed; this point cannot be stressed enough - into a fully developed adult human.
How does your argument not hold for a newborn? It likewise has the same “potential for human development.” Would you say that a newborn has a fully developed brain? The newborn isn’t aware of its own body parts or bodily functions. The brain cannot exercise muscle control. The brain cannot direct communication or interaction.
What’s the difference?
More importantly, where does the “line” exist? At exactly what point in the pregnancy is the unborn child fit to be designated as “human life” in your opinion?
As for your point regarding forcing women to have babies they do not want: I will respond when I address the accusation that I am an idiot and a misogynist.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Rene, you said:
“The only thing that I know for sure is that Chip is an idiot, and his remarks insult every woman who has been raped or has been a victim of incest and has found herself pregnant because of it.”
I realize that you are Nick’s wife, so I must tread lightly here. I am not going to respond in kind, but I do have two questions:
1) Do you know the mindset or beliefs of *every* woman who has been raped or has been a victim of incest and has found herself pregnant because of it?
2) Do you know anyone (perhaps including yourself) who has found herself in this situation?
I will leave any further comments to my response to your later comment.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
MIKE: “God gave women the responsibility of birthing children. He also gave them their own minds with which to make decisions and free will.”
Right, like the free will to commit murder. Why in the name of God would you support such a misuse of our free will?
It should be obvious to anyone reading this thread that the argumentation of Chip has been unassailable and stands irrefuted on any meaningful point.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Chip, I know Rene will respond for herself but I also have invested in this conversation, so I am going to go ahead and respond.
1. As Nick stated at the outset, this topic arouses strong feelings. Best not to get involved if you have thin skin. I speak from long experience.
2. No one knows the “mindset” of “every” woman. What’s your point?
3. Thank God I have never been raped, and I thank God that both my children were planned and wanted. I know many women who were far less fortunate. Again, what’s your point?
April 25th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Rene, you said:
“[What can I say, o]ther than the fact that I deeply feel Chip’s position to be highly “idiotic”. Chip, do you have any respect for women at all. You speak as though we are just incubators for a cluster of cells put there because of a depraved rapists act. We are not incubators; we are women who should have the ultimate say about our bodies after a rape. Don’t you believe that women deserve that one right if nothing else? We are talking about women who have been violated in the worst possible way. Help them with your words, don’t hurt them anymore then they have already suffered.”
Please, explain the idiocy of my position? I really cannot respond to this accusation without some explanation. I have used basic genetic and physiological points to support my position. If you wish to argue those basic points, please do so.
In what way have I disrespected women? Is it because I (rightly) state that an unborn child is not physically a part of the mother’s body? Is it because I state that life begins at conception, and that ALL human life has equal worth and equal right to life? Perhaps it is because I indicated that aborting a child that resulted from a crime will not somehow help the victim/mother “get past” the crime? Or is it something else?
I have never, in my life, thought of or referred to women as “just incubators” - just as I have never regarded an unborn child as nothing more than a “cluster of cells.”
The point that seems to be our impasse is that, while I fully support a woman’s right to do with her body what she chooses (at all times, not just after a rape), you do not seem to recognize that your body ends at the blood barrier. The placenta and the amniotic sac are produced by the unborn child, and that unborn child exists as a separate entity within.
At what point do you believe that the unborn child is worthy of being conferred the status as a unique human being? The point of birth? Some point before birth?
Please, support your position with some scientific evidence. Otherwise, it won’t be fruitful for us to discuss.
On a more personal note: I do not need to be lectured regarding whether or not my words and beliefs help or hurt victims of rape. Please do not presume more than you could possibly know about me or my loved ones.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
@teqjack:
Sorry, I almost missed your response.
You said:
“But they are “alive,” and could potentially develop. There are at least two species of insect which consist only of females, so an egg can mature even in “normal” circumstances - if not in humans. And while rare almost to the point of non-existence, some years ago I read that there have been (in over 150 years, to be sure) six acknowledged (among hundreds of spurious) cases among humans of the egg retaining/acquiring a full set of genes from mother alone resulting to full-term pregnancy. So, is menstruation tantamount to murder?”
We are not talking arcane species of insects.
Also, why do you continue to confound the question of a gamete (23 chromosomes - cannot ever develop into anything else, without a matching set of 23 chromosomes) with an entity comprised of the full, human genetic makeup (46 chromosomes)?
