About the Abortion Controversy

[PureX]

I am of two minds about the legalization of abortion, mostly because I see that there is a strong logical argument that can be posed in favor of each side of the issue. And by a strong logical argument, I don't mean any arguments that have to do with conjectures like, "God says", or "God wants", or "God demands". I mean arguments that are based on the facts that we have at this time, and on our relating them to each other in such a way as to arrive at a reasonable resolution. But in looking at the issue from this kind of logical, factual perspective, I begin to notice something that I find disconcerting. And I will attempt to explain.

But first, let me lay out the real fundamental problem that we are encountering when we try to resolve the issue of legalizing abortion. And that problem is that the resolution depends upon when a human being becomes a human being, and is thereby afforded the right to life that should be afforded to all human beings, as human beings. We do not know or agree on exactly what constitutes a "human being", and so we don't know or agree on how to determine when that has occurred in the course of development. What IS a 'human being', and when does it 'happen' in the course of human gestation?

We do not know.

On the side of keeping abortion illegal, the logical argument as I see it, then, is this: because we don't know when a human being becomes a human being, we do not have the right (as we do not have the requisite knowledge) to impose that determination on the developmental process. We simply do not possess the ability to pass judgments involving the essence of humanity that are accurate enough to avoid the possible execution of a fellow human being. And we thereby do not have the right to engage in such a risky activity.

To me, this is a very sound, logical argument, against the legalization of abortion.

On the other side of the issue, in favor of legalizing abortion, we start from the same difficult premise: that we do not know when or by what measure a human being is or becomes a human being. But instead of arguing from our ignorance, we can argue in this case from what we do know. And that is that a sperm is not a human being, and neither is an egg. Such that it is not logical to presume that a newly fertilized egg is suddenly an instantaneously a 'human being'. We can logically surmise that the conditions and characteristics required to manifest as what we would recognize as a human being do not and will not manifest immediately. So there is SOME time between the fertilization of the egg and the manifestation of a human being that we could rightfully allow that the process of development be stopped, before the human being occurs.

The question then, of course, is up to what point in the development can we safely presume that we are not destroying a human being, but rather only a collection of cells and DNA that have not yet become a human being. And although that is a difficult milestone to determine, It's not impossible to do so with reasonable assurance that we have not 'overstepped' it.

Both of these arguments are logical, reasonable, and valid. Which is why I remain somewhat on the fence about the issue. But something troubling then occurs to me. And here it is.

Whenever I'm discussing this subject with folks who are against the legalization of abortion, they almost NEVER posit the single most logical argument against the legalization of abortion that I can think of (as stated above). And I wonder, why is that? Because it's the one argument that could sway me to agree with their conclusion. And probably not just me, but others as well.

Instead, they all seem to want to insist that a human life begins with the conjoining of a sperm cell and embryo 'egg' cell. Which only serves to weaken their argument significantly. As almost no one thinks a second before inception, that either of those cells was a 'human being'. Nor do most people think that the suddenly conjoined DNA within one 'egg' cell is a 'human being', yet, either. It is merely the biological 'blueprint' for a human being that will then require a period of development to become one.

So why this obsession with the sexual act as the source of what makes us a human being? It just seems weird, and a bit 'creepy'.

Also, I have noticed a tendency among those that want to keep abortion illegal to be persistently dishonest and demeaning in their characterizations of those who feel that limited access to abortion should be allowed. They insist on implying that people who favor the option of abortion in the early stages of development are "baby killers", and are "in favor of abortion" rather than their being in favor of the woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body. And no matter how many times it is explained to them these are inaccurate and disingenuous terms and characterizations, and that they are offensive, it never seems to stop. There is a kind of weird hyper self-righteousness that seems to infect the folks that want to keep abortion illegal that has little to do with the solid, logical argument they could be presenting, and has everything to do with their wanting to inflate their own sense of righteousness by deliberately misrepresenting and slandering their opposition. And this, too, causes me to become far more skeptical of their motive, and their agenda, than I would be had they just stuck to the facts and logic of their own argument.

