Thank you for your post.
I am going to begin with a couple of your more gruesome arguments first. The key error in most of your stories is "perfectly healthy". Your scissor example seems to be referring to a partial birth abortion. Set aside that this procedure is already illegal in most places, it was not something performed on "perfectly healthy children". I realize that this accusation is thrown about, but it is just not true. That said, I don't really want to get into specific procedures mostly because they change. The most common procedure is a D & C (which by-the-way is also used for a good many miscarriages. There are other methods used, but some of the worst discussed, like partial birth are either rarely used or not used at all in the US. Anti-abortion groups like to parade the worst pictures they can find, situations that are aberrations and parade them as if they were standard. Also, statistics tend to be widely misrepresented, sometimes because of sloppiness or "honest" misunderstanding of data, but a lot of it seems to be quite intentional. One big reason for error in statistics is that because there is no definition of life prior to 3 months, those procedures are almost always classified as an "abortion". The medical term for all procedures, and for miscarriage is actually "abortion", medically, though in popular "speech" that is distorted into meaning intentional halt of a pregnancy, intentional removal of a fetus. Again, these distinctions are not mere technicalities, but fundamental facts that must be understood if you wish to truly understand what the statistics about abortions say. Part of my disgust with the anti-abortion movements (and I patently REFUSE to call them 'right to lifers" because they are not about life, they are about dictating to other people medical procedures, in too may cases without bothering to fully understand what they are discussing-- though I put you in at least the more open minded, willing to reason part of that group). Folks who want to talk about high rates of early term abortions, in particular, tend be either misunderstanding or outright lying about the data. Anything labeled as an "abortion" in that stage is going to include miscarriages, because, as I stated above, there just is no legal distinction. There is no "box" on the medical form saying "this child was alive" or "this child was dead" prior to removal. And yes, Tzor.. I DO know of what I speak on this!
Anyway... beyond that, I am going to break your argument down a bit, because it was logically and systematically explained and so leads itself to a similar response.
tzor wrote:
The first question is “when does life begin?” The answer, from a strictly logical and scientific standpoint is that a being of the species Homo sapiens begins when the egg from a female Homo Sapiens unites with a sperm from a male Homo sapiens (yes I know it may be possible one day to create sperm from female stem cells) creating a unique combination of DNA which differs from both parents.
The second question is “so what?” The age of enlightenment thinking as exemplified in the writings of Jefferson indicated that men (that is Homo sapiens in general) were “created” equal and endowed with rights (which could not be taken away) by their “creator.” People did tend to talk in religious terms back then. So it means that from the moment of fertilization, Homo sapiens have rights that simply are. They are not earned and they cannot be taken away.
For Christians, the ultimate question is "what does God intend". That, to me, not a scientific point, is the real question. This is easy enough to say when we do not have the technology to keep virtually all not born children alive. We already can preserve fertilized eggs and the age at which we can keep them alive keeps moving back, so it is no longer an esoteric question. Saying life begins, which it does in some sense, at conception is very, very different from saying that every human being so conceived, is
intended by God to live. Again, for a Christian THAT is the real question. I would argue that this idea that "all life" must be preserved is really human arrogance and not God at all, based on both the biologic and biblical facts.
The truth is that the journey from fertilization to birth is very, very perilous. Though an exact, firm number is not (yet) available, the best data shows that the miscarriage rate from
conception is quite likely over 90%. It is absolutely not below 70%, and that figure is really closer to the rate of miscarriage from the time of known pregnancy. (which varies, and leads to some of the variation in numbers). This data comes from the only real study done on abortion & miscarriage rates.
In faith, the question is not so much what is scientifically accurate. Technically, yes, a fertilized egg is "human", but only technically. It cannot think, breath or act in any way on its own. Biblically, this is not insignificant. There are more than a few references to children "breathing life", etc, etc. I will also note that Old Testament penalty given for hitting a woman who is pregnant and gives birth to a child who has "injury" (is missing eyes, legs, etc.) is more harsh than that if the woman gives birth to a stillborn child. In other words, being born injured was considered far worse than simply dying. I have heard it argued that this is because what would have been then called a "malformed" or "imperfect" human could not participate in the Jewish rites, would have therefore been spiritually "condemned". That may be, but the next part, where it says if the child is born still no penalty shall apply because no one knows if that child shall live or die.
