Abortion

[Milton Platt]

There are a lot of religious arguments (and general political ones) against abortion. But I think that the argument, generally speaking, demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of the everyman.

So you're against abortion for whatever reason, but consider this argument from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"Most abortions are spontaneous and happen naturally within the human body. Most women who have such an abortion never know it because it happens within the first month. It is very, very common. So in fact the biggest abortionist, if god is responsible for what goes on in your body, is god."

Now when he says 'very common' what he means is 50-70%. That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.

So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

I don't want to send this thread down another rabbit hole, but nonetheless...........
there seems to be a large part of the abortion issue left un debated. For those who believe there should be no abortions......what then??? What do you do with the unwanted child? How many pro-lifers are adopting or at least providing meaningful support for those children??? Seems to me, pro-life should be changed to merely pro-birth. After that, the life is forgotten.

 

[columbus]

For those who believe there should be no abortions......what then??? What do you do with the unwanted child? How many pro-lifers are adopting or at least providing meaningful support for those children???

I have opinions, although I am no expert on what would really be the best thing.
But I've never gotten that far in the discussion. I can't even get past the claim that having fertile sex and then an abortion are a human right.
Tom

 

[Milton Platt]

IMO, that's a separate issue and if one wants to argue a superior morality based on their deity, first they have to prove their deity exists, and if that can be done (it can't) that it possess a superior morality. The bible, in particular, describes how an abortion is performed (numbers 5: 11-31), so it can be safely assumed that the Abrahamic god has no particular aversion to abortion.

The bigger, and more pertinent, argument is that of bodily autonomy. This issue is widely accepted and understood outside the topic of elective abortion. The plain, simple fact of the matter is that no one, including a fetus at any stage of development, has the right to conscript another human being in the furtherance of their own life. We understand this to be true because we do not force anyone to donate blood. We do not force anyone to donate organs. Even upon death, we do not allow the harvesting of organs to prolong the life of the not-yet-dead without prior consent of the deceased.

I personally believe it's acceptable to put regulations on abortion, and that once viability has been achieved (between 24 and 26 weeks) abortion is probably not a good choice except where the life of the mother is concerned, or the quality of the life of the fetus is at issue. Protecting abortion as a safe and legal option before viability allows everyone to have their own opinion of when life begins, since that is not a question that medical science can yet answer (although viability seems a good place to begin the conversation).

I agree with your basic stance, but would point out some issues in your post.
Everybody has a different opinion where life begins. If you want to get technical both the egg and sperm are living.
Although we know about where in the pregnancy viability may begin, it isn't an exact point and varies with the pregnancy. And of course one never knows if a baby is actually viable until it is born. It may have an unknown defect that kills it a day or two later. Who knows?
Again, not arguing against abortion, just saying these sorts of arguments are a little lacking. Your last statement about each individual having dominion over his/her own body is more tenable.
As for me, I think the pro life folks by and large aren't pro life but merely pro birth. They have not thought past that nine month period. What then???

 

[Milton Platt]

I have opinions, although I am no expert on what would really be the best thing.
But I've never gotten that far in the discussion. I can't even get past the claim that having fertile sex and then an abortion are a human right.
Tom

Well, rights are conferred by laws made by human governments, so if you want to work from a rights standpoint, then it is okay in some places and not okay in some others. But if those who would have every baby born no matter how deformed it might be, or no matter if it will basically be without any level of brain function that would give it any ability to do more than eat and poop, or no mother or father, no hope of a family or schooling, food, clothing, then they are not pro life, only pro birth. After that they conveniently forget about the child. It is somebody else's problem and they can just go their smug way.

 

[columbus]

Everybody has a different opinion where life begins.

This is the kind of demonstrably false statement that makes it impossible to carry on a conversation.

Both gametes are alive. They join to form a zygote that is alive. That zygote is a human being at the earliest stage. S/he will continue to be a living being until death.
There is no "opinion" about this, it is elementary and unambiguous science.

Discussing abortion with "pro choice" people tends to be like discussing genetics with YEC people. They just can't seem to see basic facts when the facts contradict their views.
Tom

 

[McBell]

This is the kind of demonstrably false statement that makes it impossible to carry on a conversation.

Both gametes are alive. They join to form a zygote that is alive. That zygote is a human being at the earliest stage. S/he will continue to be a living being until death.
There is no "opinion" about this, it is elementary and unambiguous science.