And lastly, even as I currently stand in favor of the woman's right to choose (in the early stages of fetal development) I would never assert that an abortion is a good or desirable outcome for any pregnancy no matter how it was brought about or where it would end up. Abortion is not a desirable goal. Period. Even though it may sometimes have to be the sad result. And with that understanding, I think as a society we should be doing much, much more to help women find acceptable and reasonable alternatives to choosing an abortion. And even more-so, to help young men and women understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Also, how to avoid and diffuse those predicaments that are prone to result is an unwanted pregnancy. We need to talk about it, and educate people. The best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnancy. But that isn't going to happen by magic and ignorance.

And yet I am seeing almost none of this from the people that I would have thought would be the most interested in avoiding unwanted pregnancies. Instead, all I ever see from them is condemnation, and a cry for force. Instead of encouraging and helping a young woman to choose not to abort, all they ever seem to want to do is accuse the 'hussy' of loose morals and punish her by forcing her to deal with the pregnancy full term. There is an aspect of forced control and mean-spiritedness to it that I find distinctly distasteful and far more about the self-righteousness of the judges than any concern for the woman or the "baby".

All in all I see people that want to keep abortion illegal routinely squandering the strength of their own argument by succumbing to a lot of selfish moral nonsense that only serves to sabotage their own cause. Something I do not see much of on the other side of the issue. And this does effect why and where I stand in the debate.

 

[sun rise]

I think as a society we should be doing much, much more to help women find acceptable and reasonable alternatives to choosing an abortion. And even more-so, to help young men and women understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Amen.

It's too bad that more don't think this way.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I am of two minds about the legalization of abortion, mostly because I see that there is a strong logical argument that can be posed in favor of each side of the issue. And by a strong logical argument, I don't mean any arguments that have to do with conjectures like, "God says", or "God wants", or "God demands". I mean arguments that are based on the facts that we have at this time, and on our relating them to each other in such a way as to arrive at a reasonable resolution. But in looking at the issue from this kind of logical, factual perspective, I begin to notice something that I find disconcerting. And I will attempt to explain.

But first, let me lay out the real fundamental problem that we are encountering when we try to resolve the issue of legalizing abortion. And that problem is that the resolution depends upon when a human being becomes a human being, and is thereby afforded the right to life that should be afforded to all human beings, as human beings. We do not know or agree on exactly what constitutes a "human being", and so we don't know or agree on how to determine when that has occurred in the course of development. What IS a 'human being', and when does it 'happen' in the course of human gestation?

We do not know.

On the side of keeping abortion illegal, the logical argument as I see it, then, is this: because we don't know when a human being becomes a human being, we do not have the right (as we do not have the requisite knowledge) to impose that determination on the developmental process. We simply do not possess the ability to pass judgments involving the essence of humanity that are accurate enough to avoid the possible execution of a fellow human being. And we thereby do not have the right to engage in such a risky activity.

To me, this is a very sound, logical argument, against the legalization of abortion.

On the other side of the issue, in favor of legalizing abortion, we start from the same difficult premise: that we do not know when or by what measure a human being is or becomes a human being. But instead of arguing from our ignorance, we can argue in this case from what we do know. And that is that a sperm is not a human being, and neither is an egg. Such that it is not logical to presume that a newly fertilized egg is suddenly an instantaneously a 'human being'. We can logically surmise that the conditions and characteristics required to manifest as what we would recognize as a human being do not and will not manifest immediately. So there is SOME time between the fertilization of the egg and the manifestation of a human being that we could rightfully allow that the process of development be stopped, before the human being occurs.

The question then, of course, is up to what point in the development can we safely presume that we are not destroying a human being, but rather only a collection of cells and DNA that have not yet become a human being. And although that is a difficult milestone to determine, It's not impossible to do so with reasonable assurance that we have not 'overstepped' it.

Both of these arguments are logical, reasonable, and valid. Which is why I remain somewhat on the fence about the issue. But something troubling then occurs to me. And here it is.

Whenever I'm discussing this subject with folks who are against the legalization of abortion, they almost NEVER posit the single most logical argument against the legalization of abortion that I can think of (as stated above). And I wonder, why is that? Because it's the one argument that could sway me to agree with their conclusion. And probably not just me, but others as well.

