The Invisible Abortion
Abortion — By Robin Dembroff on February 9, 2009 at 12:12 pmFor years, I’ve been involved in pro-life activities and organizations. The debate flies fast and furiously, and never ends. I’ve been considering this problem recently, especially in light of the vast amount of new dialogue FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) has ignited, and had a few thoughts I’d like to put out for critique/consideration.
The arguments commonly used in the abortion debate, especially “in the field,” so to speak, are perhaps not the most useful. Not that they are “wrong,” but they jump mid-way into a much larger argument that requires fundamental assumptions.
From my experience in the pro-life field, here are a few arguments I commonly heard and used myself:
o “At the moment of conception, an embryo meets the scientific criteria for ‘life.’”
o “At 18 days after conception, heartbeat begins, and at 6 weeks, brainwaves.”
o “A baby has it’s own DNA, and therefore, is not ‘part of the woman’s body.’”
o “Roe v Wade is bad constitutional law.”
o “PAS (Post-Abortion Syndrome) ruins women’s lives.”
o “Quality of life is not an acceptable criteria for deeming a person’s right to live.”
o Etc. etc. etc.
These arguments are wonderful and should be universally known. However, the problem is that they aren’t really ‘arguments’–they’re facts. Thereby, they give pro-life supporters strict limitations in
1) Applicableness: the time when the human life as a human being exists is not answered by these facts.
“Heartbeat? Brainwaves? Certainly not conception…right? Because that would require a religious argument, and I’m not a Christian and I don’t want to hear your Christian arguments.”
2) Persuasion: dry facts are just that, dry facts.
Does anyone believe the “warning–may cause cancer” stickers on cigarettes make people who want to smoke reconsider? No, if people do not smoke for that reason, it’s almost always because they have experience with the truth, such as by knowing people who developed cancer by smoking.
We’re out there fighting a fact-war and all of us (pro-life and ‘pro-choice’) are simply dancing around the vital issues that all the facts are pointing towards.
A few of these issues are:
o Do human beings have a unique soul? (If they say ‘no,’ then that need to be your focus–the pro-life debate is meaningless.)
o If so, is this soul intrinsically valuable? That is, does a soul give the being (body/soul) invaluable worth that results in it being morally wrong to kill a being that has a human soul? (This question requires an admission of morality.)
o When does human life receive a soul? This is the question everything boils down to. Are there physical prerequisites for the existence of a soul in a body? Are there mental prerequisites?
I am still working myself on these questions, but I recognize now that they are the ones that need to be asked. Without them, the facts are meaningless.
We can waltz and tango all we’d like around the scientific definitions and psychological implications of abortion, but is it efficient for the pro-life cause?
Who builds a house from the roof down?
Print This Post
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
View Comments
Alot of interesting comments, especially one that argued the New Testament makes no mention of abortion. This may be true, but I believe you need to look no further than Luke 1:41-44. When Elizabeth (John the Baptist’s mother) heard Mary’s (Jesus’ mother) greeting, the baby leaped in her womb. Elizabeth was in her 6th month. This beautifully shows that the baby was in fact a life, even though it had yet to take a breath.
Comparing an unborn child to the chicken/egg scenario is not only nonsensical, but it’s bordering on absurd.
http://www.voiceoftruthblog.com
Let’s go over this again, folks. I am not saying that an unborn human is an egg or a chicken. It’s called an analogy.
As egg is to chicken, so fetus is to person. The point is that we can and do distinguish between a fertilized egg and a chicken. I’m pretty confident many vegetarians (not all) eat fertilized eggs with no qualms. If you ordered a fried chicken and were served fried eggs, you might complain to the chef. A fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken. At best, it is a potential chicken.
I dare you to watch from start to finish:
http://www.obamamustsee.com
Choose your language and sit back and watch what happens, not to chicken eggs, but to human beings.
ucfengr — you are either willfully pretending to miss the point; or you have a very slender grip on basic skills of critical thinking. I assume it is the former. It is no wonder that the anti-choice movement has made so few strides in actually reducing abortions in the United States: its rhetoric, and apparently its adherents, are empty. It’s a political game to you; not a point of moral consequence.
