I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

charles1952
Dear Dark Ghost,

I'm having trouble following your thinking here. Please offer a little clarification, if you'd be so kind.

You probably have trouble following my line of thinking because we likely have very different mindsets and worldviews. Therefore, I doubt we will see eye-to-eye too much on this topic.

Humanity has a history of knowing and respecting a certain set of principles regarding morality and behavior. This is instilled regardless of society.

Behaviour, maybe, but I would strongly disagree that principles regarding morality have been consistently instilled regardless of society.

Behaviour that results in the society having a greater chance of survival and prosperity is more likely to be chosen than behaviour that results in destruction and poverty.

Individual societies pass laws which sometime protect and sometime endanger these principles whether they're survival adaptations or not. By the way, care for the elderly is not a survival principle. The elderly cost more than they produce.

Survival is not merely about economics and production. It is also about experience and wisdom. If you do not have people around that can prevent mistakes of the past from occurring, you are doomed to repeating those mistakes. So yes, it technically is a survival principle.

If you want to say they're not part of a central law system, you have that right, but since everyone has a similar set, why not call that set a central law system?

Because that would imply there was an official authority (which I assume you would refer to as God) that made this law system, when evidence suggests there is no objective central law system that exists.

Oh, and as far as building a good society? That's a particularly weak statement since there are vast differences, even today, over what constitutes a "good" society.

Perhaps "good" was not the right word to use. What I more accurately meant was "successful". Those principles were upheld because they resulted in building and maintaining a more effective, successful society.

Very insightful post by the OP.

But oh man Abortion? I have not even attempted to have a conversation with anyone, online or offline, about that is a very long time. Although the topic does run though my mind from time to time.

At this point, and my thoughts on abortion may change in the future, is that it is a very personal matter. Deciding to being another human into this world is a big decision to make. Society is so complex and like looking into muddy water seeking clarity that deciding to have an abortion should be left to those personally involved in the matter. I cannot say that I am pro-choice or pro-life at all really. Both camps really are not inline with my nuanced thoughts regarding abortion.

So many things go on in people`s lives that who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to be the final judge when it comes to a situation in which abortion is being considered. I have a partner and we have been trying to a while to have a child. Both times she got pregnant it ended in...a very tragic situation and the little thing just could not grow for reasons beyond our control and the pregnancies ended with no child. So, for us abortion would be out of the question unless her life was at risk due to the pregnancy. But for other people, I don`t know all the details of their situation or how the women got pregnant in the first place. I wish everyone who wants a child could have one under the terms they want to but life is not that simple. So, I am somewhere in the middle between pro-life and pro-choice. And I do not need a push in either direction.

As for the law mentioned. I think it allows enough wiggle room for the all the complexities of life to play themselves out.

freedomwv
Very insightful post by the OP.

But oh man Abortion? I have not even attempted to have a conversation with anyone, online or offline, about that is a very long time. Although the topic does run though my mind from time to time.

At this point, and my thoughts on abortion may change in the future, is that it is a very personal matter. Deciding to being another human into this world is a big decision to make. Society is so complex and like looking into muddy water seeking clarity that deciding to have an abortion should be left to those personally involved in the matter. I cannot say that I am pro-choice or pro-life at all really. Both camps really are not inline with my nuanced thoughts regarding abortion.

So many things go on in people`s lives that who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to be the final judge when it comes to a situation in which abortion is being considered. I have a partner and we have been trying to a while to have a child. Both times she got pregnant it ended in...a very tragic situation and the little thing just could not grow for reasons beyond our control and the pregnancies ended with no child. So, for us abortion would be out of the question unless her life was at risk due to the pregnancy. But for other people, I don`t know all the details of their situation or how the women got pregnant in the first place. I wish everyone who wants a child could have one under the terms they want to but life is not that simple. So, I am somewhere in the middle between pro-life and pro-choice. And I do not need a push in either direction.

As for the law mentioned. I think it allows enough wiggle room for the all the complexities of life to play themselves out.

Hello,

I respectfully disagree. It is not "muddy water seeking clarity", good and evil are black and white. All the pro-aborts are alive, their own mothers followed God's plan for a new life, their mothers did not abort them.

Same for the lame exceptions for abortion (rape and the health of the mother). It is still a new
person with a body and soul which God has created.

