GeorgeW Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Any biology textbook will tell you that the conceptus is a distinct life form with its own DNA. From that point onward, all that changes is his size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, none of which has any bearing on his value as a human being. No biology textbook tells us when this fertilized egg acquires a soul or person-hood. This is the issue and it is a theological or philosophical question. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted October 27, 2012 Author Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) I think it is not fruitful to look for rules about the universe or humanity or proofs regarding God or the nature of God in the Bible. The Bible points us to the questions that humans have been talking about for millenia. I believe there is a positive arc toward respect for the life and dignity of all in the universe, but today's answers are to be discovered in a conversation not in quoting Scripture. Dutch I've asked pro-life Christians before why they think it's acceptable for God to kill all the first born infants of Egypt but it's unacceptable for a woman to abort a fetus and the only justification they gave was that because God said so. So apparently the issue seems to be less with whether a fetus is a baby or not but whether God approves of the killing of a baby or not. Edited October 27, 2012 by Neon Genesis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJ Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 No biology textbook tells us when this fertilized egg acquires a soul or person-hood. This is the issue and it is a theological or philosophical question. George Please explain to me what the property of "personhood" is, and why the nascent human life would not already qualify. Why is personhood a property someone must acquire rather than something inherent in being human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted October 30, 2012 Author Share Posted October 30, 2012 The problem comes with determining what is a "life." To use an analogy, let's say the Mars Rover discovered the existence of alien bacterial life on the planet Mars. Everyone would recognize it as a "life" in the broadest sense of the word and it would be the major scientific discovery of the century but at the same time we would all recognize that an alien bacterial "life" would not be as important as say, discovering alien fish under the ice sheets of Europa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The problem comes with determining what is a "life." In this context, I think we mean a life that should be protected by law. Clearly roaches have life as do grass and weeds, but they have no legal (or moral) protection. In fact, I think it could be argued that an adult roach has more attributes of "life" than a just fertilized egg. The roach is fully and independently functional. The just fertilized egg has only the potential for life in terms of biological functionality of its species. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJ Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 In fact, I think it could be argued that an adult roach has more attributes of "life" than a just fertilized egg. The roach is fully and independently functional. The just fertilized egg has only the potential for life in terms of biological functionality of its species. I see. So using the criterion of "biological functionality of its species," what's the difference between the fertilized egg and a newborn? The newborn just lays there and cries. It's not "fully and independently functional" like the roach. It only has the "potential for life," no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) DCJ, So, there is no functional difference between fertilized human egg and a newborn? Hmm. It doesn't matter that the newborn can breath on its own? It has its own heart? It has its own brain? it has its own organs? Granted it can't drive a car, hold a steady job, or express an opinion on abortion. But, I think there is a huge difference between the two. One is a sentient, feeling independent being. The other a glob cells with the potential of becoming a newborn and completely dependent on the mother to realize that potential. As I have said, I don't object to your point of view. I am not trying to argue that my view is 'right.' Both views are subjective and personal. What I do object to are those who insist on imposing their point of view on everyone else given there is no objective means of establishing when protected life begins or consensus in our society. George Edited November 2, 2012 by GeorgeW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJ Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 What I do object to are those who insist on imposing their point of view on everyone else given there is no objective means of establishing when protected life begins or consensus in our society. All law is the imposition of a moral viewpoint. The current status quo is that children do not deserve protection until they move a few inches down the birth canal -- that's a moral point of view. And you're assuming that there's "no objective means of establishing when protected life begins," using your definition of "protected life." I've given fairly uncontroversial premeses: human life is worthy of protection, and pre-born human life is human. What follows is that pre-born human life is worthy of protection. It's no more a "glob of cells" than you or I are -- all are globs of cells with our own DNA. You mentioned the newborn's heart and brain as distinguishing characteristics. The heart is beating and the brain is developing by 7 weeks, before many women know they're pregnant. Is that life worthy of protection? It seems to me counter-intuitive to go with