Instead, they all seem to want to insist that a human life begins with the conjoining of a sperm cell and embryo 'egg' cell. Which only serves to weaken their argument significantly. As almost no one thinks a second before inception, that either of those cells was a 'human being'. Nor do most people think that the suddenly conjoined DNA within one cell is a 'human being', yet, either. It is merely the biological 'blueprint' for a human being that will then require a long period of development.

So why this obsession with the sexual act as the source of what makes us a human being? It just seems weird, and a bit 'creepy'.

Also, I have noticed a tendency among those that want to keep abortion illegal to be persistently dishonest and demeaning in their characterizations of those who feel that limited access to abortion should be allowed. They insist on implying that people who favor the option of abortion in the early stages of development are "baby killers", and are "in favor of abortion" rather than their being in favor of the woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body. And no matter how many times it is explained to them these are inaccurate and disingenuous terms and characterizations, and that they are offensive, it never seems to stop. There is a kind of weird hyper self-righteousness that seems to infect the folks that want to keep abortion illegal that has little to do with the solid, logical argument they could be presenting, and has everything to do with their wanting to inflate their own sense of righteousness by deliberately misrepresenting and slandering their opposition. And this, too, causes me to become far more skeptical of their motive, and their agenda, than I would be had they just stuck to the facts and logic of their own argument.

And lastly, even as I currently stand in favor of the woman's right to choose (in the early stages of fetal development) I would never assert that an abortion is a good or desirable outcome for any pregnancy no matter how it was brought about or where it would end up. Abortion is not a desirable goal. Period. Even though it may sometimes have to be the sad result. And with that understanding, I think as a society we should be doing much, much more to help women find acceptable and reasonable alternatives to choosing an abortion. And even more-so, to help young men and women understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Also, how to avoid and diffuse those predicaments that are prone to result is an unwanted pregnancy. We need to talk about it, and educate people. The best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnancy. But that isn't going to happen by magic and ignorance.

And yet I am seeing almost none of this from the people that I would have thought would be the most interested in avoiding unwanted pregnancies. Instead, all I ever see from them is condemnation, and a cry for force. Instead of encouraging and helping a young woman to choose not to abort, all they ever seem to want to do is accuse the 'hussy' of loose morals and punish her by forcing her to deal with the pregnancy full term. There is an aspect of forced control and mean-spiritedness to it that I find distinctly distasteful and far more about the self-righteousness of the judges than any concern for the woman or the "baby".

All in all I see people that want to keep abortion illegal routinely squandering the strength of their own argument by succumbing to a lot of selfish moral nonsense that only serves to sabotage their own agenda. Something I do not see much of on the other side of the issue. And this does effect why and where I stand in the debate.

I’m sorry to be blunt but in context of abortion rights/(law), it’s wrong to start off where you did. Why? Because this topic is in fact about people’s right to their own bodies.

If you doubt me, tell me this: If nature were so that men were the ones to give birth instead, do you truthfully believe that their right to decide whether to do so or not would even be up for discussion - let alone, considered a choice to be made by the government and regulated by jurisdiction?

Truthfully now, please.

 

[stvdv]

So why this obsession with the sexual act as the source of what makes us a human being? It just seems weird, and a bit 'creepy'.

This type of obsession is ignorance and arrogance (when they impose it on others)

For me it is quite simple:

Vibration enters 4 month and 9 days after conception. Hence, before that, there is no issue whatsoever.

And most (90+%) happen far before that.

So, God's creation of new born human life is smart, and took that problem out of my mind.

Of course there are plenty of people who don't know, but still argue it's bad to have abortion before 4 month and 9 days AND impose it on others too. Well these people do NOT know and just make some noise. I don't take this serious. I stick to the facts

And after 4 month and 9 days, well I leave it to the other to decide for themselves. I need not worry about that either, as per my belief

 

[stvdv]

I’m sorry to be blunt but in context of abortion rights/(law), it’s wrong to start off where you did. Why? Because this topic is in fact about people’s right to their own bodies.