There is no benefit in discussing this further with you.
For what it’s worth, I am opposed to abortion after the first trimester. The vast majority of abortions take place in the first 10 weeks. Like most Americans (and most people in the Western world), I am in the middle on this issue. I have no problem with very early abortions, but a very big problem with late-term abortions. I think it is unfortunate that the debate in this country is dominated by extremists on both sides. We could learn from the policies of countries like France and the UK, which both make abortion illegal after a certain point.
The best way to make progress on this issue is not by discussing the soul or a woman’s right to fully control her body, but to find a point where the great majority can agree. Compromise is, sadly, a dirty word to both sides.
Some of you might be interested in this article on pro-life atheists – including Christopher Hitchens.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/171240
Please give straightforward answers, ucfengr.
Your problem is not that my answers aren’t straightforward, but that they aren’t the ones you want. You are looking for answers that you can use to make yourself feel morally superior, but my job is not to make you look, or feel good about yourself.
The point is that we can and do distinguish between a fertilized egg and a chicken.
Unless you are arguing that having an abortion is morally equivalent to eating an omelet, you don’t have a point. There is a moral competent to having an abortion that is obvious to all but the most morally obtuse, a category that you apparently fit in.
Let’s go over this again, folks. I am not saying that an unborn human is an egg or a chicken. It’s called an analogy.
Yes, an analogy so flawed as to be useless in this debate. You should probably let it go.
In the burning building scenario, why do you equate human embryos with end-stage cancer patients? How are they similar to you?
I know Divinity isn’t what you would call a hard science, but really, you don’t see the similarity? How about both are human beings, as am I?
If abortion is murder, why shouldn’t women who seek abortions be charged with murder?
Because the goal of the pro-life movement is to end abortion, not to punish people.
you are either willfully pretending to miss the point;
Quite honestly, I beginning to wonder if you get your point. Until you get the implications of your point, I agree, it is pointless to discuss this further.
Like most Americans (and most people in the Western world), I am in the middle on this issue.
I love how you just define yourself as the moderate and everybody who doesn’t agree with you as extreme.
I have no problem with very early abortions, but a very big problem with late-term abortions. I think it is unfortunate that the debate in this country is dominated by extremists on both sides. We could learn from the policies of countries like France and the UK, which both make abortion illegal after a certain point.
Nice sentiment, but the reality is that under Roe v. Wade and it’s subsequent cases, there can be no meaningful legal restrictions on abortion. Until Roe is overturned, compromise can’t happen. Of course, this position does beg the question, at what point does the non-human fetus transform into a human being, worthy of protection? And, what specific changes occur to the fetus to signal this transformation from non-human to human?
In my previous post, this was addressed to miliukov:
you are either willfully pretending to miss the point;
Quite honestly, I beginning to wonder if you get your point. Until you get the implications of your point, I agree, it is pointless to discuss this further.
The rest was responding to ex.
Two replies. First, regarding opposition of abortion except within the first trimester. So what you are saying is you can discern when an abortion is appropriate and when it isn’t? What is that based on? Heartbeat? No, that occurs at about 18 days. Development? No, because the first trimester is an arbitrary cut-off point to make someone feel better about supporting abortion. You can’t make that kind of distinction. You’re either 100% for or 100% against. It would be like someone offering you $1,000 to kill someone and you said no way. And then someone else offering $1,000,000 to kill someone and you said sure. You’d still be a murderer, you’re just trying to negotiate the terms. It’s the same thing with supporting early abortions and not supporting late term. You’re just negotiating with your conscience.
2nd point is this. The Roe vs. Wade argument is always thrown into the abortion argument and for good reason, that’s the court case that allows for the support of abortion. But did you know that Jane Roe did not even have the abortion? Did you also know that she is actually Pro-life? The fact of the matter is that some arrogant lawyers in the 70′s were looking to make a name for themselves and challenge Texas state law. What we need is for some young ambitious lawyers to challenge Roe vs. Wade and have it overturned.
http://www.voiceoftruthblog.com
I really wish the decision on when to allow or not allow abortion could be based on a very clear-cut basis. I certainly understand why the folks on either end of the debate have chosen conception and/or birth as marking points since they are so absolute. Like many things in life, however, I don’t think there is a bright line to guide us.