Note that a human zygote, which exists from the moment of sperm fertilizing egg, will begin - and continue - to develop into an adult human. It will not halt its development (unless due to some genetic problem), and it will not develop into anything other than a human.
A human gamete will never develop into an adult human. It will never be anything other than a human gamete. Even in your edge case, the egg in question had first to acquire another set of chromosomes, in order to begin and to proceed with development.
It is odd that you would use such an edge case, as it actually *proves* my point.
I hope your last question was rhetorical. “Murder” by definition is to kill with premeditated malice, willfully, unlawfully, and deliberately.
Certainly, menstruation fits none of those criteria.
April 26th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Nick asks:
“you are not saying that God would be in favor of abortion?”
No, God is no more in favor of abortions than he is in favor of miscarriages. But they still happen and will continue to happen regardless of how restrictive or draconian the laws become.
Chip,
21 weeks is already in the latter part of the second trimester. And there have only been a couple of known cases where someone has survived a premature birth that early. It is almost unheard of.
Remember that 90 percent of all abortions occur during the first trimester. We are not talking about aborting viable fetuses in most cases.
As for sentience without a developed brain, we are getting into the spiritual realm of souls and the like. One can only believe what they choose to at that point. It is beyond the realm of empiricism and logical argument. I think that if a soul is present at that stage, and the fetus doesn’t make it to full term for whatever reason, the soul would be transferred to another host body. But that is pure speculation.
You seriously equate the life of bacteria with human life?
Not at all. I simply pointed out that the definition you used of a living organism could be applied as well to a dish full of bacteria and is thus not useful for your argument that such a collection of cells should be granted the same rights as a born human. The fact that a zygote has the potential to develop into a full grown human does not make it a human anymore than an acorn on my sidewalk can be considered a full-grown oak tree. Futhermore, if I sweep up a bucketful of acorns in my yard and throw them away, it is not the same thing as someone chopping down and clearcutting an entire forest.
It should be obvious to anyone reading this thread that the argumentation of Chip has been unassailable and stands irrefuted on any meaningful point.
Yeah right, Mark, er I mean “Aquinas”. Like you are an impartial judge. Heh!
April 26th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Chip,
How can you say the unborn child is not physically part of the mother? It begins with an egg which is certainly part of the mother. Then it must successfully implant in the uterine wall where it shares the same blood, food, oxygen, waste disposal, and so forth from the mother for the next nine months. It is not until the child takes its first breath that it becomes fully separated from the mother.
I’ve considered that first breath at birth as the real start of life for a baby. Perhaps that is when the soul joins with the body. There is even support for such a belief in the Bible. Consider the creation story in Genesis when God “breathes life into Adam”. What is the order of events? Does God breathe life into the dirt before forming Adam? No, he forms Adam’s body first and then breathes life into it. Likewise with Eve, we don’t have God breathing life into Adam’s rib before using it to form her. So why do we think that God breathes life into a blob of cells long before they have had time to develop into a human form?
But I also can’t help but believe that there is a soul present when the baby starts kicking inside the womb during the latter part of the pregnancy. The bond between mother and child begins then.
April 26th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Ann wrote:
“And God forbid that anyone should get away with being irresponsible! Please. Doesn’t it occur to you that there are times when the most responsible thing a woman could do would be to have an abortion?”
Now that is rich!
No. It did not occur to me that the taking of a healthy innocent life is a responsible thing to do. Actually, there is another word for such an act. Oh, and here is another news flash for you. In most states it is a capital offense.
April 26th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Mike,
I have taken great pains to avoid introducing my religious beliefs and their implications on my views regarding abortion (other than referring to the inherent worth and right-to-life of all humans).
I will continue to avoid that aspect of this discussion, unless Nick changes the ground rules. Thus, it is rather difficult for me to respond to your last two posts. If Nick agrees, then I will do so.
I can comment on a couple things, though:
1) Sentience and the brain - it is erroneous to equate the two at this point in our understanding. It is obvious that sentience has an *impact* on the brain, but the relationship is FAR from understood to any degree.
You apparently choose to err on the latest-as-possible side with respect to human sentience, and I choose to err on the earliest-as-possible side.
2) “Life” (as we know it) doesn’t exist/begin until taking the first breath outside the womb?
You and your wife have been through two (very blessed, by your description) pregnancies, and you still hold this view?
I cannot fathom that.