the logic that since we don't know when "protected life" begins, it's O.K. to kill it. Wouldn't it make more sense to err on the side of caution? If I'm out driving, and I don't know whether that pile in the road is some clothes or a child, am I going to just run over it because I'm not sure? Of course not, and we should use the same logic in the abortion case. But here we're even more culpable, because we know exactly what we're terminating: a human life in the early stages of development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halinsalem Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 During the late 1960s and early 1970s, I spent several years as part of the administration of Hillcrest School, which was at that time Oregon’s “reform” school for delinquent teen-age girls. From time to time, altogether too often, a court-committed teen-ager would be pregnant and a decision would have to be made about how to deal with the situation. The pregnant girls were all the way from calm to frantic about being with child. The calm ones were generally reasonable, but the frantic ones were difficult to deal with, they just wanted to get rid of the fetus, any way and soon. IMHO For these persons it is much better to take care of the situation in a clean, sanitary, operating room with a qualified physician in charge than to have to deal with the results of an amateurish attempt and end up taking the youth to the Emergency Room or morgue. In a majority of cases the end result was full term and adoption but individuals are different and one solution could not be applied to every case. The Catholic and conservative belief that life begins at conception is “BELIEF”, not necessarily a scientific fact. Up until a few years ago, the prevailing belief was that the fetus acquired a ‘soul’, i.e. became a person, in the third or fourth month of gestation. At some point in time the Republicans picked up on the abortion issue because it is an easy issue to use politically. Being against abortion does not require money, time, or effort; a person just has to be righteous, nothing else is required. The issue also is a political benefit for the spinners because they can use terms like MURDER in the sound bites. The attacks on Planned Parenthood are completely wicked propaganda, satisfying someone’s ignorant, negative judgment, or, fulfilling a political objective without regard to right, wrong, damage, or injury to innocent parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 (edited) All law is the imposition of a moral viewpoint. The current status quo is that children do not deserve protection until they move a few inches down the birth canal -- that's a moral point of view. And you're assuming that there's "no objective means of establishing when protected life begins," using your definition of "protected life." I've given fairly uncontroversial premeses: human life is worthy of protection, and pre-born human life is human. What follows is that pre-born human life is worthy of protection. It's no more a "glob of cells" than you or I are -- all are globs of cells with our own DNA. You mentioned the newborn's heart and brain as distinguishing characteristics. The heart is beating and the brain is developing by 7 weeks, before many women know they're pregnant. Is that life worthy of protection? It seems to me counter-intuitive to go with the logic that since we don't know when "protected life" begins, it's O.K. to kill it. Wouldn't it make more sense to err on the side of caution? If I'm out driving, and I don't know whether that pile in the road is some clothes or a child, am I going to just run over it because I'm not sure? Of course not, and we should use the same logic in the abortion case. But here we're even more culpable, because we know exactly what we're terminating: a human life in the early stages of development. I think there are some distinguishing points between a fetus and a human being. For one, a fetus doesn't feel pain until after 28 weeks (because the neccessary nerve pathways haven't been formed yet) and from that it is argued that a fetus's brain doesn't function coherently enough to be conscious. Nonetheless, even to recognise it as a human life brings into questions as to what is more worthy - protection of the fetus, or in some cases protection of the mother, or in other cases even protection of the fetus from the conditions it's likely to be born into (not wanted, unable to support it financially, unstable or non-existnent relationship, etc). Not an easy decision to make by any stretch, hence the ongoing debate. That's why I for one am prepared to legally leave the decision to the mother. I will support her in her decision to terminate, as I will support her in her decision to have the child. That doesn't mean she's on her own in the decision-making process, but I do think the final decision rests with her. Edited November 10, 2012 by PaulS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 (edited) And you're assuming that there's "no objective means of establishing when protected life begins," using your definition of "protected life." I've given fairly uncontroversial premeses: human life is worthy of protection, and pre-born human life is human. Dennis, with all due respect, that is just a subjective assertion of a point-of-view, it is not an objective statement of truth. It is fine, but it is not, IMO, sufficient to impose on all of human kind. Yes, "All law is the imposition of a moral viewpoint" (or at least many laws are). But, these depend on some demonstrable good or preventable harm and the consensus of the society. The question of when protected life begins, in our society, has no consensus. Most of us agree that birth, while not necessarily the exact point, would a point at which the fetus/child should be legally