Now, we have had enough discussions that I think you know already (but I will repeat for any new readers) that I absolutely do NOT think we are, today, supposed to deny children born injured anything. However, why they thought that at the time is important. In the case of injury, its mostly about a person not being able to support themselves. Before birth, though, something else comes into play. Back then, folks did not have knowledge of illness like we do today. One thing they did know, though, is that illness tends to spread. A big way to reduce illness was to separate people. This idea did get mixed in, somewhat naturally, with the idea that illness is caused by sin. When it came to births, we have an innate, probably protective predilection to favor healthy individuals. Again, though the ancients did not understand genetics and the like as we do, they did know that one improved stock by breeding the best individuals, that breeding those with malformations was not a good idea. We know this as well, which is why in our not-so-distant-past, the idea of "eugenics" arose. Of course, that has a horrible, horrible connotation today. However, its too easy to forget that this idea was actually very much part of modern medicine just a few decades ago. I give an example. Reader's Digest is hardly a left-wing publication. I read an old story (at my grandparent's house) about a doctor going through pangs of remorse. He had, some 17 years earlier, served in the birth of a child. There had been a point when he could have just held back a little and the child would have been born dead, but he persisted and let the child live. His guilt was because the girl was born without an arm. In the "feel good" story, he meets the then 17 year old girl at a music recital and is thanked by her and her parents. It is very important to understand that he was not some cruel, heartless doctor. That was how doctors and nurses were taught back then.. my grandmother, who had been a nurse, talks of being told "let no monsters be born". It sounds terrible today, but if you think back a few decades, then we also have to recognize that the life of an imperfect child of any type back then would have often been quite terrible. It would have been a hardship for most families to have such a child, and in many cases, the family would have been encouraged to just put them in an institution, and most people would have felt that to be "for the best". We have come a LONG way since then, quite thankfully!
Today, medicine has advanced to the point where no doctor would be wracked with guilt over "letting" a child missing an arm or leg or eye, etc, live. The idea of
aborting a child with mild deformities, even Downs syndrome is aberrant to most, though some people do make that decision. (as opposed to the earlier generation that would have considered not letting such children be born to be best). However, I think it is probably more abhorrent to suggest that every single fertilized egg is "intended" to live, never mind "deserves full protection under the law". Just think about that for a moment. Do you really want a world in which a woman can be imprisoned for battery, neglect or intentional harm if they do something that might possibly result in a miscarriage that happens before they even really know they are pregnant? Women already feel enough guilt when they have a miscarriage. And, it is far, far, FAR more common that you likely think. Even the most lenient statistics say that 1 in 3 pregnancies wind up in a miscarriage-- and that figure comes from the time a woman knows she is pregnant, including cases when a woman only realizes she was pregnant at the point of miscarriage). I mean, just think about the realities of that for a moment, please. Also, recognize that the bit about "known pregnancy" is very, very critical. When you get into the number of miscarriages that are not known... realize that in many cases a woman will NOT know early on if it really was a miscarriage or just a heavy period, except maybe by hormone counts and the like.. something most woman will not have unless there is an overriding reason for them to know or it comes out essentially accidentally, in the course of other investigations.
In other words, the whole bit about "when life begins" is really a red herring. The true question is "when does God
intend for a child to be born live?". That answer differs. I would argue that probably the most Biblical answer is that of Christian Scientists... no human medical intervention, or only minor intervention. Yet, that is not a position most people would find tenable and is certainly not the position of most of those opposing abortion.
The Roman Catholic church does draw some lines. In vitro fertilization and the like are not allowed. However, the church has not taken a consistent stand on operations and interventions on very sick children in womb. Many folks in the anti-abortion movement, however, parade around with slogans like "all life is precious" and so forth. From the outset, just think of the impact of those words on someone facing a true tragedy -- a child in the womb with very, very, very serious problems, such that they are unlikely to survive or that they will have a very limited life, even a highly pain-filled life. Add in insurance issues and the fact that if such a child is born, then the parents are legally obligated to not just give up their lives tending to that child, but also to give up most of their financial resources for that one child. If there are other children.. too bad. Welfare will tend to their basic needs, and if the parents have to spend more attention on the highly disabled child, so be it. Maybe they can put the child in a highly over-taxed institution? Or put the child up for adoption? To many, those options are far worse than a simple, clean death prior to birth. Simpler and easier for the child, not just for the parents and other children! Note, I have not yet given any set position on what I actually think about abortion, for myself or anyone else, I am merely setting the parameters of thought about life itself. I am saying that the whole idea that all life conceived has an inherent right, either a biblical right or legal right, to exist is just plain not tenable, is just plain false. It is a wish, not a reality.
tzor wrote:
Now the first red herring is the strange word “viability.” I call this a red herring because it should be institutively obvious to a casual observer (as the rights cannot be taken away and exist as a preexisting condition) that it is not acceptable to just kill a person because he is in need of a heart transplant and in the long term without that new heart he is not “viable” (capable of surviving or living successfully).