As you have said, the mother-child bond starts well-before the child is born. But it doesn’t end there. I can speak from experience: the father-child bond starts well-before the child is born, also. My daughter knew me - and knew my voice - before she was even born. She reacted to my voice before she was born, and she was comforted by my voice and my presence after she was born.
No one will *ever* convince me that her life didn’t begin until she drew her first breath. That claim should be considered asinine for anyone who has been through the pregnancy and birth of a child.
Personal note aside, there is nothing to support that claim scientifically, either.
As for your statement:
“How can you say the unborn child is not physically part of the mother? It begins with an egg which is certainly part of the mother. Then it must successfully implant in the uterine wall where it shares the same blood, food, oxygen, waste disposal, and so forth from the mother for the next nine months. It is not until the child takes its first breath that it becomes fully separated from the mother.”
I will grant that the egg is part of the mother - just as the sperm is part of the father. However, the zygote is neither sperm nor egg; it is a separate, physically and genetically unique entity.
In order for the embryo (*not* egg) to implant in the uterine wall, it must do so having produced a physical barrier between itself and the uterus. In fact, as the embryo further develops, the placenta it creates exists in large part to keep the mother’s body from rejecting the embryo as a foreign intruder. The blood barrier is vital - especially since mother and child likely will not have the same blood type (non-identical blood type being more, pretty damaging evidence to the “part of the mother’s body” argument).
Baby and mother do NOT share the same blood.
As for sharing the same food: is a breast-feeding infant *physically* a part of the mother? They, too, share the same food.
As for sharing the same oxygen (please, allow me some measure of absurdity here): if I perform CPR on another, are I and that person then *physically* a part of each other? We, too, share the same oxygen.
Finally, baby and mother do NOT share the same waste disposal. The baby’s urine becomes part of the amniotic fluid. As for stools, I’m sure, having had two babies already, you are well familiar with the joys of meconium.
So, what is left? Again, the mother provides environment and nutrition - again, the same things required of humans at all developmental stages.
I also have problem with your acorn/oak tree analogy. Thus far, we have insect and plant-life analogies as attempts to disprove/discredit the inherent worth and right-to-life of humans in their earliest developmental forms. Both are non sequitur.
Again, a human zygote must and will always develop through the embryonic and fetal stages into an infant, toddler, adolescent, teen, and finally adult human. It does so of its own volition. It will develop into nothing else. It requires environment and nutrition - the same thing humans at every other developmental stage require.
April 26th, 2008 at 9:32 am
MIKE: “God is no more in favor of abortions than he is in favor of miscarriages.”
You insist on equating the two? You yourself spoke of free will, now you fail to see the difference between choosing an abortion and experiencing a miscarriage?
MIKE: “We are not talking about aborting viable fetuses in most cases.”
Who cares whether the developing fetus can survive outside the womb at some particular stage? If left alone, it will most definitely develop into a viable human baby. Why do you argue against biological fact?
MIKE: “I think that if a soul is present at that stage, and the fetus doesn’t make it to full term for whatever reason, the soul would be transferred to another host body.”
Of course, an alternative “speculation” would be that killing an innocent unborn child denies him the right to life, both here and in eternity. Can’t you see that your absurd “do over” speculation would work for the deliberate killing of, say, a week old infant. Hey, no big deal, God will give him another body. Your logic justifies infanticide.
From the link above which you obviously ignored:
Human embryos are already beings that are human (not zebra or plant), and are, in fact, the newest and most recent additions to the human family. They are integral beings structured for maturation along their proper time line. Any destructive action against them as they move along the continuum of their development disrupts the entire future time line of that person. In other words, the embryo exists as a whole, living member of the human species, and when destroyed, that particular individual has perished. Every human embryo, thus, is unique and sacrosanct, and should not be cannibalized for stem cell extraction [much less aborted].
What a human embryo actually is, even at its earliest and most undeveloped stage, already makes it the only kind of entity capable of receiving the gift of an immortal soul from the hand of God. No other animal or plant embryo can receive this gift; indeed, no other entity in the universe can receive this gift. Hence, the early human embryo is never merely biological tissue, like a group of liver cells in a petri dish; at a minimum, such an embryo, with all its internal structure and directionality, represents the privileged sanctuary of one meant to develop as a human person.