If you doubt me, tell me this: If nature were so that men were the ones to give birth instead, do you truthfully believe that their right to decide whether to do so or not would even be up for discussion - let alone, considered a choice to be made by the government and regulated by jurisdiction?

Truthfully now, please.

And people making so much fuss about killing "sperm cells", better should not waste them so much in the first place

All potential foetuses, right?

 

[Stevicus]

I also have somewhat mixed views on abortion, at least on a philosophical level, but in the end, as a legal and moral question, it's a private matter and a medical procedure. It's between the woman and her medical practitioner, presumably someone who can go over the options and risks. However, it's none of my business and not really the state's business.

But I also tend to look at the abortion debate from another angle. I think there are certain political elements on the conservative wing of the spectrum who probably use abortion as an issue to distract their rank and file and keep them hypnotized on an issue which, in practical terms, doesn't really affect them or their well-being at all. But by keeping this and similar issues churning in the right-wing narrative, they can still get their votes.

If you're a GOP con artist and you have a shady past, crooked business dealings, unsavory associates, you can still withstand the cynics and possibly achieve victory if you say you're against abortion to a constituency which is conditioned and primed to respond favorably to such a statement.

 

[osgart]

I agree that abortion is a horrible thing to have to go through but I'm pro choice because it's a woman's body, and not the government.

The development of the brain is where personhood begins. There are issues of rape, and incest, and inability to care for a future child, not to mention the medical dangers a woman can face because of pregnancy. The woman is the first priority here in all these issues and to deny her that autonomy is abusive.

I'm against mid and late term abortions, but for medical protection of the woman, rape, incest. The woman is always the first and utmost responsibility and priority.

If Republicans are so concerned about the unborn then they might as well do a thorough job of taking care of the child as well when it is born.

When people have sex it's totally their responsibility to know when she becomes pregnant. Anything less is irresponsible.

I really don't see any other way of it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I am of two minds about the legalization of abortion, mostly because I see that there is a strong logical argument that can be posed in favor of each side of the issue. And by a strong logical argument, I don't mean any arguments that have to do with conjectures like, "God says", or "God wants", or "God demands". I mean arguments that are based on the facts that we have at this time, and on our relating them to each other in such a way as to arrive at a reasonable resolution. But in looking at the issue from this kind of logical, factual perspective, I begin to notice something that I find disconcerting. And I will attempt to explain.

But first, let me lay out the real fundamental problem that we are encountering when we try to resolve the issue of legalizing abortion. And that problem is that the resolution depends upon when a human being becomes a human being, and is thereby afforded the right to life that should be afforded to all human beings, as human beings. We do not know or agree on exactly what constitutes a "human being", and so we don't know or agree on how to determine when that has occurred in the course of development. What IS a 'human being', and when does it 'happen' in the course of human gestation?

We do not know.

On the side of keeping abortion illegal, the logical argument as I see it, then, is this: because we don't know when a human being becomes a human being, we do not have the right (as we do not have the requisite knowledge) to impose that determination on the developmental process. We simply do not possess the ability to pass judgments involving the essence of humanity that are accurate enough to avoid the possible execution of a fellow human being. And we thereby do not have the right to engage in such a risky activity.

To me, this is a very sound, logical argument, against the legalization of abortion.

On the other side of the issue, in favor of legalizing abortion, we start from the same difficult premise: that we do not know when or by what measure a human being is or becomes a human being. But instead of arguing from our ignorance, we can argue in this case from what we do know. And that is that a sperm is not a human being, and neither is an egg. Such that it is not logical to presume that a newly fertilized egg is suddenly an instantaneously a 'human being'. We can logically surmise that the conditions and characteristics required to manifest as what we would recognize as a human being do not and will not manifest immediately. So there is SOME time between the fertilization of the egg and the manifestation of a human being that we could rightfully allow that the process of development be stopped, before the human being occurs.

The question then, of course, is up to what point in the development can we safely presume that we are not destroying a human being, but rather only a collection of cells and DNA that have not yet become a human being. And although that is a difficult milestone to determine, It's not impossible to do so with reasonable assurance that we have not 'overstepped' it.

Both of these arguments are logical, reasonable, and valid. Which is why I remain somewhat on the fence about the issue. But something troubling then occurs to me. And here it is.