Historically, there have been various points that have been accepted as demarcating the beginning of personhood, such as “quickening” (when the mother can feel the baby kicking – happens at about 20 weeks).
After much study and thought, I believe that we can learn from the decisions we have made regarding when life ends. Once upon a time, decisions about when death were based on respiration and heartbeat. Starting in the 1960s, however, we developed technology that could keep someone breathing and their heart pumping for a long time after they seemed dead. This is why the concept of “brain death” was developed and is widely accepted, even by most pro-life people.
So when does “brain life” begin? From the New England Journal of Medicine:
“Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic [EEG] patterns…First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.”
from the website http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
That essay also deals with common pro-lifer claims that brain waves can be detected as early as 6 weeks.
Drawing the line at the first trimester seems reasonable to me, though I am open to looking at an earlier or later point based on the evidence.
Ex-preacher:
I just want to leave you with one final thought to search your heart with. The Lord God has blessed my life with 2 miscarriages within the last 8 months. You heard that right, blessed, because it strengthened my faith beyond measure. But from the day I first found out my wife was pregnant, both times, I felt like a father. Before I had even seen an ultrasound or heard a heartbeat, I knew I was a father and I loved both little live’s even though there was never a breath taken. I can’t describe to you the pain of the first loss, as it was at 19 weeks, yet I never felt a kick, never held it’s hand, but I was a father. The second loss occurred just this past week, at 7 weeks. But was I any less connected to this one? Was I any less of a father? How could I experience such emotional and physical connection to 2 children I’ve never held? Not a fetus, not an embryo, but a life. Our emotions don’t allow us to connect that way with inanimate objects. If we lose our favorite shoes or wreck our car, our heart’s do not weep from their depths. And if we are not able to sorrow after inanimate objects then that must mean that the little life inside its mother’s womb, is just that, a life.
Feel free to check out my blog anytime. There might just be some things like this topic to inspire thought. http://www.voiceoftruthblog.com
You are right – in a way. Not in the way that you intend, but you are right in a way.
There *are* fundamental assumptions behind this question, but there are always fundamental assumptions behind all questions of ethics, morals, and laws. The same coherent and consistent assumptions that underlie laws against child abuse (of those who are born), stealing, et. al. are by and large the same ones that underlie the opposition to abortion – and that assumption is the fundamental right of all human beings to both their existence on this planet, as well as ownership of their lives and responsibility to recognize the same of everybody else. Underlying even that assumption of basic human rights is the understanding that we cannot have those rights unless they are God-given. The abortion people hate that. They want God out of it, but the fact of it is that that they can’t have it both ways. If God’s not in it, then nobody has any human rights, it’s survival of the fittest, and the weak deserve to perish. This concept can be just as fatal to them as it is to the unborn.
This is why the abortion debate is both so easy and also so difficult. Easy because we *are* the side that is both right and consistent. I have no problem countering anything the abortion people have to say. I might sound arrogant, but I can honestly say that I’ve never been challenged by any argument those people have come up with and I’ve read a lot and engaged in a lot of debate.
It is difficult because the abortion people genuinely don’t care about human rights. If they lived back in the Roman era, they would wholeheartedly support the killing of newborns. If they lived during the 17th, 18th, and 19th century and garnered some advantage out of the “institution”, they’d support slavery, too. They’ll say now that they wouldn’t, but that’s because many of them really really want abortion to be ok and legal. Nobody can change the heart of another person – esp. when you are in an oppositional position.
On to your questions – -
“Do human beings have a unique soul? (If they say ‘no,’ then that need to be your focus–the pro-life debate is meaningless.)”
The issue of souls is entirely irrelevant. If the prolife debate would be meaningless without it, then the same dynamic would exist for all murder laws.
Obviously, the anti-lifer is coming at this from a different angle, and yes – you can make your prolife case from that particular angle (unless the anti-lifer is a social Darwinist). It’s not about whether you have some incorporeal essence, and if it were, how the hell would you argue for or against it?