God decides life, the reason for His creation of the sexual act. Sex was not intended for our pleasure
alone and then our choice to throw away, destroy a baby in its mother's womb.

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Dear Dark Ghost,

Thanks for taking the time to expound upon your thoughts a little. We're a little off the beaten track here, but what the heck, I smell understanding in the air. Not necessarily agreement, I'm not so concerned about that, but a good grasp of what each of us is talking about and where the difficulties lie.

But first, just so I'm contributing something to the broader discussion, this is a general problem which I don't think has been answered.
-------------------------------------------------------
Whatever is in the mother, it is of the human race and is genetically distinguishable from every other member of the human race. If nobody interferes, it will almost always become a full human being and citizen under anyone's definition.

In the United States, the law allows us to interfere with the pregnancy without incurring any legal penalties. (I'm speaking in generalities intentionally.) The law could have been written to provide rights and protections at any time, from conception to two years after birth. (Yes, I've seen the two year cutoff argued for.) Any date that is set is picked for various reasons, only some of which have anything to do with whether the child is a human "person." They're primarily political compromises with all sorts of gray areas, shifting rules, and terms open to interpretation.

So, the unaddressed problem is "If the baby in the mother is a human "person," or if it even might be, how, morally, can we kill it?" The law is no help here, unless you're prepared to defend the position that whatever the law says is moral. No one I know wants to defend that idea.
--------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, back to your thoughtful post.

I'm a little confused on what you see is the difference between rules describing moral actions and rules describing desirable behavior. At first glance, they seem very similar to me. Unless you're saying that morally desirable actions are different from survival and prosperity actions?

Behaviour that results in the society having a greater chance of survival and prosperity is more likely to be chosen than behaviour that results in destruction and poverty.

there are some difficulties with this formulation. More often than not, people are unable to determine which course of action will result in survival and prosperity. Should we have developed the atomic bomb? Should we have built coal mines? Banning DDT cost over 50 million lives, and the science behind it has been shown to be faulty. Ban Flouride or not? GMO foods? Slavery?

A second problem is that it assumes survival is the greatest value. A strange choice since we know, in the end, that all humanity will perish. Our sacrifice of everything to survival will have been a futile bargain. Even at that the challenge is never answered by strict logic, "Why is survival the great good we must sacrifice everything for?" You, and everyone else, merely assume it. And here, your argument starts to show cracks. You are claiming that all humanity has at least one common "good" or "morality" which comes from outside of their own thoughts. I agree, but point out that there are more than just survival. If you admit there is at least one, you can't instantly reject my idea that there are more.

Consider for example the idea of "honor." The list of wars, battles, killings, and sacrifices made in the name of "honor" is so lengthy as to be beyond the grasp of mere men. Often, survival is sacrificed to the idea of honor, and men who run from danger are cursed as cowards. It appears that honor is even a greater "good" than survival.

when evidence suggests there is no objective central law system that exists.

I am not arguing, yet, that a central law system requires a God, anymore than the law of gravity requires a God. I would argue that a listing of what men have seen as "good" in most civilizations, through most of time, would constitute a central law system, although we could name it something different.

Perhaps "good" was not the right word to use. What I more accurately meant was "successful". Those principles were upheld because they resulted in building and maintaining a more effective, successful society.

But, changing the word here doesn't resolve the difficulty. I'm certain that a South Seas Island country would have an entirely different idea of what a successful and effective society would be than, say, Denmark, or Libya. But, regardless of the nation, people still feel it's wrong to sleep with another's wife, run from battle, steal, lie, etc. Certainly people try to come up with exceptions like, it's OK to steal if you take from an oppressor or someone with a different faith. But the fact that they have to come up with those exceptions shows they recognize the general rule that stealing is bad.

With respect,
Charles1952

I wrote this years ago. I hope some of you enjoy it.

The “Easy” Way Out


Long ago, there lived the very nicest of girls. That she was pregnant before marriage, no doubt was an embarrassment to her family and her fiancé.

What thoughts ran through her parents mind? How did we fail? How could this happen? What will the neighbors say? They loved their daughter and were so thankful for this beautiful child they thought they would never have. It pained them to know what she would undertake.

The fiancé was also grieved, for he was not the child's father. His thoughts: “I love her so much, how could she do this to me?”