Whenever I'm discussing this subject with folks who are against the legalization of abortion, they almost NEVER posit the single most logical argument against the legalization of abortion that I can think of (as stated above). And I wonder, why is that? Because it's the one argument that could sway me to agree with their conclusion. And probably not just me, but others as well.

Instead, they all seem to want to insist that a human life begins with the conjoining of a sperm cell and embryo 'egg' cell. Which only serves to weaken their argument significantly. As almost no one thinks a second before inception, that either of those cells was a 'human being'. Nor do most people think that the suddenly conjoined DNA within one 'egg' cell is a 'human being', yet, either. It is merely the biological 'blueprint' for a human being that will then require a period of development to become one.

So why this obsession with the sexual act as the source of what makes us a human being? It just seems weird, and a bit 'creepy'.

Also, I have noticed a tendency among those that want to keep abortion illegal to be persistently dishonest and demeaning in their characterizations of those who feel that limited access to abortion should be allowed. They insist on implying that people who favor the option of abortion in the early stages of development are "baby killers", and are "in favor of abortion" rather than their being in favor of the woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body. And no matter how many times it is explained to them these are inaccurate and disingenuous terms and characterizations, and that they are offensive, it never seems to stop. There is a kind of weird hyper self-righteousness that seems to infect the folks that want to keep abortion illegal that has little to do with the solid, logical argument they could be presenting, and has everything to do with their wanting to inflate their own sense of righteousness by deliberately misrepresenting and slandering their opposition. And this, too, causes me to become far more skeptical of their motive, and their agenda, than I would be had they just stuck to the facts and logic of their own argument.

And lastly, even as I currently stand in favor of the woman's right to choose (in the early stages of fetal development) I would never assert that an abortion is a good or desirable outcome for any pregnancy no matter how it was brought about or where it would end up. Abortion is not a desirable goal. Period. Even though it may sometimes have to be the sad result. And with that understanding, I think as a society we should be doing much, much more to help women find acceptable and reasonable alternatives to choosing an abortion. And even more-so, to help young men and women understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Also, how to avoid and diffuse those predicaments that are prone to result is an unwanted pregnancy. We need to talk about it, and educate people. The best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnancy. But that isn't going to happen by magic and ignorance.

And yet I am seeing almost none of this from the people that I would have thought would be the most interested in avoiding unwanted pregnancies. Instead, all I ever see from them is condemnation, and a cry for force. Instead of encouraging and helping a young woman to choose not to abort, all they ever seem to want to do is accuse the 'hussy' of loose morals and punish her by forcing her to deal with the pregnancy full term. There is an aspect of forced control and mean-spiritedness to it that I find distinctly distasteful and far more about the self-righteousness of the judges than any concern for the woman or the "baby".

All in all I see people that want to keep abortion illegal routinely squandering the strength of their own argument by succumbing to a lot of selfish moral nonsense that only serves to sabotage their own cause. Something I do not see much of on the other side of the issue. And this does effect why and where I stand in the debate.

This is about whether individual women should have the final say about their reproductive rights or if we should give the government the power to have the final say about a woman's reproductive rights. Why anyone thinks that the government is in a better position to make such decisions than the individual involved is completely beyond my comprehension.

Don't the people who advocate for giving this power over to the government realize that if the government can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will then the government could just as easily force a women to end a pregnancy against her will?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I’m sorry to be blunt but in context of abortion rights/(law), it’s wrong to start off where you did. Why? Because this topic is in fact about people’s right to their own bodies.

If you doubt me, tell me this: If nature were so that men were the ones to give birth instead, do you truthfully believe that their right to decide whether to do so or not would even be up for discussion - let alone, considered a choice to be made by the government and regulated by jurisdiction?

Truthfully now, please.

Of course. Why would that make a difference?

 

[Valjean]

Humanness occurs at conception, if not before. It's a genomic designation. A fertilized egg has the full genomic compliment of its species, therefore, its chicken, dog, human or tuna.

It's personhood, not species that confers moral consideration. Personhood has nothing to do with genetics. It involves a constellation of traits independent of species.