If so, is this soul intrinsically valuable? That is, does a soul give the being (body/soul) invaluable worth that results in it being morally wrong to kill a being that has a human soul? (This question requires an admission of morality.)
If you want to go there, then not even from a moral perspective does this work. I’m a Christian. Maybe I’m weird to say that I think animals have souls, too, so it doesn’t work for me. The intrinsic value of a human being does not come from whether he has a soul, but whether he is created in God’s image. Throughout the history of atrocities the world over, the fundamental era was in treating mankind as if he were some common animal that can be owned or slaughtered instead of something made in His Image.
“When does human life receive a soul? This is the question everything boils down to.”
No, it doesn’t, and if it does – then I’ll tell you right now that the pro-killing people have already won the debate. Congratulations for giving them the advantage. Now, they can just as easily say that the human life receives a soul at birth, or at any other arbitrary time and still wholeheartedly believe in their own consistency.
You’ve also enabled the common impulse of the murderer – to treat his victim like just an animal he can slaughter at will or when it gets in the way. Nice job!
Sarah, with prolife friends like you, who needs enemies? So encouraging….
Sarah:
I have no problem countering anything the abortion people have to say. I might sound arrogant, but I can honestly say that I’ve never been challenged by any argument those people have come up with and I’ve read a lot and engaged in a lot of debate.
Well, neither you nor anyone else here has addressed several things I have brought up.
– Your argument upon metaphysical claims that are not universally shared, and come under freedom of conscience’s heading. So, in a country that practices freedom of religion, how do you justify using the power of the state to impose those claims upon people who find them completely empty?
– Some 32,000 women per year in the US become pregnant through rape or incest. In order for your argument to remain coherent, you must insist upon those 32,000 becoming slaves to the crimes against them, no matter what they themselves think about it.
– Possession is nine tenths of the law. Like it or not, for the majority of a pregnancy, the woman is the sole and indissoluble owner. Yet despite total ownership, anti-choice advocates hope to impose their will upon others, no matter their feelings in the matter, and despite their exclusive ownership.
Odd that you characterize pro-choice advocates as those who genuinely don’t care about human rights, yet you are apparently happy to trample upon any that get in your way.
“Throughout the history of atrocities the world over, the fundamental era was in treating mankind as if he were some common animal that can be owned or slaughtered instead of something made in His Image.”
So I guess you haven’t read the Old Testament in which Yahweh commands the enslavement and genocide of the Canaanites.
(I think you meant “error,” not “era.”)
“I’m pro-choice. That’s not the same as being pro-abortion.”
It can be nothing else. To support the choice to kill another member of the human race is effectively pro-abortion since the act itself is intrinsically evil.
“First, women don’t control their own bodies.”
1. No one has the absolute right to control their own bodies. If they did, there would be no laws. It would be anarchy. How else do we commit crimes except by using our bodies? This is beyond obvious. You don’t support men having control of their bodies either, because if you did then you would be pro-choice on rape.
2. Of course, they do. There are just legal consequences for committing any criminal act.
“In many areas of this country and the world, a husband can [legally] rape his wife and, as long as it occurs in the confines of “marriage”, he gets away with it.”
Well, why should you have a problem with it? Is he not exercising his right to control his body?
“a viable human being vs. a potential human being.”
Of course, that’s a false dichotomy. Human beings reproduce human beings. After conception, you either have a human being or you have some other kind of creature living inside the woman. Unless you believe some bizarre transformation occurs where a creature just changes into another kind of organism (an amoeba to a human?) which is totally unsupported by science, you are siding with the stronger of the species against the weaker.
“In addition, one thing that drives me up the wall, is folks who are pro-life ONLY when it has to do with unborn babies.”
That is just bullcrap. I have very little patience for this kind of drivel.
“Many of these same people are pro-war, pro-death penalty and anti-social safety net.”
Very few people are pro-war.