With guidance and support they worked through this difficult situation. Soon they married and were the proud parents of a beautiful baby boy.

If this incident happened today there would be a very real possibility that someone involved would want to take the easy way out and get an abortion.

Is abortion really the easy way out? If you were to think about it, you must consider that all your life you would have to live with the knowledge that you denied another person of their right to existence. Such knowledge brings about guilt and self-scorn. Most women who have abortions don't go about broadcasting that accomplishment. Quite often they bear the memory of this deed alone, with help from family or friend. Therapists and ministers know the emotional damage abortion can bring about.

The fact that abortion is legal encourages the viewpoint that it is morally acceptable. When one is in a hurry to get a crisis resolved, moral considerations can easily be neglected. Yet, after the abortion there is all the time in the world to think about the child who will never be!

Let's face it – many people on planet Earth were not planned or wanted by their parents in the beginning. It doesn't mean that their parents didn't grow to love them, they did.

The couple I talked about who worked through their difficulties lived over 2000 years ago. Jesus, is the name they gave their son.

Wishing all a blessed Christmas.

charles1952
reply to post by Dark Ghost

 

So, the unaddressed problem is "If the baby in the mother is a human "person," or if it even might be, how, morally, can we kill it?" The law is no help here, unless you're prepared to defend the position that whatever the law says is moral. No one I know wants to defend that idea.

I don't find that to be an unaddressed problem at all. It's not a baby in the mother, it's a fetus. It's not an individual, it's a part of her body. Its means of survival is a direct harvesting of the woman's nutrients. Having unique DNA does not make something an individual human being. There's a good chance that it will turn into one if given the chance to, but the decision of that chance is best left up to the one who would have to foster it to get it to that point.

And acknowleging that is in no way saying that we trust the law to dictate morality. It' quite the opposite. If the law were to say that abortion is wrong, then that would be allowing the law to establish what is and isn't moral in regards to this situation. The legal allowance of abortion does not mean that you have to get an abortion or agree with abortions at all. It's up to the individual to decide what is best.

Tell me, though -- I am curious of this one -- do you not claim to believe in small government and fewer laws? Or do you only want laws that coincide with your personal moral views, with grey areas that you openly acknowledge, and not allow for anyone else's views and their interpretations of those grey areas?

reply to post by TheRegal

Dear TheRegal,

Interesting post, let me see if I can clarify my position and satisfy you.

It's not a baby in the mother, it's a fetus.

If you prefer, you could call it a "Mibfick." That doesn't change the "object" inside the mother in the slightest. It doesn't change the discussion or advance it.

It's not an individual, it's a part of her body.

This statement has always confused me and still does. A part of her body with entirely different DNA? If you took samples of the "Mibfick's" DNA and some from the mother, any lab in the country would tell you the samples are from two different people. Further, if it is a part of the mother, just as her fingers and toes are, then you are forced to argue that half the pregnant women have penises as part of their body. Surprising news for the husband, no doubt.

Its means of survival is a direct harvesting of the woman's nutrients.

I'm a little surprised you used the word "harvesting." That, of course, implies a harvester. if the "Mibfick" is taking food from the mother, then it can't be a part of the mother it must be a separate entity. You wouldn't claim that a brain is harvesting nutrients from the mother, would you?

Besides, almost all the nutrients that any of us rely on for survival are harvested, processed, shipped, and sold by someone else. The "Mibfick" just adds another step. It lets the mother eat it first, quite similar to baby birds that eat the mother's regurgitated food.

Having unique DNA does not make something an individual human being.

But you can't be an individual human being without it. You're still left with the problem of coming up with a morally and logically valid reason for determining what does make an "individual human being." As I pointed out in the post you quoted from, the definition we have now is vague, a solution based on compromise, and with out any pretension to be morally valid, only legally.

There's a good chance that it will turn into one if given the chance to, but the decision of that chance is best left up to the one who would have to foster it to get it to that point.

First of all, you haven't shown that there should be anyone with the decision to stop the "Mibfick's" life. You are just assuming that is the correct answer, assuming what we're trying to establish. "Begging the question." Secondly, if the decision is to be made, why is the mother the sole best choice?

And acknowleging that is in no way saying that we trust the law to dictate morality.

Excellent. I agree, if I understand you. Ideally, law would reflect morality, but it can't create it.