 

[Valjean]

I’m sorry to be blunt but in context of abortion rights/(law), it’s wrong to start off where you did. Why? Because this topic is in fact about people’s right to their own bodies.

If you doubt me, tell me this: If nature were so that men were the ones to give birth instead, do you truthfully believe that their right to decide whether to do so or not would even be up for discussion - let alone, considered a choice to be made by the government and regulated by jurisdiction?

Truthfully now, please.

Dominion over one's own body is one thing, but it could be argued that a fœtus is a genetically separate individual, temporarily parasitic on another.
Submit fœtal and maternal tissue for DNA or histology analysis and the lab would class them as separate organisms every time.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I’m sorry to be blunt but in context of abortion rights/(law), it’s wrong to start off where you did. Why? Because this topic is in fact about people’s right to their own bodies.

If you doubt me, tell me this: If nature were so that men were the ones to give birth instead, do you truthfully believe that their right to decide whether to do so or not would even be up for discussion - let alone, considered a choice to be made by the government and regulated by jurisdiction?

Truthfully now, please.

There are two moving parts to the debate. One part, a woman's right to her body is the only relevant issue at stake.

But the other angle by which one could approach the debate is to claim: "an infant is a person with rights." This is generally the chief concern of pro-lifers. But even some pro-choicers are interested in this part of the debate. What makes a fetus a person? If a fetus is a person, when (along the course of its development) does it attain "personhood"? Plenty of pro-choicers have given thought to the matter and made determinations.

For example, the fertilization of the egg cell cannot be a genuine marker for personhood mainly due to something called "cell potency." Post conception the fertilized egg divides into cells which are totipotent. This means that you could theoretically divide these cells into three groups and grow each one in a separate test tube. The result would be three different persons if you did this. So, according to this line of thinking, personhood absolutely cannot begin at fertilization.

I'm personally interested in both angles of the debate. Or, at the very least, I find OP's approach refreshing, because it's different from what we usually hear.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Humanness occurs at conception, if not before. It's a genomic designation. A fertilized egg has the full genomic compliment of its species, therefore, its chicken, dog, human or tuna.

It's personhood, not species that confers moral consideration. Personhood has nothing to do with genetics. It involves a constellation of traits independent of species.

I'm curious what your response to my cell potency argument above this post is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Humanness occurs at conception, if not before. It's a genomic designation. A fertilized egg has the full genomic compliment of its species, therefore, its chicken, dog, human or tuna.

It's personhood, not species that confers moral consideration. Personhood has nothing to do with genetics. It involves a constellation of traits independent of species.

On the other end hospitals will sometimes declare a person brain dead. At that time they can refuse to provide further care, even if family wishes them too. In the link is a sad story of a 13 year old girl that was declared brain dead after an operation went awry. The hospital was able to end her care:

Why brain death is considered death and why there should be no confusion

At the end of life without an active functioning brain the body is no longer a "person" even if it could be kept alive. The same should apply at the very least at the start of life too.

 

[Valjean]

I'm curious what your response to my cell potency argument above this post is.

I don't see where cell potency has any relevance to the issue. Personhood is an artifact of consciousness.

A little green man from a flying saucer would be considered a person, and accorded moral consideration, even though he was in no way human, and had no genetic relationship whatever to anything on our planet.

But he is conscious. He possesses self-interest, He is aware that he exists, is aware of the possibility of continuing to exist in the future. He cares weather he continues to exist. He is a person.

A fœtus has none of this. It has no self consciousness; no awareness of futurity, and, therefore, no self-interest. A fœtus may be genetically human, but it's not a person, and has none of the features that entitle it to special moral consideration.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Personhood is an artifact of consciousness.

Is it? It has been reported that people tend to lose consciousness for 6-8 hours every day. Do they not qualify as persons while this happens? Is it permissible for us to "do whatever we'd like" to a person while they are in this state?

 

[Estro Felino]

An egg cell is not a human being
So many egg cells die inevitably and get expelled through menstrual cycle.

So taking a pill that prevents ovulation, is not erasing a future life.
Because egg cells will die anyway.