I’m not sure about the death penalty (although I’m all for it if it’s vigilante style against some truly heinous individual), but the death penalty involves the killing of GUILTY parties. You know, people guilty of murder and terrorism. How can you make an innocent unborn equivalent to terrorists and murderers? As if the killing of the unborn is somehow on an equal playing field!!
A social safety net involves stealing from people. Nobody has a right to somebody else’s private property. That is the very reason why abortion is wrong. If we make a mistake which causes somebody some level of harm or dependency, we should be responsible for that mistake. That is why parents are responsible and should be held legally responsible for their children. The discrepancy in the law is not extending that responsibility to UNBORN children.
Now, sure, people should help the poor, etc…but not by the force and power of government. Your social programs, big government crap has many unintended consequences that I won’t go into very much (it actually causes more problems than it solves..for example), but most devastating to your case is that the social safety net example you posited is actually an argument *against* supporting abortion.
You need to stop assuming that people think like you. We don’t all come at this from the same political philosophy. Government is not here to be your loving Mommy and Daddy.
“They seem to value life only when it has yet to be lived and not WHILE it’s being lived.”
Capitalizing “while” doesn’t make you any more correct.
“So I guess you haven’t read the Old Testament in which Yahweh commands the enslavement and genocide of the Canaanites.”
Assuming you are correct, that is entirely irrelevant. Trying to make a personal shot against me or Yahweh does absolutely nothing for your pov. It was amusing, though.
“(I think you meant “error,” not “era.”)”
*rolls eyes* nooo!..Really?
“Sarah, with prolife friends like you, who needs enemies? So encouraging…”
Jill, iron sharpens iron. I only want my friends to succeed. I don’t think they will with what the OP was saying. Success doesn’t translate (to me) as convincing anyone in a debate, but it means making a case that actually…well….makes sense, and gives the other side the least room to maneuver.
“Well, neither you nor anyone else here has addressed several things I have brought up.”
Perhaps because I hadn’t read it yet. I’ll be pleased to address it, although all it’ll do is service my ego.
“Your argument upon metaphysical claims that are not universally shared, and come under freedom of conscience’s heading.”
Metaphysical claims – about the soul, I make none since I don’t see it as relevant. About God..and the laws being god-given..well, it’s either that or the law of the jungle. I’ve said all this already before.
Freedom of conscience for a murderous mother equally applies to freedom of conscience for Hitler, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot.
“So, in a country that practices freedom of religion, how do you justify using the power of the state to impose those claims upon people who find them completely empty?”
I don’t understand how you think it wasn’t addressed. I did in my post without even realizing you had asked these questions. From now on, I won’t answer questions here that I haven’t answered already.
“In order for your argument to remain coherent, you must insist upon those 32,000 becoming slaves to the crimes against them, no matter what they themselves think about it.”
I don’t think all incest cases are rape cases..but I’ll assume for the sake of argument.
I think calling it a form of slavery is rather melodramatic, but most abortion cases don’t involve incest. I admit that that can be a problem, nonetheless. I’d hardly consider it a challenge. The woman cannot be said to have invited that child in by any means..so her level of responsibility is non-existent, but think about abortion as an act.
Perhaps, it would clear it up a little better for you if instead of thinking of the child as a fetus – some blob you can depersonalize – you think of it as an infant dropped on somebody’s doorstep (in the case of rape – that would be the correct analogy). If that child would die otherwise, what do you think that the law should say if the child was discovered by the owner of the house and he let it starve to death, or worse…literally stabbed it to death so the child won’t take up any of his resources?
The goal of abortion is not simple removal (in terms of the analogy, let it starve to death) but killing (in terms of the analogy, stabbing it to death). That is what the mother wants. That is the whole darn point. Most mothers who want to abort (esp. in the case of incest) do so because they want the kid dead..not simply removed and their responsibility vanished.
So, abortion is akin to stabbing an infant left on your doorstep until it dies. That can never be legally right, even if she isn’t responsible. With neglect,you might be able to argue as being ok in the case of rape and incest, but that’s not what an abortion is. If you study the actual procedures and even read some of what abortionists say themselves, that is not what an abortion does.
