Abortion

[Mycroft]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Marisa]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[columbus]

That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.

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

Mr Tyson's observation is irrelevant to the issue.

It's the knowledge and control that makes artificial abortion an issue. Lots of people die as children, that doesn't mean you can kill them if you change your mind about parenthood.
My opinion has nothing to do with religion and just what is best for the human family. Why religious people who believe that abortion sends the babies soul straight to Heaven, but still oppose abortion, is beyond me.

Tom

 

[Skwim]

Mr Tyson's observation is irrelevant to the issue.

No it isn't because in his remark he posits god as the provocateur of these abortions.

It's the knowledge and control that makes artificial abortion an issue. Lots of people die as children, that doesn't mean you can kill them if you change your mind about parenthood.

This would only have relevance if god is behind the deaths of children. Is he? If he isn't then your analogy doesn't work. Think of another.

 

[columbus]

[QUOTE='skwim post: 4254713, member: 23688"]No it isn't because in his remark he posits god as the provocateur of these abortions.[/QUOTE]
I was responding to Quatermass, and his assertion that Tyson's observation is relevant to the discussion of artificial abortion.
Tom

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hinduism has nothing on abortion (it was not practiced in history or mythology). We are governed by our present law and it is quite nice.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act of India clearly states the conditions under which a pregnancy can be ended or aborted, the persons who are qualified to conduct the abortion and the place of implementation. Some of these qualifications are as follows:

• Women whose physical and/or mental health were endangered by the pregnancy,
• Women facing the birth of a potentially handicapped or malformed child,
• Rape,
• Pregnancies in unmarried girls under the age of eighteen with the consent of a guardian,
• Pregnancies in "lunatics" with the consent of a guardian,
• Pregnancies that are a result of failure in sterilization.

 

[JRMcC]

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

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

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

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

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

Tough issue. I agree that Tyson's comment is lame. I was brought up anti-abortion, but we weren't really a religious family. It's actually my Mom who is radically anti-abortion, but I don't think she believes life begins at conception.

Anyway I think respecting and valuing life is the way to go, but there's a problem when there's too much life. Death is part of nature, and overpopulation is a potential problem that would lead to "evil."

I put evil in quotation marks because its problems like these that make it obvious that morality is arbitrary in a sense. I guess I just think that people should avoid pregnancy as much as possible, but if you've been pregnant a while I think letting life live would be the right thing.

 

[columbus]

Hinduism has nothing on abortion (it was not practiced in history or mythology). We are governed by our present law and it is quite nice.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act of India clearly states the conditions under which a pregnancy can be ended or aborted, the persons who are qualified to conduct the abortion and the place of implementation. Some of these qualifications are as follows:

• Women whose physical and/or mental health were endangered by the pregnancy,
• Women facing the birth of a potentially handicapped or malformed child,
• Rape,
• Pregnancies in unmarried girls under the age of eighteen with the consent of a guardian,
• Pregnancies in "lunatics" with the consent of a guardian,
• Pregnancies that are a result of failure in sterilization.

Those seem quite reasonable to me.
Tom

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thanks, Tom.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but I don't think she believes life begins at conception.

If there is no life at conception, how does the fetus develop?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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

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

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

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

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

That comment is so stupid that Tyson should be ashamed. I don't recall it being taught in Christianity that God micromanages every aspect of your life and your body. Miscarriages are tragic occurrences that are as random as other biological mishaps. But abortion is a willed action to take a life. That's the difference - will, intention and action.

I'd also like to know where he got his statistics from. They seem ridiculously inflated.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hinduism has nothing on abortion (it was not practiced in history or mythology).

BBC - Religions - Hinduism: Abortion

 

[Monk Of Reason]

BBC - Religions - Hinduism: Abortion

There are no specific doctrine in Hinduism on abortion. There are theological opinion and standpoints depending on who you ask. However this is no clear cut rule in Hinduism based in it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There are no specific doctrine in Hinduism on abortion. There are theological opinion and standpoints depending on who you ask. However this is no clear cut rule in Hinduism based in it.

I'm just sharing what seems to be the predominant view in Hinduism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm just sharing what seems to be the predominant view in Hinduism.

Even within the "predominant view" in Hinduism is shrouded in opinion. Such as selecting "what does least harm". To some it may mean destroying them financially so it would do less harm to have an abortion. Or to some it may mean only when the life of the mother is in danger. And then there are extensions to this for the male preference for heirs in gendercide. It seems rather up in the air to me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Even within the "predominant view" in Hinduism is shrouded in opinion. Such as selecting "what does least harm". To some it may mean destroying them financially so it would do less harm to have an abortion. Or to some it may mean only when the life of the mother is in danger. And then there are extensions to this for the male preference for heirs in gendercide. It seems rather up in the air to me.

Well, I would like to see Aup's reply to it.

 

[JoStories]

If there is no life at conception, how does the fetus develop?

The law states there has to be breath. Fetal tissue does not breathe. There is rudimentary life but it cannot be sustained outside the uterus. Iow, it is symbiotic or, to couch it in lay man's terms, parasitic. That is not independent life. It requires another to live. After birth, legally and biologically, then it is independent life.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The law states there has to be breath. Fetal tissue does not breathe. There is rudimentary life but it cannot be sustained outside the uterus. Iow, it is symbiotic or, to couch it in lay man's terms, parasitic. That is not independent life. It requires another to live. After birth, legally and biologically, then it is independent life.

So you're cool with late-term abortion?

 

[JRMcC]

If there is no life at conception, how does the fetus develop?

Exactly... I guess life begins at conception but Life is something that comes gradually and changes over time.

Wait, is a sperm cell alive?

Seems like humankind doesn't have enough biological or moral understanding to deal with questions like this.

 

[JRMcC]

The law states there has to be breath

Arbitrary and stupid.