Actually, let me take your own argument back. See, someone in need of a heart transplant to live is in no way, shape or form required to get that transplant! Nor is the medical establishment required, in truth, to treat that person in the same way they would a healthy person. There are many examples. On the one had, that person might be given more aggressive treatment for say, some illnesses, and the like, because they are more fragile than a person not in need of a new heart. However, in other cases the doctors might abstain, might say that, given all considered, this person basically just is not going to live. The irony here is that medicine is actually very, very, VERY reluctant to make that pronouncement, but I would not say that is a good thing, it is a documented horrible thing. The real truth is that people do die. God INTENDS for people to die. God does not want us to die prematurely, but there is really as much room to argue that a heart failing means God intends that person to die as there is to argue that us having the technology gives us permission or even the requirement that we use it to preserve life. That last bit.. I would argue that is the point that the church needs to address more fully.
When talking about the unborn, there are a couple of issues here. The first is the very real LEGAL distinction in our system. Up until 3 months, a woman can abort for basically any reason. Is that "too lose"? Maybe. But, saying that this is wrong because all life is precious and other pablum put out by the anti-abortion groups is very, very misguided. See, turn that around. You can say that every child has a right to live.. or you can say that every child has a right to a healthy and reasonably healthy life. Which is it that God really intends? Is it more harmful to a child to die before birth or to have them endure years of suffering and lack of love? Sure, some woman might rethink having an abortion, might decide to have an initially unwanted child, might have the child only to put the child up for adoption, but there is a HUGE difference between someone making that choice, even painfully, and being forced into that decision. You can say that every life is precious and that means abortion is just wrong OR you can say that life is too precious to just waste and that any woman not ready, willing and able to give birth simply does not
deserve a child.
Beyond three months, despite claims to the contrary, there does have to be serious reason to have an abortion. Folks can (and do) disagree on whether the "serious reasons" are all equally legitimate, but an honest debate acknowledges that this distinction is real and does legally exist. The biggest issue is probably "mental capacity" of the mother. It is easy to say that a woman who is going through a variety of issues, ranging from depression to other illnesses is giving birth to a healthy child and then just "decides" to have an abortion because "its easy". This shows a big lack of understanding about both mental illness AND what happens to children born to mothers with mental illness. Our foster care system is filled with children having emotional and physical issues because they were born to a mother in a poor mental state. In fact, you could easily argue that virtually every child in that system was born to a mother in a poor mental state (along with some who are there because something happened to their parents after birth and there were no known relatives). Worse, these kids too often grow up to perpetuate both the illnesses and other issues. Is that a certainty? Of course not. Can these children be "rescued". Of course, particularly if they find God and Christ. However, the question here is not what is ultimately possible, it is what is best and what does God intend. My simple argument is that medical science has gone far beyond the point where any child who survives is intended to live by God. Having gone beyond that point, the church needs to do some serious thinking about when medical science is and is not supposed to intervene. Going the route of "no imperfect child should be born" is, of course, fully repugnant. However, I would argue that saying everything possible must be done to keep every fertilized egg alive is even more repugnant, even more fully against God's design. At what point in between the line lies, I say is a point for discussion and individual, prayerful choice.
BUT, and this is important, if there is a question about what is Godly, what is best for God's people, the distinction of what is legal MUST be a far different decision. If there are grey areas, areas of question for the faithful, then how much more for those who do not share our faith?