Even if somebody else put that baby there against her will, it’s still wrong and should be illegal to murder it – to kill it with malice aforethought. The death penalty for somebody else’s evil is not only unjust but cruel and inhumane.
“Possession is nine tenths of the law. Like it or not, for the majority of a pregnancy, the woman is the sole and indissoluble owner.”
Of the baby? And you talk about *pregnancy* as slavery? Of her body? Duh! A woman owns her house, too..it doesn’t make child abuse ok.
“anti-choice advocates hope to impose their will upon others, no matter their feelings in the matter, and despite their exclusive ownership.”
It’s not about imposing anybody’s will, and ownership can’t make child abuse ok, nor does it magically make parental responsibility disappear.
If *you* want to be coherent, why not dismantle laws against child abuse and child neglect?
“Odd that you characterize pro-choice advocates as those who genuinely don’t care about human rights, yet you are apparently happy to trample upon any that get in your way.”
Not at all. You simply really really want abortion to be ok. You don’t care about human rights. Trying to turn the tables on me doesn’t work, since by doing so you are saying that it’s a human right for people to kill their children and neglect parental responsibility. Obviously, it’s not.
I don’t care what people do with their lives, and it’s laughable that you would make that statement about me wanting to trample on folks who get in my way. You’ve been reading way too many PP brochures and abortion propaganda. Quit talking to a caricature, and talk to *me*. If you knew me, you would not make that accusation, publicly where folks would know that it’s BS and you would look like an idiot and a jerk.
It’s not about me..or my will. It’s about defending the weak and defenseless. So, yah..nice personal shot there.
With people like Sarah around, the best thing that sensible people can do is keep their mouths shut and give her the microphone — shows the non-crazy people in the country what the real agenda is, when it’s not all dressed up in its Sunday best.
I left miliukov’s rather insubstantive reaction alone, but now, my fingers are begging me to type, so type I shall!
miliukov, I can only say that coming from you, it’s a high compliment. I mean, seriously. If a former guard of Auschwitz called *you* crazy, and Nazi Germany “sensible”, would it bother you that much? I would hope not. It would sound like the ravings of a homicidal madman if that were to happen to me. You, I view in much the same way, except you don’t have the excuse of “I was just following orders”. Hm..well, maybe you haven’t killed anyone yet, but the point still stands.
So, yah..nice insult there. I’m glad you have affirmed my opinion of you and others like you.
With regards to – this is the most amusing part so I’ll refer to it first – me expressing myself without my “Sunday Best”.
Let’s put it this way. With folks like you and other abortion supporters, you will not see me play nice (unless I see you as very ignorant and in need of education) nor will you see me pussy foot around. There was a time when I naively thought that if people like you really knew the truth about the unborn, then you would realize what it is you are supporting and you would stop supporting it. It took some time of arguing with folks like you before I realized that most of you don’t give a crap. Folks like you don’t care whether it’s a baby or a human being, and everything folks like you say to get away from that (eg. “oh, it’s not conscious yet” as if consciousness determines human worth, as if “human worth” is really up to you, me, the mother, or anybody else to determine but the human in question and God who grants that human free will).
Everything you say to get away from that proven scientific fact (about the nature of the entity in question) are nothing more than excuses and poor rationales to make *yourselves* feel better about it..to numb your sensitivities. Your morality..your sense of ethics..you make up as you go along, and you expect everyone else to align with it..as if you are gods that you can decide for the life and death of another fellow human being. That is not right, and can never be right, and should never be legal.
As for “the real agenda”, I didn’t realize it was hidden. The abortion supporters are all about hiding things. We aren’t. You talk of “the real agenda” spoken without my Sunday Best as if somehow this all was a revelation, something new or interesting.
I mean, seriously, have you been paying attention at all? Everyone from National Right to Life to Libertarians for Life to Family Research Council to Democrats for Life to Nat Hentoff and almost every other Prolifer of whatever political persuasion says about the same things I do. The only difference is one of presentation, and that you would remark on something so minor says more about you than it does about me.
I really hope it doesn’t bother you that much that I have so little respect for your position on this issue. Actually, I don’t care whether it does.