Some scientists and philosophers will attempt to argue that if an early embryo might not yet have received its immortal soul from God, it must be OK to destroy that embryo for research since he or she would not yet be a person. But it would actually be the reverse; that is to say, it would be more immoral to destroy an embryo that had not yet received an immortal soul than to destroy an ensouled embryo. Why? Because the immortal soul is the principle by which that person could come to an eternal destiny with God in heaven, so the one who destroyed the embryo, in this scenario, would preclude that young human from ever receiving an immortal soul (or becoming a person) and making his or her way to God. This would be the gravest of evils, as the stem cell researcher would forcibly derail the entire eternal design of God over that unique and unrepeatable person, via an action that would be, in some sense, worse than murder. The human person, then, even in his or her most incipient form as an embryonic human being, must always be safeguarded in an absolute and unconditional way, and speculation about the timing of personhood cannot alter this fundamental truth.
April 26th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Chip:
My wife can handle herself; don’t hold back because of me. Just keep it civil. I’ve spoken to her regarding her “idiot” remark and it won’t happen again.
April 27th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Good grief. All this caterwauling about The Soul never fails to underscore the impression that a significant portion of the “pro-life” movement appears to have been born without one. While those on the right of this issue are rending their garments about “murdering babies”, those of us on the left are attempting to point out that women are something more than just incubators, thank you very much. Ergo:
No. It did not occur to me that the taking of a healthy innocent life is a responsible thing to do. Actually, there is another word for such an act. Oh, and here is another news flash for you. In most states it is a capital offense.
While it always serves the hyperbolic interests of the “pro-life” movement to equate abortion with “murder”, in the eyes of current law, such is not the case. Furthermore, despite the ardent efforts of the “pro-life” movement to enact laws which always result in a higher mortality rate for both women and children, the majority of the citizens of this country have enough collective humanity to remain convinced that abortions must be legal, albeit with some restrictions. And thank God for that.
For all of the sanctimonious and self-righteous preaching that the “pro-life” folks do about “the taking of a healthy innocent life” it is also worth noting that the draconian laws that their side wants to see adopted in the United States also do nothing to actually reduce the number of abortions performed in countries that have such laws. In fact, the most effective method found for reducing abortions is the enactment of policies that combine access to legal and safe abortions with comprehensive healthcare and family planning services.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Chip,
Can’t you see that your insistence on “erring on the earliest-as-possible side” places an enormous burden on women and forces them into a subservient role?
I think the reason you don’t like my acorn and tree analogy is that it is right on target. You (and not just you personally, but all anti-abortion advocates who share your hardline view) are acting like a fanatical tree hugger who insists on treating every acorn on the ground like a fully-grown tree requiring strict environmental protection.
It is just not practical or realistic. And, as Ann so helpfully points out, it doesn’t work to reduce the number of abortions anyway. If your goal is to truly reduce the number of abortions that take place, then you are going about it all wrong.
Unfortunately, too many on the anti-abortion side seem to be more concerned with maintaining an ideological purity than they are with reaching any kind of compromise or consensus that would actually reduce the number of abortions.
Your insistence that the baby is not a part of the mother while it is growing in her womb is obviously a necessary plank in your ideology that strips away all the rights of the mother to control her body and her reproductive process. But it is not scientifically or logically sound. The egg is part of the mother and it has to remain connected to the mother in order to grow and develop.
Finally, your effort to imply sentience prior to the development of a brain can only be understood on a paranormal level. We are getting into the realm of souls and spirits at that point.
The Catholic philosopher that Aquinas links to takes the whole body and soul question a step further implying that the body itself has some immortal quality about it separate from the soul. This seems odd to me since I had always understood that the soul represents everything that we are as a person and the body is nothing more than a vessel in the physical realm. But now we have this suggestion that it is some kind of horrible thing to “preclude that young human from ever receiving an immortal soul (or becoming a person) and making his or her way to God.”
So what is this now? The Pinocchio theology? Is he suggesting that we could have such as thing as souless humans? Wooden puppets longing to become real boys?
I don’t buy it. I think that sentience and the soul are closely connected and niether can be realized in the physical realm without a fully functioning brain.
Of course, I don’t presume to know what God’s true design is, I am just stating what makes the best sense to me.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
MIKE: “it doesn’t work to reduce the number of abortions anyway”
Is it really your contention that since abortion on demand was legalized via Roe v. Wade, that the number of abortions has not, as a result, increased?