If the law were to say that abortion is wrong, then that would be allowing the law to establish what is and isn't moral in regards to this situation.

You appear to be contradicting yourself here. We've just agreed that law does not create or establish morality. Here, you are expressing the fear that law would create morality. granted, the kind you don't approve of, but create it nevertheless.

The legal allowance of abortion does not mean that you have to get an abortion or agree with abortions at all. It's up to the individual to decide what is best.

You're quite right again. That's what the law says, but we already know what the law says, we we're discussing morality, not legality.

Tell me, though -- I am curious of this one -- do you not claim to believe in small government and fewer laws?

You're quite correct. I believe we have more laws than we need and I would like to see fewer. I am not calling for the elimination of all laws. Any country with even a pretense of moral government will have laws against theft, fraud, etc. One of those laws will be the protection of the lives of its inhabitants.

The reason I say the question is yet unaddressed, is that it has not been shown that "Mibficks" are definitely not, scientifically or morally, entitled to the protection of those laws which a moral country must have.

As I asked earlier:

So, the unaddressed problem is "If the baby in the mother is a human "person," or if it even might be, how, morally, can we kill it?"

With respect,
Charles1952

charles1952
reply to post by TheRegal

 

First of all, you haven't shown that there should be anyone with the decision to stop the "Mibfick's" life. You are just assuming that is the correct answer, assuming what we're trying to establish. "Begging the question." Secondly, if the decision is to be made, why is the mother the sole best choice?

You could really argue this with anything that we kill. Who should be establishing whether we can kill fish? Birds? Plants? Bacteria? Viruses?

I agree, if I understand you. Ideally, law would reflect morality, but it can't create it.

Ideally the law would only dictate morality when it negatively affects another living, breathing human being.

The reason I say the question is yet unaddressed, is that it has not been shown that "Mibficks" are definitely not, scientifically or morally, entitled to the protection of those laws which a moral country must have.

As I asked earlier:
So, the unaddressed problem is "If the baby in the mother is a human "person," or if it even might be, how, morally, can we kill it?"

Well really we have to consider a certain reality that comes with this question. Where exactly do we stop with this? I mean, theoretically anything could be a human being or possess a human soul. A goat, a flower a rock, a fleshy mass of cells on a uterin wall; any of these could be "human beings" in some far out sense, and we jut haven't discovered that they possess human souls (I obviously don't believe this but it's certainly not disprovable). Should we be disallowing the termination of any of these, then? Or should we just go with the collective determinations that we actually have?

reply to post by nesstudents


Fully support your opinion. If we put aside our morality and emotions, than to allow abortions would be the only right solution.
Talking about this problem, we should rely on objective advantages and drawbacks and not on our personal feelings. In this particular case, the legalization of abortions outweigh its negative consequences, therefore, for the society legalization is a better way to go.

However, I would add, that it is in the interests of the society to struggle with abortions using other methods, as an example, through special social/psychologicall programs which may help mothers to accept and raise their children in appropriate conditions.

reply to post by nesstudents


I personally think that these arguments are very reasonable. Women doing abortion illegally unfortunately are putting their lives in danger of death or very serious diseases. But it is not the only case women that do not want to do abortion illegally will have to spend almost their whole life fighting to earn some money for their children or for themselves or what is even worse will just get rid of the unwanted children.

I would say also that the example of raped women is also very convincing. Could you imagine to give birth to a child and take care of him/her while his/her father was just an unknown guy who raped you?

reply to post by charles1952


You are right in saying that we shouldn't kill, if we haven't even decided yet is it a human or not.
However, the statistical evidence shows that the amount of abortions in the country doesn't depend on whether they are legalised or not. On the contrary, there are usually more deaths caused by unsafe abortions in countries where it is restricted.

So, maybe this thought is a rational argument against restricting abortions...

reply to post by nesstudents


Hello! I would like to discuss your second argument, since I largely agree with your first. As I understand, you argue that we should legalize abortions because it is better for the health of mothers, and that

…the health of individuals is above all

I disagree with this in principle, and I would argue that freedom of individuals is more important, but that's a different debate. This argument comes with complications. What happens when someone can't afford an abortion, even when it is legal? Judging by your post, I would guess you would support some sort of federal funding for abortions. But should a devout catholic be required to pay taxes when some of it will ultimately be used for abortions, something to which he is morally opposed? And if you don't support this, then what do you propose we do? Will simply legalizing abortion be enough, or will poverty prevent those in need of an abortion from obtaining one?

reply to post by tjk1253279


I will answer your question. It is an issue that will never be settled between two opposing views. I am not religious and you are so we will never meet on this issue. That will never change on this issue of when life starts. That is why we have laws to settle it.

reply to post by TheRegal

Dear TheRegal,

I'm sorry my argument was so unclear as to cause you such confusion.