protected. Any earlier point begins erode the consensus. And, moving to conception has, I think, only minority support. George Edited November 10, 2012 by GeorgeW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJ Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Yes, "All law is the imposition of a moral viewpoint" (or at least many laws are). But, these depend on some demonstrable good or preventable harm and the consensus of the society. The question of when protected life begins, in our society, has no consensus. Most of us agree that birth, while not necessarily the exact point, would a point at which the fetus/child should be legally protected. Any earlier point begins erode the consensus. Agreed. I would say the "demonstrable good" is the preservation of life, the first right recognized in the Declaration. And I'm not only talking about making law, but also building consensus, because the two go together. You think we should drop laws trying to impose same-sex marriage? There's certainly no consensus on that. In the process of making law, issues are discussed, and arguments pro and con are presented. As I've said, children are only protected when they move a few inches down the birth canal. Does this make sense? Not to me, because prematurely-born babies are protected, but a baby the same age still in the womb is not. Nothing is different about their humanity, only their location. Why should one be protected and one not because of an accident of geography? Any of the usual arguments ("it would be a burden," "it's unwanted," "it would be in a bad situation," ...) could equally apply to a newborn or infant, but no one seriously considers those questions at that stage. That's all I'm saying. These issues need to be thought through carefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted November 15, 2012 Author Share Posted November 15, 2012 I still want to know where in the bible it says when a soul enters a fetus. And please no quoting the Psalms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) As I've said, children are only protected when they move a few inches down the birth canal. Does this make sense? Not to me, because prematurely-born babies are protected, but a baby the same age still in the womb is not. Dennis, You might be interested to know that the youngest premature baby in the world (to survive, with full medical help) was born at 21 weeks and 5 days. As I understand legal abortion, most states and countries only allow abortion approaching this age when there is danger to the mother. Other than that, abortions are carried out normally well and truly before anywhere approaching 21 weeks. So I don't see the correlation you refer to. Some information about prem babies: Doctors have been able to improve dramatically the survival hopes for babies born as early as 22 or 23 weeks. However, very premature babies face a huge battle at the start of life. They are at risk of serious conditions including: * Hypothermia, due to lower levels of fat * Low blood glucose, which can lead to brain damage * Respiratory distress syndrome - which can cause blindness * Brain haemorrhage Long-term they may have cerebral palsy and have sight and hearing problems. They are also more likely to have motor impairments and co-ordination and concentration problems. Edited November 15, 2012 by PaulS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I think it is to be expected that pro-life Christians think the bible condemns abortion. They believe that a human person begins at conception and that abortion is intentionally killing a human person. The bible says "thou shalt not kill". In other words their argument is based on the definition of a person. The counter argument would be to prove that a conception does not make a single cell zygote a person. That should be simple for reasonable people, but when does that zygote, embryo or fetus become a person? That is the issue we should address. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Well good luck, Harry! I think addressing when a fetus becomes a person is the easy bit, reaching agreement with fundamental christian pro-lifers is proving a lot more difficult. I don't know how one can counter-arue the point (to the proposee's satisfaction) that a fetus has a soul the moment it is conceived. Science is yet to discover the soul, although it can prove that a fetus' brain is not conscious or near developed until 20+ weeks after conception. Neorology: Just as death is usually defined by the cessation of brain activity, so the start of life can be defined as the start of a recognisable Electroencephalography (EEG) pattern from the fetus. This is usually twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception. The point of using neurological factors rather than other signs such as a heartbeat is that this is a much more useful indicator from the point of view of science. A heart beats using mostly involuntary muscle movements so is really little different from any other spontaneous motion or metabolic processes. A heartbeat means relatively little in real terms, although it is more dramatic from an emotive point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 The bible says "thou shalt not kill". Actually, the English translation "kill" of the Hebrew word in this commandment is, IMO, a bad translation. I think 'murder' is a more appropriate translation. The OT does not ban killing generally. The Israelites, like almost every society, banned only specific acts of killing. And, and has been pointed out previously in this thread, the Bible does not ban abortion. In fact, it suggests that the fetus is property of the parents. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Good point George and also PaulS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murmsk Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I have several problems with this discussion. Pulling bible individual verses to support or not support an issue assumes an inerrant bible. I also seriously doubt that the concept of abortion was even on the map and even if it was I would suspect the resistance would come from medical risk to the mother rather than any moralistic statement especially considering how the Jews of that era felt about women that bleed. I have been present in the OR during late term abortions and early term births and I see very little difference between the two other than how the fetus is treated after removal from the woman's body. If you see a life as sacred it is hard not to be moved by this. When I was younger and was not ready to be a father I was very pro-choice.......now I am not sure. Early term the situation gets much grayer. If I put myself in the place of a fetus.... would I want to be born to someone who didn't want me .... Or would I rather not be born? I think I would choose the latter and save or recycle my sole for another time. I tend to look at the overarching bible stories to try and gain a sense of where God might stand and I suspect he would side on the side of grace. That said ... I still can't don't have a firm enough grasp to enforce my opinions on others. steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murmsk Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I don't think you can look to biology for answers The word "life" has several meanings. The truth is parts of the human body will "live" for quite awhile after what we term death occurs. Brain activity is often used as a marker for live when reality is it more a marker for viability. When an organism loses brain activity the chance viability of the greater organism is essentially zero at this point in our current understanding of medicine. There was a time when heart activity was a marker. My point is .....trying to find a biological marker of life or viability that can be agreed on so the discussion can move on just isn't going to happen. The question is simply this, Does society have the right to decide things like this? If the answer is NO then we as individuals have the obligation to search our heart for an answer on how we will live our life. If the answer is YES the we as society members have to search our heart for our vote and accept the will of others as well as the fact that these are seldom decisions for all time which means the discussion will continue. steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 The question is simply this, Does society have the right to decide things like this? If the answer is NO then we as individuals have the obligation to search our heart for an answer on how we will live our life. If the answer is YES the we as society members have to search our heart for our vote and accept the will of others as well as the fact that these are seldom decisions for all time which means the discussion will continue. steve I think more than just a right to decide, society in fact has a responsibility to decide, particularly when it is stopping people from proceeding with their choice to have an abortion. However, IMO, pro-life proponents have already decided they have the right to decide and furthermore they have decided to stand against abortion. In the other corner, pro-choice supporters believe they have a right to decide and that the right decision is to allow abortion by choice. Like the argument around when or when isn't a fetus a human, I very much doubt there will be agreement all round concerning the question of a right to make such decisions as you propose, Steve....as much as I wish there could be. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I think more than just a right to decide, society in fact has a responsibility to decide, particularly when it is stopping people from proceeding with their choice to have an abortion. But what about when there is no consensus in the society? Does one side get to impose their will on everyone else? If one is pro-life, no one is suggesting they must, by law, terminate their own pregnancy. They are free to give birth no matter the risk to the mother or their inability to care for the child. The issue is not one of preventing a person from exercising their personal values, but someone imposing their values on those who have different values. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I guess to a degree they do, in a democracy, George. I think society has a right to set what it considers the norms. Of course, people also have a right to oppose and argue against the norms which seems to me the way most major reforms seem to happen. I'm not sure what an alternative may be if the majority of a society doesn't want something. Civil revolt? That doesn't mean we have to stop trying to convince others that their arguments against abortion should be reviewed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 That doesn't mean we have to stop trying to convince others that their arguments against abortion should be reviewed. The problem is this a value issue in which there is no empirical evidence to assert (although we try). But yes, we should discuss it and, I think, respect differences of opinion. I personally have no objection to someone believing that life begins at conception. I would ask that they give those with differing views equal respect. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 P.S. I think, to a certain degree, the pro-life (i.e. conception) view has the benefit of clarity. Later points, such as viability, are fuzzier and potentially changing with medical science. A conservative worldview in general, I think, prefers moral clarity over ambiguity and instability. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.