Discussing abortion with "pro choice" people tends to be like discussing genetics with YEC people. They just can't seem to see basic facts when the facts contradict their views.
Tom

So, when does life begin?

 

[columbus]

So, when does life begin?

It was about three billion years ago.
Individuals of mammal species begin when two gametes merge to become a new individual. That individual continues until death.

With modern science to go by, this is as elementary and unambiguous as 2+3=5. It is only troublesome when you want a different answer.
Tom

 

[McBell]

It was about three billion years ago.
Individuals of mammal species begin when two gametes merge to become a new individual. That individual continues until death.

With modern science to go by, this is as elementary and unambiguous as 2+3=5. It is only troublesome when you want a different answer.
Tom

You have answered both my questions without me having to ask the second.

Thank you.

On A Side Note...
One wonders why people cannot simply accept that when discussing abortion the question "when does life begin?" has been shortened from "When does an individuals life begin?"

I mean, the same people who whine about the beginning of life question are also the ones who ask for "evidence" when they really mean "subjective empirical evidence"....

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, I am OK. I am not rejecting His spirit when it calls.

He is not calling.

Ciao

- viole

I can understand that. My goal for some is to help them follow God's call. My goal for you, then, would be that when God's call comes, you are ready and able to respond.

Please don't assume that because you haven't encountered God so far in your life, that you will never encounter God--plus you can hasten the encounter by asking for one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I avoid using the word murder in the context of a discussion of abortion. It is just too subjective.

The tightest definition, extralegal homicide, doesn't apply. RvW is the law. Personal opinions about what should be legal don't enter into that debate. My personal opinions on that subject are very different from the majority of antiabortion activists.

I think using the term murder is a counter productive way of avoiding the real issues. But just calling abortion murder as though that clarifies anything or helps in any way is naive at best and hypocritically useless most of the time.
Tom

I didn't call abortion murder per se. However, it is relevant to our discussion at hand. There are some pro-lifers who call abortion murder. If YOU think murder is always wrong but that abortion isn't murder, you can and should respect those who think it is murder--and who abhor murder.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1. I said that "laws are not BASED on 'right' and 'wrong'", as they are subjective terms. This can be shown simply by looking at the term you used, "murder". "Murder" refers to "unjustified or illegal killing". There are, obviously, various subjective views as to what kind of killing are "justified". Just look at this thread. It cannot be said that abortion is "murder" subjectively, unless you are arrogant enough to disregard the points of view of others.
2. Laws are based on societal impact, which can be, at least somewhat, objectively measured. Drugs, for example, aren't morally wrong. Alcohol is a drug, and many people use it responsibly. Other drugs, like opiates, are used for various legal purposes. But, because of the detrimental impact that things like heroine have on society, we have chosen to make them illicit. It isn't based on "right" and "wrong".

Can you provide any support for your claim that "right" and "wrong" are objective terms beyond mere personal insults/threats? If so, I would be interested in seeing it.

Objective = fact.

Subjective = opinion.

2 + 2 = 4 is a right statement.

2 + 2 = 5 is a wrong statement.

One issue with moral relativism is the necessity for the defense of the words right and wrong, and I think... that's wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well-put. Also, saying things like, "if you keep on claiming that right and wrong are subjective, I will lose respect for you", is just about as childish and unsubstantial as it gets.

Actually it is an objective, factual statement. If you are going to continually, unendingly, without ever being open, defend abortion as right, and then turn on anyone who suggests any moral choice is neither right nor wrong, I will lose respect for you--due to your inconsistent, hypocritical logic.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your imaginary friend told you to engage random people on the Internet? Seek help.

I think you are not "hip" to parody. Take my statements with a grain of salt.

PS. God asked me to talk to you. Listen!

 

[BilliardsBall]

It can be argued that socially speaking the common cause of post abortion depression is down to people shaming people who get abortions in the first place or inner conflict about religious ideology. But sure, you can say that both abortion and giving birth has risks of depression developing. Among many others. No path is without hardship (though again, without all the shaming maybe we could make one path a little less stressful!! Just a thought!)

It could be argued, but not successfully. The human conscience is a God-given wonder that is remarkably consistent. We know that a Hitler or Stalin had a conscience but suppressed it. They were evil, not crazy. When someone is nervous about an abortion, I believe they are both reasonably nervous about a medical procedure but also making a difficult choice, for which they are a moral agent.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You have answered both my questions without me having to ask the second.