Unfortunately, I need to say that abortion is erasing a new life.

 

[Valjean]

Is it? It has been reported that people tend to lose consciousness for 6-8 hours every day. Do they not qualify as persons while this happens? Is it permissible for us to "do whatever we'd like" to person while they are in this state?

LOL! -- Sure, Vulcan, we can nit-pick this sort of thing to death. I could argue that EKGs indicate sleepers are conscious and aware, but not of the material world we live in when awake. I could make a case that unconscious or demented persons have no right to moral consideration, but I think you see my point.

A fœtus is a potential, just like a sperm or ovum. It has no history of consciousnes, no self-interest, nor any history of anticipation of futurity.

 

[Heyo]

I am of two minds about the legalization of abortion, mostly because I see that there is a strong logical argument that can be posed in favor of each side of the issue. And by a strong logical argument, I don't mean any arguments that have to do with conjectures like, "God says", or "God wants", or "God demands". I mean arguments that are based on the facts that we have at this time, and on our relating them to each other in such a way as to arrive at a reasonable resolution. But in looking at the issue from this kind of logical, factual perspective, I begin to notice something that I find disconcerting. And I will attempt to explain.

But first, let me lay out the real fundamental problem that we are encountering when we try to resolve the issue of legalizing abortion. And that problem is that the resolution depends upon when a human being becomes a human being, and is thereby afforded the right to life that should be afforded to all human beings, as human beings. We do not know or agree on exactly what constitutes a "human being", and so we don't know or agree on how to determine when that has occurred in the course of development. What IS a 'human being', and when does it 'happen' in the course of human gestation?

We do not know.

On the side of keeping abortion illegal, the logical argument as I see it, then, is this: because we don't know when a human being becomes a human being, we do not have the right (as we do not have the requisite knowledge) to impose that determination on the developmental process. We simply do not possess the ability to pass judgments involving the essence of humanity that are accurate enough to avoid the possible execution of a fellow human being. And we thereby do not have the right to engage in such a risky activity.

To me, this is a very sound, logical argument, against the legalization of abortion.

On the other side of the issue, in favor of legalizing abortion, we start from the same difficult premise: that we do not know when or by what measure a human being is or becomes a human being. But instead of arguing from our ignorance, we can argue in this case from what we do know. And that is that a sperm is not a human being, and neither is an egg. Such that it is not logical to presume that a newly fertilized egg is suddenly an instantaneously a 'human being'. We can logically surmise that the conditions and characteristics required to manifest as what we would recognize as a human being do not and will not manifest immediately. So there is SOME time between the fertilization of the egg and the manifestation of a human being that we could rightfully allow that the process of development be stopped, before the human being occurs.

The question then, of course, is up to what point in the development can we safely presume that we are not destroying a human being, but rather only a collection of cells and DNA that have not yet become a human being. And although that is a difficult milestone to determine, It's not impossible to do so with reasonable assurance that we have not 'overstepped' it.

Both of these arguments are logical, reasonable, and valid. Which is why I remain somewhat on the fence about the issue. But something troubling then occurs to me. And here it is.

Whenever I'm discussing this subject with folks who are against the legalization of abortion, they almost NEVER posit the single most logical argument against the legalization of abortion that I can think of (as stated above). And I wonder, why is that? Because it's the one argument that could sway me to agree with their conclusion. And probably not just me, but others as well.

Instead, they all seem to want to insist that a human life begins with the conjoining of a sperm cell and embryo 'egg' cell. Which only serves to weaken their argument significantly. As almost no one thinks a second before inception, that either of those cells was a 'human being'. Nor do most people think that the suddenly conjoined DNA within one 'egg' cell is a 'human being', yet, either. It is merely the biological 'blueprint' for a human being that will then require a period of development to become one.

So why this obsession with the sexual act as the source of what makes us a human being? It just seems weird, and a bit 'creepy'.