April 28th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Yes, Aquinas, that would be our contention. What has, in all probability, increased is the number of safe abortions, and what has decreased is the number of women’s deaths as a result of botched, back-alley abortions.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
There were no channels for reporting abortions when it was illegal, so the figures are inconclusive. But we do know, as Ann states, that the number of women’s deaths resulting from abortions dropped dramatically - from the hundreds to the teens - after it became legal.
April 28th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
” the number of women’s deaths resulting from abortions dropped dramatically”
Does that include the deaths of unborn women as well?
April 28th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
No, but adding in those statistics wouldn’t change the argument because the contention is, basically, that the same number of abortions occur whether they are legal or not.
Whenever you have posed a question of us in this debate, Aquinas, we have answered you. The same cannot be said of you. In case you missed it, I’ll repeat my earlier question of you:
Why should rapists and abusers be rewarded with progeny? Why do you think it appropriate to commit the evil of forcing a woman to bear the child of her abuser, not only punishing her but rewarding her abuser, in the name of avoiding the “evil” of an abortion?
April 29th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
“the contention is, basically, that the same number of abortions occur whether they are legal or not.”
Unsupported, uncited, and counterintuitive. If we made murder legal, would there be no change in the number of murders? If we legalized drugs, would there be no more drug users than there are now? If speed limits were completely unenforced, would there not be more speeders? Abortion was legalized, and there are now many, many more abortions than before. Ask Planned Parenthood’s own Guttmacher Institute. Your contention is false.
“Why should rapists and abusers be rewarded with progeny? Why do you think it appropriate to commit the evil of forcing a woman to bear the child of her abuser, not only punishing her but rewarding her abuser, in the name of avoiding the “evil” of an abortion?”
It’s not about the abuser, “reward” or even punishment. It’s not all about the mother, either. It is about the human being who has been created in the womb. It is innocent. You cannot kill it. You cannot kill innocent life.
How can you be - rightly - against capital punishment even of the guilty, but for abortion of the innocent, most helpless members of our human society? The mind boggles.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Why are you and many others so obsessed about what goes on inside a woman’s womb?
It should not be any of your business or the state’s business what goes on inside a woman’s body.
90 percent of abortions occur during the first trimester when there is no brain, no sentience and, as best I can figure, no soul. That doesn’t mean it is not a big deal - but it is not “killing innocent life”. The concept of “guilt” and “innocence” isn’t even applicable at that point.
Abortions used to be perfectly legal during colonial times until the late 1800s. From the moment of conception all the way up to “quickening,” or when the baby could be felt moving inside the womb, it was allowed. But once science intervened and people became broadly aware of how the reproductive process works, governments started putting restrictions and limits that led to the deaths and mutilations of hundreds of women every year. Once it became legal again, those numbers dropped dramatically.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I have been reading all of the comments, and I have a few things to add.
1. Abortion is a women’s issue, period end of sentence. The day that a man is faced with being raped and pregnant as a result, is the day that I will seriously listen to his point of view.
2 Men can always pack up and run off when they get their girlfriend pregnant, especially if he doesn’t want his wife to find out. Women are always the ones who have deal with the mess that is left behind, so don’t dare judge her in the tough decisions that she has to make on her own.
3. Men have no responsibility when it comes to reproduction. Women have all the responsibility. So men, SHUT UP. You will never be able to comprehend what women are often faced with.
4. Men, keep your noses, opinions and sermons out of our uteruses. You have no right to express any point of view on what goes on in our gynecologist’s offices. IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
IS ANY OF THIS UNCLEAR IN ANY WAY?
April 29th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Michelle:
1. If men have no responsibility regarding reproduction, why after my divorce more than 12 years ago am I still paying child support? If I have no responsibility, why should I be providing my ex-wife over $500 dollars a month for her to spend on whatever she wants? I guess it is true that all women really care about, when it comes to men, is their wallet.
2. Women are intelligent beings, and are able to comprehend all types of situations, from the simple to the complex. Given that, what is it about birth control women don’t understand? Is it the part where you take one pill everyday? Is it the part where you tell your boyfriend/husband/one night stand to go away if there isn’t a condom available? Seriously, you talk about responsibility, but over 95% of unwanted pregnancies could be completely prevented if the woman would actually take responsibility and act responsibly.
Is any of this unclear in any way?
April 29th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Seriously, you talk about responsibility, but over 95% of unwanted pregnancies could be completely prevented if the woman would actually take responsibility and act responsibly.