At that point, the issue of "viability" becomes critical. Your argument is that once a woman is impregnated, then she no longer has the right to decide about her own body. That is a very, very dangerous position to have, though most anti-abortion folks want to slide by this point. See, while you can keep a woman from having an abortion, you cannot force her to keep her womb as a good place for that child. Even the basics -- making sure she is not on drugs, for example, is difficult at best. Ensuring she maintains a healthy diet, takes vitamins and medications she might need for the child, exercises, and, above all, maintains a healthy attitude (this has a HUGE impact on the child -- more than we ever thought before!), ensuring all that is plain impossible. As much as we know how to fix many more physical problems pre-birth, we ALSO know far more about the importance of the woman's health and well-being in having a healthy child. The plain fact is that a woman who really and truly does not want to give birth is far less likely to have a healthy child for many reasons. Even if they appear physically "healthy" (and note, a poor diet definitely leads to more and very serious birth defects!), mentally and emotionally, they are likely not.
This becomes very critical. Its not just that foisting a child on someone not willing to have them is cruel, a child born to a woman who truly does not want that child is far, far less likely to be fully healthy.
Now, are there women who change their minds and wind up with "happy families". Of course! But, the key there is "choose". You have every right to talk to, to discuss these issues,
as long as you do so honestly and with full, true information. No one has the right to demand someone else either have an abortion or not have an abortion.
tzor wrote:
The growing “Homo sapiens” is not, as many would like to think otherwise, merely a “blob of cells.” Cell differentiation happens quickly and some of those cells are nerve cells. Whether the fetus has the awareness and the sentience of an adult is a moot question. If you are more concerned about the pain of an animal and less concerned about the pain of the pre-born human, you are clearly suffering from cognitive dissonance. Pain is pain.
Huh?
You go from claiming that distinguishing between adult awareness and initial stages of conception to saying that if you are more concerned about animals than people you are wrong?
First of all, I am not a vegetarian. I do definitely think killing animals for a reason is OK. I also believe, as is in the Bible, that the method of slaughter should be pain-free, at least where possible. And, despite claims of PETA to the contrary, that is the standard of modern agriculture, not just my personal opinion.
When it comes to human beings, you seem to claim that because there are nerve cells initially, that means that pain is experienced early on. This is just not a factually based position. It might be your religious belief, but it is not what science shows. Sorry, but no, and claiming otherwise is not honest.
tzor wrote: One who is alive but incapable of feeling pain is another example where the black and white argument breaks down into an odd shade of gray.
Exactly, and this is why the time at which an abortion can be had more or less "at will" is during the first trimester, because it is well before this happens. (yes, that is scientifically proven!)
tzor wrote:Lines in the real world are a lot harder to draw than the simple lines of science. If one were to err, it would be best to err on the side of life, because at present we cannot raise the dead back to life.
Maybe. The other argument, particularly with the very young, is that the unborn who die go to God and those who live have potential to go away from God. In fact, in many religions/cultures, saving someone's life bears more responsibility than letting someone die. This is important because we are a nation of many beliefs. If you will talk about rights, the most fundamental is to allow open and free religious freedom, matters of conscience. Claiming that because you believe abortion is always murder (and not saying that is your personal belief, saying that this is the idea of many anti-abortionists), that gives you the right to decide that for others who hold very different true and honest beliefs, is to deny that most fundamental right. And note.. the main reason we have such freedoms is to preserve the rights of the most religious, not the least religious.
Or, to put it another way. If you, based on your religious rights, have the right to deny an abortion to women who want one, then what is to say that someone who honestly believes it is best to limit population (as in China) or to let only their idea of "perfect children" live doesn't have the right to force a woman to have an abortion. After all, they are paying taxes that will support those children!
tzor wrote:Thus I would be in favor of reasonable restrictions on procedures that end the life of anyone not yet born. These restrictions would be based in part on both the conditions of the woman and the not yet born child. (This also includes the circumstance of continuing a pregnancy that cannot complete to term; for example a fallopian tube pregnancy which seriously impacts the life of the woman, or an already dead fetus – including brain dead – within the womb.) It is not and can never be a simple black or white solution.
I would agree with those.
Note, that I am not actually trying to convince you to change your position or to say you don't have the right to those ideas (except when based on erroneous information). I am trying to understand your position, and to debate it. Debate, but with the understanding that you have every right to your position, but that maybe we can each learn from understanding one another more fully.
tzor wrote: Abortion is not, however, a non invasive procedure, and given the fact that she has already suffered enough physical trauma the notion of having a doctor do even more in order to open the cervix doesn't seem like a good idea for the woman.
I pulled this out because it is pretty fundamental, and the type of comments that engendered my initial posts.
Are you seriously suggesting that you have a better idea of what is right for these women than they themselves do? How do you claim either the knowledge or right?