Whatever else science can tell us, it has definitely determined the baby (or mibfick, if you prefer) is of the human species. Saying that science might some day decide that a rock is a human, makes little sense to me. I was only dealing with babies which, even in the womb, have been determined to be human.

Should we be disallowing the termination of any of these, then? Or should we just go with the collective determinations that we actually have?

The "collective determination?" First, do we have 100% of the population saying that abortion is perfectly fine up to birth? 70%? Even 50%? The "collective determination" seems to be that at some time before the child is completely free of the mother and breathing on it's own, it's life should be protected. That's why "Partial Birth Abortions" were so widely condemned as barbaric. Based on your own argument, the standard of a breathing human does not pass the test.

Second, does "collective determination" determine whether an action is morally correct? Remember the German elections of the 1930s. Or lynch mobs for a local example of "collective determination."

Ideally the law would only dictate morality when it negatively affects another living, breathing human being.

But I thought we agreed that laws can't create morality. I could pass a law saying that people over 6 feet tall must be shaved bald and be punished if there is any hair on their heads, but that is just human whim, not a reflection or creation of morality.

Besides, any law that affects any one, negatively affects some one. A law means we must do something we might rather not, or we mustn't do something we'd rather do. Are you saying that the only moral laws are those which prevent harm to a born person? If so, we have more discussion ahead of us. And why only "breathing human beings?" Are people on ventilators no longer human? Who was it that decided that only breathing humans are entitled to protection? Certainly not the Supreme Court. They said the child has rights during the third trimester which must be considered.

Anyway, looking forward to our talks.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Who was it that decided that only breathing humans are entitled to protection? Certainly not the Supreme Court. They said the child has rights during the third trimester which must be considered.

Charles, I don't think that's actually not correct. SCOTUS did rule that states had certain rights to regulate abortion from the third trimester, but not that the "child" has "rights".

The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.

The Justices had discussed the trimester framework extensively. Powell had suggested that the point where the State could intervene be placed at viability, which Marshall supported as well. Blackmun wrote of the majority decision he authored: "You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary." Douglas preferred the first trimester line, while Stewart said the lines were "legislative" and wanted more flexibility and consideration paid to the state legislatures, though he joined Blackmun's decision. Brennan proposed abandoning frameworks based on the age of the fetus and instead allowing states to regulate the procedure based on its safety for the mother.
en.wikipedia.org...

The fact is, your assertion that a single fertilized egg cell is fully a person is just as arbitrary as any other timeframe. The fact that you think that single cell fertilized egg deserves rights, above and beyond those of the "host", is absurd.

Let me try to use the birds and the bees as a good example of what I'm trying to convey. Bees pollinate trees, taking pollen from male flower parts and rubbing it against female plant parts. Now, the tree can fruit. From fruit come seeds. Trees are very clever, and hide their seeds behind yummy nutritious fruit, tricking birds into eating the seeds. The birds fly around, dropping droppings packed with seeds, miles away from the tree.

But................All that clever planning, that mother nature has tricked the birds and bees into, is for naught if the seeds never land and root in suitable soil!

So, if the seeds never root in soil, at what point was there another tree? Was the tree's flower a tree? Was the fruit a tree? Was the seed a tree? Were the seeds aborted when they failed to take root?

How is a woman's fertilized egg any different than a seed adrift? How is choosing NOT cultivating a seedling immoral?

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

I'm so happy to see you again. I think you raise valid points. I'm not sure about their significance to the argument, but I could be wrong. Let me play with them for a minute and we can see what happens. I'm sure I can count on you for correcting me when I go astray.

Charles, I don't think that's actually not correct. SCOTUS did rule that states had certain rights to regulate abortion from the third trimester, but not that the "child" has "rights".