Also, I have noticed a tendency among those that want to keep abortion illegal to be persistently dishonest and demeaning in their characterizations of those who feel that limited access to abortion should be allowed. They insist on implying that people who favor the option of abortion in the early stages of development are "baby killers", and are "in favor of abortion" rather than their being in favor of the woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body. And no matter how many times it is explained to them these are inaccurate and disingenuous terms and characterizations, and that they are offensive, it never seems to stop. There is a kind of weird hyper self-righteousness that seems to infect the folks that want to keep abortion illegal that has little to do with the solid, logical argument they could be presenting, and has everything to do with their wanting to inflate their own sense of righteousness by deliberately misrepresenting and slandering their opposition. And this, too, causes me to become far more skeptical of their motive, and their agenda, than I would be had they just stuck to the facts and logic of their own argument.

And lastly, even as I currently stand in favor of the woman's right to choose (in the early stages of fetal development) I would never assert that an abortion is a good or desirable outcome for any pregnancy no matter how it was brought about or where it would end up. Abortion is not a desirable goal. Period. Even though it may sometimes have to be the sad result. And with that understanding, I think as a society we should be doing much, much more to help women find acceptable and reasonable alternatives to choosing an abortion. And even more-so, to help young men and women understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Also, how to avoid and diffuse those predicaments that are prone to result is an unwanted pregnancy. We need to talk about it, and educate people. The best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnancy. But that isn't going to happen by magic and ignorance.

And yet I am seeing almost none of this from the people that I would have thought would be the most interested in avoiding unwanted pregnancies. Instead, all I ever see from them is condemnation, and a cry for force. Instead of encouraging and helping a young woman to choose not to abort, all they ever seem to want to do is accuse the 'hussy' of loose morals and punish her by forcing her to deal with the pregnancy full term. There is an aspect of forced control and mean-spiritedness to it that I find distinctly distasteful and far more about the self-righteousness of the judges than any concern for the woman or the "baby".

All in all I see people that want to keep abortion illegal routinely squandering the strength of their own argument by succumbing to a lot of selfish moral nonsense that only serves to sabotage their own cause. Something I do not see much of on the other side of the issue. And this does effect why and where I stand in the debate.

Finally, an OP about abortion that doesn't start off as a shouting match. (Let's see how long that holds.)
You have thought deeply about it as I see and I hope to help keep this discussion on that level.
I think it is useful to view the separate aspects that influence our decision separate before we combine our finding in a final verdict. When we mix them up, it might end up in us talking past each other. I see mainly 4 areas to consider:

1. Biology
2. Practicality
3. Morality
4. Justice

Biology
should tell us about the facts. Emotions should be kept out of this stage of fact finding. (Which is a problem for someone who doesn't have arguments and don't want to let it come to a rational discussion.) There are no arguments from biology, just facts.

Practicality
tells us about the economics of our options, societal and juristic obstacles, statistics, etc.
Arguments from practicality can be made. E.g. "Statistics tell us that in countries with easy access to abortion, there are fewer (and safer) abortions."

Morality
And here I come, much to late in the post, just like you, to the entities involved. Women are the main protagonists in the discussion but tend to get objectified in favour of the foetus. We have a conflict of interests here, a moral dilemma. (But only if liberty and human well-being are on the list of our moral pillars.) It helps to state these pillars clearly to see what we can derive from them.
E.g. If our moral goal is to increase human well-being and decrease human suffering while maintaining the most possible liberty, we can look at biology and see that a foetus up to 20 weeks old lacks the ability to suffer because there is no developed brain to register pain. That sets a reasonable time limit for abortion. That time limit is also practical as it allows for preparation and decision. It is still in conflict with the liberty of the woman to change her decision later but I think that is a compromise most can live with.

Justice
The point this is really about because we deal with a law that has to be made. The other tangents only inform this area. Here we see the conflict between liberty and life again. Here we have to decide how much the state is allowed to curtail the citizens liberty. We have to decide what kind of entity a foetus is and whether it should have rights. And like in the moral question our decisions should rest on first principles (Constitution) and precedent.

I hope this helps to keep a clear mind about what we are talking about.

(This is long enough so suffice to say that this was only about elective abortion. Abortion for medical reasons is another can of worms.)

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Of course. Why would that make a difference?

If you truly believe that would be the case, all I can say is that we believe differently and that I’d love to truly believe as you do - I don’t though.


Humbly
Hermit