What? Sorry…can you repeat that? I’m not sure I caught it the first time.
Wow, Sarah’s painting herself a nice big target for both sides (mothers *want* to kill their children? …)
I do agree that the “you’re imposing your will on the mother” argument is a bit lame: if for some reason everybody at the age of 20 went comatose for 9 months and became dependent on one other person, we’d still probably require their support and do our best to help them (and to do otherwise would be neglect or murder).
So I think the “personhood” argument is most appropriate, as I can’t see that a “brain-dead” person has equal rights, particularly if they’ve never been “brain-alive”.
I must say, this has been a rather interesting comment thread to read through. A couple of random thoughts…
miliukov, I find it interesting (curious? amusing?) that you bemusedly paint pro-lifers (anti-choicers, was it, as opposed to the anti-lifers? *shrug* have it your way…) as not believing their own rhetoric regarding abortion as murder because they don’t act like it, but when Sarah comes along and gets a little more pointed and serious rather than theoretical with her comments you turn around and write her off as crazy.
Regarding the supposition itself, that if the rhetoric were true we should be engaged in more active resistance rather than simply chattering online, I feel the need to point out the fallacy therein (though I confess I don’t know my fallacies well enough to name which variant it might be). Quite simply you’re imposing a requirement that doesn’t exist (based on your personal morality, by the way). You require that if we really believed what we say then the only logical response is active resistance, but that requirement rules out…well, logic. In the current context of our country’s laws, government, and military, it is illogical to think that active resistance would have the slightest hope of accomplishing anything. No, on the contrary, many if not most people who are actively pro-life (rather than simply holding a pro-life opinion) truly believe abortion is a form of murder and are simply trying to figure out what they can do that will actually have any impact on the situation. For some it means working in and/or supporting pregnancy care centers to help mothers know and more fully understand their options, for some it means focusing on the politics and legal approaches to get laws written or chnaged, for some it means actively pursuing adoption to be the receiving arms for someone who has chosen to give the baby the chance at life…for many it’s a combination of many things, including, yes, being a part of the ongoing public conversation. Because (going back to the war comparison) ideas are powerful, knowledge is power, the pen is mightier than the sword, etc. etc. Back in the old wars they called it propaganda, now it’s “winning hearts and minds”. The point is, knowing what we’re trying to achieve and then figuring out what we can do to accomplish it.
Heck, to be honest Planned Parenthood sure seems to think pregnancy care centers qualify as “active resistance”, it’s just not the hiding-in-the-woods-throwing-rocks type.
Another thought, I believe for “Hey Skipper”. Every single law imposes someone’s view on someone else. The simple question is whether more people (particularly influential people, to be realistic) are in agreement with the law’s position ore not. Abortion is currently legal. The current pro-life approach at its broadest could be described, I suspect, simply by trying to get more people on the side against that position than for it and thereby hope to affect change.
Regarding the chicken-and-egg problem, as far as I’m concerned they’re both chickens in different states, and I likewise eat them both, preferably with a little salt and pepper. Which is to say, I make no distinction between the two regarding either species or moral standing, only regarding the best options for cooking them. That is, the only distinction is how it’s treated based on its current state. This seems fairly obvious to me, enough so that your attempt to establish an embryo apart from a human by offering the analogy that a chicken and an egg are “two different things” seems really, really weak. I’m not saying you’re weak, I’m saying that’s a really weak attempt and you need to find a better one to be taken at all seriously by anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.
And last but not (or, perhaps) least, a hypothetical question for the pro-choice folks: if it suddenly became medically possible and within the financial/healthcare means of the average person for an embryo to be removed, intact and alive, from the pregnant woman’s body and allowed to continue developing by some other natural or synthetic means, thereby eliminating that bothersome necessity of physical, biological dependence, would you that day support outlawing abortion?
Ah! And a bonus thought I forgot to throw in:
“In addition, one thing that drives me up the wall, is folks who are pro-life ONLY when it has to do with unborn babies. Many of these same people are pro-war, pro-death penalty and anti-social safety net.”