I think I agree with you here, and I was wrong in making such a jump as I did. The Court did say that the state had an interest which allowed it to pass laws to protect something that the unborn had.

I also agree with you that the Court rejected a right to life argument.

And, I agree that the Court's decision about when the State could step in was arbitrary. In fact, you make the point which I have been making (and emphasizing) for quite some time. From a purely legal point of view, they could have picked any date at all. Although they had reasons for choosing the one they did, they have no idea if they picked the correct one. Their position was "Whatever we choose will be the correct one, because we said so."

But this discussion is not about the legality of the situation, as I've also said from the beginning. It's about the logic, or ethics, or morality of it. A law is not necessarily moral, correct, or logical (as we unfortunately know), so what the law is, has little weight in this discussion.

As for the point of conception being arbitrary, I think I must disagree. It is the earliest point at which a separate whatever-you-want-to-call-it comes into being. The new DNA tells us that. This point is carefully chosen to avoid the error of setting the time the unborn should be protected at too late a time. Whenever the life of the unborn needs to be protected, we know it is not before conception.

The fact that you think that single cell fertilized egg deserves rights, above and beyond those of the "host", is absurd.

That happens to me also. I will see a statement and react with "That's absurd." Then I try to sit back and discover exactly where the absurdity comes in, and sometimes I can't find it. Perhaps you can come up with a logical argument showing why it's absurd.

Oh, by the way, neither I nor anyone else I know is arguing that a fertilized egg deserves rights above and beyond the mother's. Equal rights will do nicely, even then, I'll settle for just one right, the right to not be deprived of life arbitrarily.

------------------------------------------------

Your second point is the seed example. I admit, I found myself agreeing with you right from the start and was wondering if I'd ever disagree. Well, eventually I did.

How is a woman's fertilized egg any different than a seed adrift? How is choosing NOT cultivating a seedling immoral?

That's what stopped me cold. The most obvious objection is that a fertilized egg is not adrift, it is in it's mother's womb. Abortion is not an option if the egg has not already been planted in the "soil" and started growing.

Your comparison is more apt if you ask what is the difference between "uprooting" a child from it's mother, and uprooting a growing tree from the soil. Now I would say there is little difference if you believe there is little difference between a tree and a child.

The second difference, which seems a little less clear and dramatic, is that nothing in the seed example is done with the intent or reasonable expectation that a new tree would or could result. The opposite is true in the case of pregnancies.

Thank you for yet another very thoughtful post.

With respect,
Charles1952

Another reason this issue is so hard to discuss is that both sides are firmly convicted in their beliefs. There is no gray area.

I hope you walk a mile in my shoes as I viewed the struggles of women who chose adoption.
I was recently asked by Birthright for permission to publish this in their newsletter. Like I would say: "No" to that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by charles1952


Dear Charles,

I think I agree with you here, and I was wrong in making such a jump as I did. The Court did say that the state had an interest which allowed it to pass laws to protect something that the unborn had.

No, you're reading your own wishful thinking into the decision, hoping that a consensus will make it true.

The Court ruled that the states have the right to regulate abortion after "viability". The Court said nothing about protecting something that the unborn "had".

As for the point of conception being arbitrary, I think I must disagree. It is the earliest point at which a separate whatever-you-want-to-call-it comes into being.

And, I must also disagree with you. Nothing "comes into being" that wasn't already "being" something. A woman's egg is something that is being what it is meant to be, an egg; a potential human being. It is her egg, that is part of her body, before she ovulated, after she ovulated and when it is penetrated by the sperm. It is still an egg, and it is still her egg, and it is still a part of her body, regardless of its state.

There is no magic, and there is no sacred rite of baptism by the sperm. The same thing happens to all mammals, cats and dogs, rats and gophers, skunks and squirrels, bears and hyenas........ It's all biology. Biology isn't sacred or holy and Biology isn't God.

ME
How is a woman's fertilized egg any different than a seed adrift? How is choosing NOT cultivating a seedling immoral?

Charles
That's what stopped me cold. The most obvious objection is that a fertilized egg is not adrift, it is in it's mother's womb. Abortion is not an option if the egg has not already been planted in the "soil" and started growing.

Of course the egg is adrift! The egg has not yet implanted in the woman's womb, and is no different than a windblown seed. It will remain adrift and be washed away with a her next period, unless it implants. Without implantation, by definition, there is no pregnancy and no abortion.