Thank you.

On A Side Note...
One wonders why people cannot simply accept that when discussing abortion the question "when does life begin?" has been shortened from "When does an individuals life begin?"

I mean, the same people who whine about the beginning of life question are also the ones who ask for "evidence" when they really mean "subjective empirical evidence"....

If science has settled the question of how life began, why are scientists unable to reproduce life in a laboratory environment? Warning: the answer lies in irreducible complexity.

 

[Cephus]

I think you are not "hip" to parody. Take my statements with a grain of salt.

PS. God asked me to talk to you. Listen!

Parody has no place in a debate forum.

 

[SomeRandom]

It could be argued, but not successfully. The human conscience is a God-given wonder that is remarkably consistent. We know that a Hitler or Stalin had a conscience but suppressed it. They were evil, not crazy. When someone is nervous about an abortion, I believe they are both reasonably nervous about a medical procedure but also making a difficult choice, for which they are a moral agent.

I find it's way too easy and even done for comfort to just label Hitler or Stalin "evil." Do I like them? God no!
Was the Holocaust an absolute utter atrocity? No doubt whatsoever.
Were the allies the dashing chivalrous heroes? Well, some probably were, sure. But not all of them. They were pretty racist, treated ex holocaust gay prisoners like **** and even locked up decent Japanese people in America as a "precaution." Hell wasn't antisemitism still prevalent in society after WWII?
Is history as clear cut as "good guys vs bad guys?" Nope, not really.
Like the number of Jews who actually fought on Hitler's side during WWII. Yes, they did exist. As many as 150,000 if memory serves. Some with Nazi and sometimes even Hitler's explicit consent!
Was Hitler a bad guy? Well, yeah. Kind of an understatement. If there's truly justice in the world, his torments in Hell would greatly outweigh most souls down there. But was he totally evil? Well..... He was an animal lover, had a family, a wife etc. It's easy to just brush Hitler aside as some evil entity. But he was a human being, with nuances, hypocrisy, arrogance but was not completely devoid of any shred of decency whatsoever. He was a proponent of (arguably inconsistent and hypocritical) eugenics, which stemmed from racism. And racism was pretty common in his time, to be honest.

I honestly don't know much if at all about Stalin, but same process applies. He was a human being who did terrible things. But he's not Satan or evil incarnate.

Our past is full of evil deeds. The destruction of many indigenous people and cultures for example. Was everyone who fought against Native Americans evil? Not necessarily. Ignorant to be sure. Committed bad deeds? Sure. But people are more complicated than just "good" and "evil."

But I digress.
See the inherent teaching of Sin especially in Abrahamic traditions is filled with instilling guilt and shame. If a number of society bombards women who have an abortion for whatever reason with this teaching, calls them "murderers" "sinners/sinful" "baby killers" and so forth, is there any wonder that some women feel nervous about getting an abortion or even feel bad after getting one? (True this is not definitive of the entire pro life movement, but there's a consistent element within the movement who resort to these arguably disgusting tactics.)
I think there's more to these correlated feelings than just "afraid of sinning/being bad."

 

[leibowde84]

Objective = fact.

Subjective = opinion.

2 + 2 = 4 is a right statement.

2 + 2 = 5 is a wrong statement.

One issue with moral relativism is the necessity for the defense of the words right and wrong, and I think... that's wrong.

What is your point here. We aren't talking about "correct" and "incorrect". We are talking about "right" and "wrong", which are very different terms.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually it is an objective, factual statement. If you are going to continually, unendingly, without ever being open, defend abortion as right, and then turn on anyone who suggests any moral choice is neither right nor wrong, I will lose respect for you--due to your inconsistent, hypocritical logic.

I have never once "defended abortion as [being] right", so I'm not sure where this is coming from. Personally, I think that abortion should be avoided if at all possible. But, I also believe that the choice should be left to the woman due to bodily autonomy.

To fraudulently claim that the issue is whether abortion is right or wrong is disrespectful at best.

 

[viole]

If science has settled the question of how life began, why are scientists unable to reproduce life in a laboratory environment? Warning: the answer lies in irreducible complexity.

Wrong premise. Science has not settled the question of how life began.

Ciao

- viole