Oh. My. God.
Nick, you have some serious thinking to do. Please, do yourself and Rene whom you so obviously care deeply about a very necessary service and re-examine this statement. You could start with where you think you came up with that “95%” figure, and go from there to a discussion of why you think only women are supposed to “act responsibly.” After that you could examine that excruciatingly patronizing statement about how women “are intelligent beings, and are able to comprehend all types of situations, from the simple to the complex” (gee, thanks!) and then maybe get thee to a therapist to work out the bitterness that you feel about having to pay child support to your ex. Oh my Lord in heaven, you just posted a comment that could be a textbook example of misogynist thinking.
Michelle, needless to say, I am extremely sympathetic to your point of view but I disagree. Men have as much at stake as women in fostering a society that doesn’t treat women as property to be controlled. The kinds of attitudes reflected in Nick’s statement above are demeaning to men as well as women. Nick, I don’t think you meant to be as insulting as you were - you just need to think some things through a little more.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Ann wrote:
“Yes, Aquinas, that would be our contention. What has, in all probability, increased is the number of safe abortions, and what has decreased is the number of women’s deaths as a result of botched, back-alley abortions.”
Safe abortions? Not safe for the children involved were they?
Michelle wrote:
“1. Abortion is a women’s issue, period end of sentence. The day that a man is faced with being raped and pregnant as a result, is the day that I will seriously listen to his point of view.”
Obviously you missed the part where Nick wrote that rape and incest were among his exceptions.
Michelle wrote:
“2 Men can always pack up and run off when they get their girlfriend pregnant, especially if he doesn’t want his wife to find out. Women are always the ones who have deal with the mess that is left behind, so don’t dare judge her in the tough decisions that she has to make on her own.”
It is poor judgment on the woman’s part for not using some birth control when she decided to have sex with someone. Is this day and age that is just common sense.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Safe abortions? Not safe for the children involved were they?
Martin, I’m generally opposed to killing live, already-born women in order to save zygotes.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Ann, you make my points for me. Thank you.
1. Of course men have responsibilities when it comes to reproduction. The whole point of my reply to Michelle was to use sarcasm to point this out. Michelle thinks men have no responsibility in these matters; my point is that if we have no responsibility, then why are we saddled with child support? I am not bitter about paying my ex-wife child support; I’ve never missed a payment and I have taken measures to ensure that no payments will be missed if and when my transplant happens and I am out of work for up to 12 weeks. The entire point I was making, and you apparently overlooked, was that men do have responsibility in these situations.
2. No, it is not just the woman’s duty to use birth control; again, I was making a point through sarcasm. Also, I wasn’t patronizing anyone; women are smart. I was just wondering why, since women are smart, they can’t seem to realize that the only way they are going to get pregnant is if they let a guy in (rape and incest obviously excepted here) and not use birth control? This isn’t rocket science.
3. In summary, either men have responsibilities in these situations or they don’t. If they don’t, then we need to start rolling back all of the child support laws and such; after all, it isn’t men’s responsibility to pay for some woman’s child, is it? If, as I say, they do have responsibilities in these situations then their opinions are just as relevant as a woman’s, and should be treated as such.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Michelle thinks men have no responsibility in these matters;
Michelle can speak for herself, but I’m guessing that it is not the case that she thinks men have no responsibility, but that most often they fail to honor their responsibility, and thus are not in a moral position to sermonize to women.
I was just wondering why, since women are smart, they can’t seem to realize that the only way they are going to get pregnant is if they let a guy in (rape and incest obviously excepted here) and not use birth control? This isn’t rocket science.
In short, if women are so smart why do they act so stupid? Come on, Nick. Try turning this thing around: Do men not know that if they have unprotected sex, that a pregnancy might result? Furthermore, please try to realize that there are countless scenarios in which both parties act “responsibly” and yet an unwanted pregnancy occurs. As Donald Rumsfeld so eloquently put it, “Stuff happens.” For one thing, birth control doesn’t always work.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
MIKE: “the first trimester when there is no brain, no sentience and, as best I can figure, no soul”
So, after the first trimester, you agree that abortion is the ending of innocent life?
April 30th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
So, after the first trimester, you agree that abortion is the ending of innocent life?
Are you willing to concede that targeted air strikes which kill civilians is government-sanctioned “ending of innocent life?”