That fact is, when the egg is fertilized it remains initially "detached" from the mother - just a tiny, free-floating speck in the wide universe of the womb........

When the embryo (blastocyst) is ready, it will nestle into the womb or side of the uterus. At this moment of implantation, pregnancy has officially taken place and the placental tissue begins to secrete the hormone hCG. Implantation may take place as early as a handful of days after ovulation or well over a week. On average, one can expect implantation to occur about seven to ten days after you ovulate. This is also the point at which you can take an early pregnancy test.
www.early-pregnancy-tests.com...

There is no abortion before implantation and before implantation the woman's body is unaware of and hasn't even reacted to the presence of, or any change in the egg's status, ie fertilization.

You said:

Whenever the life of the unborn needs to be protected, we know it is not before conception.

This is clearly not the case with the pro-life hard line. The pro-life community wants to redefine abortion and ban most contraception. For example, a woman decides, in advance and prior to sexual intercourse and fertilization, that she doesn't want to become pregnant, and therefore chooses to make HER uterine wall inhospitable for implantation to avoid pregnancy. The pro-life community, post conception, has already determined that the woman has opted for abortion. To the pro-life community, a woman on the Pill or using an IUD is already guilty of murder.

Your comparison is more apt if you ask what is the difference between "uprooting" a child from it's mother, and uprooting a growing tree from the soil. Now I would say there is little difference if you believe there is little difference between a tree and a child.

An egg, before implantation, is no different than an unplanted seed. A seed is not a tree and a fertilized egg is not a baby.

The second difference, which seems a little less clear and dramatic, is that nothing in the seed example is done with the intent or reasonable expectation that a new tree would or could result. The opposite is true in the case of pregnancies.

And this is where we disagree, again. Nature tricks the birds and the bees into propagating. Nature also tricks humans into procreation, employing attraction, hormones and pheromones. Sex, in and of itself, isn't contemplated in terms of parenthood. We aren't naturally reminded or forewarned about parenthood when sexual urges arise. Pregnancy is a surprise, and it took us humans a long while to figure out how it happens. Sex is a nature's trick to force us to reproduce when we wouldn't choose to do so otherwise.

Sex feels good, and is a necessary release, both physically and emotionally. It releases dopamines that gives us a sense of well being and feelings of satisfaction and peace. It's healthy, fun and it's good exercise. It's good for you!

It's natural for humans to want to be comfortable and live life in happiness. We fight with, and overcome nature at every turn. Our homes, cities, clothing, transportation, food, and all our creature comforts.... are all won against nature. We have developed medicines to outsmart natural disease. It's only right that we should outsmart nature's trick and learn how to be able to have enjoyable sex without the consequences of unwanted pregnancy and unplanned parenthood.

Outsmarting nature, by the use of contraception, is not the goal of the pro-life community. They don't want to see the free expression of sexuality among women. They want to oppress women's sexuality, not make it easier to express without consequence. They want to take away a woman's choice to have sex freely, without the consequence of pregnancy, and punish women for expressing their sexuality by forcing them to give birth to unwanted children.

reply to post by nesstudents


Dear nesstudents,

You've chosen the US as a major reference to provide a an example of successful abortion legalization, however, the US level of medicine is significantly higher than that of countries which are mentioned as ones with prohibited abortions. So I've three questions devoted to different regions:

1.Iis there any evidence that abortion legalization in poor African countries will lead to mortal rate reduction? Does a strong correlation between the success and legality of abortion exit in these countries, and high death rates are not explained trough poor overall medicine level?

2. In Arabic and Islamic countries do you really think that legalization of abortion will make difference? Due to strong traditions, I believe, that women will still want to do abortions illegally in order to keep it secret, and the legalization will only increase the price of illegal abortions making them less available to poor women.

3. What about examining the reasons for high abortion rates in different countries? Maybe there is no unique solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy and it should be solved individually for each country or region (by providing more available and less expensive, even free contraceptives, providing free consultations on family planing for women, providing lectures on health, maternity and safe sex in schools and colleges, abandoning alcohol for teenagers, etc.).

reply to post by windword


a fertilized egg has half of the chromosomes of the father and half of the mother, and is therefore a new "being" unique and not existing previously.