Even if that were true, which as others here have touched on would be leaving out some pretty substantial nuance, all it does is match up their inconsistency with your own (pro-choice but anti-death penalty). How does that help?
I’m curious, Joel, if you would make any “species or moral distinction” between an unfertilized chicken egg and a fertilized one.
Well, let’s see…an unfertilized (chicken) egg has no potential whatsoever. No matter how much one might protect and care and coax it along, it will only ever just be an egg, and eventually a rotten one at that. You might say it’s analogous to a woman’s monthly cycle — an egg is produced, is left unused, and passes on. Since such a (chicken) egg is only ever worth the nutrients found within, and letting it rot would be a waste thereof, I don’t hesitate in the least to eat it.
But ah! the fertilized (chicken) egg is another matter entirely! Here we have potential, here we have value over and above simple nutrients! If kept in the right environment, such a (chicken) egg will grow and become an actual (!) full-grown chicken, which I would not hesitate in the least, to…um…eat. If refrigerated when produced, the fertilized (chicken) egg does not begin to develop the embryo, is perfectly edible, and I’ve heard is even just a touch more nutritious than the unfertilized variety, so again I would not hesitate in the least to have it for breakfast. Once the (chicken) embryo starts to develop I suspect I wouldn’t be as interested in eating it, simply from an aesthetic standpoint. No, far better then to let it finish growing and eventually be a much more substantial part of dinner than be used in a less-than-pleasing breakfast.
So, to spell it out: same species (it’s certainly not a duck), regarded differently due to its potential or lack thereof, but as it happens treated the same nonetheless.
Come to think of it, the aspect of potential is quite key here. An unfertilized (chicken) egg is, in a sense, simply a waste product, is quite tasty and nutritious, and is therefore fit to be eaten. By contrast, I acknowledge a fertilized (chicken) egg as having the potential to be a feathered, clucking chicken or crowing rooster, and so I regard such an egg on the same moral basis as I regard the adult bird. Which, as it happens, is “fit to be eaten.”
Likewise an unfertilized (human) egg is, in a sense, simply a waste product. By contrast, a fertilized (human) egg has the potential to be a loving, caring, productive member of society, and so I regard such an egg on the same moral basis as I regard the adult — meant to be protected and given its due opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Does that answer your question, or haven’t we beaten the eggs enough?
We might have some agreement here regarding the aspect of potential. You say that a fertilized chcken egg has the potential to become an actual chicken. In the same way, I agree that a fertilized human egg has the potential to become an actual person.
Well no, I didn’t quite say that. I said “actual full-grown chicken.” Whether you find the distinction useful or not I suppose is up to you, but I at least want to be clear about what I said. :)
I still don’t get it. A sperm and an egg have the potential to become a fertilized egg, a fertilized egg has the potential to become an implanted egg, an implanted egg has the potential to become a fetus, then an infant, etc.
What makes the fertilized egg so unique compared to all the other stages of development?
I know, I know, a fertilized egg has a full set of unique chromosomes. Which means it should be okay to kill of half of a set of identical fetal twins, right?
I’m a Christian and I’m pro-choice. So, please don’t think that all Christians are pro-life.
I don’t believe that anybody should be able to tell another person what to do with their own body.
If God didn’t want Women to be One with the child until birth, then he would of had Us lay eggs like Chickens.
I believe those people that are bringing God into the Abortion argument are worshipping the God of Fertility.
Just, teach your Children values. Don’t expect the government or the law to do it for you. A Land without Freedoms and Diversity will spoil.
An abortion is a tragedy, an often avoidable tragedy. Abortions in many cases are the result of recreational sex turning very serious when the young lady concieves a child. Pretty obvious stuff.
It would certainly be smarter, though no less moral if young ladies who are in the position to participate in recreational sex understood the consequences and used birth control products. Yes, it’s like saying “go ahead”, but I would argue that the pressures of lifestyles of 18 – 30 year olds in 2009 and the biological need for sex in the age group mean most will engage in recreational sex (that is sex outside marriage).
Outlawing abortion (almost impossible) will result in abortions taking place in Mexico or Canada. Is this what God wants? I think he wants more from us than a law on the books.