Abortion - what's really being debated?

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Ah, found it.

Before I begin, these are very basic and brief guidelines. I remember that this class took about a month to go through. Hence, I ask of other Christians here that if you see that I left something out or if something doesn't make sense, please let me know.

Now then, you obviously know what the body is: the physical part of you that everyone uses to hear, see, taste, etc., and basically it interacts with the outside world.

The soul/mind is what controlls your brain: it's where you have your memories, logic, emotions, intellect, personality, and will, and it's where all the information from the senses is processed. The mind very much connects your body to your spirit.

The spirit may be a bit difficult for humanists, atheists, and agnostics in general to understand. The spirit is the REAL you, the part of you that is in direct connection to the spiritual world (and if you're born again, to God), it is your conscience. It is that which makes you self-aware, and that which makes the ultimate decision between right and wrong. It is the place of "intuition", as others call it, where you simply "know" or "perceive" things without physical input. It is also the part of you that communicates directly with God (if you're born again)
Concerning intuition, have you ever "known" something was wrong (or right) somewhere with you, your possessions, or your family, without having heard or seen anything? That is your spirit perceiving an event around you.

The mind can look at, say, one man killing another, and can process the information and store it in memory, but it is the spirit that ultimately labels the act as right or wrong. Killing Adolf Hitler would be labeled "right" by most people (unless you're a Neo-Nazi, by which you're given deceitful information and you would then try to justify's Hitler's actions). Killing a 2-year-old girl while she's sleeping would be labeled "wrong" (I hope) by a lot of people as well, even though they may not have any info about the girl (though from that example, some would try to justify the killing if the girl had incurable cancer and was in extreme pain, or, as it was 150 years ago, if the girl was black, your slave, and you didn't want to carry that expense on your farm).

Note how the three, while having separate functions, work interchangeably as one entity.

The spirit is formed at the moment of conception, while the body develops for 9 months and then continues maturing for the next 20 years, and the mind begins its functions once the brain is formed.


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i. "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

[TMLutas]

The way I see it, until there's some brain development in the fetus, destroying it isn't more unethical than, say, destroying a sperm cell. As such, I think abortion in the first semester should depend on nothing but the woman's choice.
After that, however, the line between abortion and murder begins to blurr.

If you leave a sperm cell alone, it will not grow, will not develop, will never become more than it is. It will die a single celled organism with only half the normal complement of human genes. If you leave a fertilized egg alone and nothing ill befalls it, it will attach to a uterus, grow, divide, and eventually become an autonomous human being that everybody recognizes as having rights.

Being a feritilized egg is a tough gig. It can die in so, so many ways. A flood of inopportune hormones, missed implantation, physical injury, immunological rejection, the list is quite long. But a sperm will always die within a few hours, days, or weeks never developing into something more significant no matter how well you treat it.

I see the ethical and moral difference between the two as being self-evident.

[Sun tzu]

The way I see it, until there's some brain development in the fetus, destroying it isn't more unethical than, say, destroying a sperm cell. As such, I think abortion in the first semester should depend on nothing but the woman's choice.
After that, however, the line between abortion and murder begins to blurr.

If you leave a sperm cell alone, it will not grow, will not develop, will never become more than it is. It will die a single celled organism with only half the normal complement of human genes. If you leave a fertilized egg alone and nothing ill befalls it, it will attach to a uterus, grow, divide, and eventually become an autonomous human being that everybody recognizes as having rights.

Being a feritilized egg is a tough gig. It can die in so, so many ways. A flood of inopportune hormones, missed implantation, physical injury, immunological rejection, the list is quite long. But a sperm will always die within a few hours, days, or weeks never developing into something more significant no matter how well you treat it.

I see the ethical and moral difference between the two as being self-evident.

Well, I see the lack of moral difference between them as self-evident...That something would become a person doesn't mean it's murder to prevent it from doing so. Only destroying a person who already exists is murder.
At least, that's how I perceive it.

The soul/mind is what controlls your brain: it's where you have your memories, logic, emotions, intellect, personality, and will, and it's where all the information from the senses is processed. The mind very much connects your body to your spirit.

The spirit may be a bit difficult for humanists, atheists, and agnostics in general to understand. The spirit is the REAL you, the part of you that is in direct connection to the spiritual world (and if you're born again, to God), it is your conscience.

Er...Last time I checked, I am the sum total of my "memories, logic, emotions, intellect, personality, and will". That makes the soul/mind the real us, not some "spirit"...

It is that which makes you self-aware, and that which makes the ultimate decision between right and wrong.

Again, isn't that pretty clearly the mind?

It is the place of "intuition", as others call it, where you simply "know" or "perceive" things without physical input. It is also the part of you that communicates directly with God (if you're born again)
Concerning intuition, have you ever "known" something was wrong (or right) somewhere with you, your possessions, or your family, without having heard or seen anything? That is your spirit perceiving an event around you.

Er, no. I don't believe in human capability to perceive the world through anything other than our senses.
And when we communicate with someone - God or otherwise - is that not our mind that we use?

The mind can look at, say, one man killing another, and can process the information and store it in memory, but it is the spirit that ultimately labels the act as right or wrong. Killing Adolf Hitler would be labeled "right" by most people (unless you're a Neo-Nazi, by which you're given deceitful information and you would then try to justify's Hitler's actions). Killing a 2-year-old girl while she's sleeping would be labeled "wrong" (I hope) by a lot of people as well, even though they may not have any info about the girl (though from that example, some would try to justify the killing if the girl had incurable cancer and was in extreme pain, or, as it was 150 years ago, if the girl was black, your slave, and you didn't want to carry that expense on your farm).

Again, it seems to me like something the mind does.

The spirit is formed at the moment of conception, while the body develops for 9 months and then continues maturing for the next 20 years, and the mind begins its functions once the brain is formed.

If you'll forgive the question...Is there anything other than religious texts indicating that the spirit is formed at conception?
I mean, I didn't design the universe, but if I did, I fail to see why I'd put souls in something without a mind...

Wow... a lot of discussion going on here! I have to begin by commending Sun Tzu for hanging in there in this debate, especially considering that I think numerically the odds are against him.

Hey, so long as nobody flames me or pulls pseudo-facts out of their digestive tracts, I don't mind the numerical odds

It seems to me that what we're into now is the discussion of souls and how that influences the decision on abortion. I'm sure that if Sun Tzu believed that an embryo had a soul, his opinion on abortion would be different.

That would depend on what a soul actually is, but it's rather likely, yes.

However, coming from a view of humans as biological machines, his definition of life, specifically sentient life, is based on the formation of mind, which in his opinion will be a by-product of the brain. (Please correct me if I am misrepresenting you in any way, Sun Tzu... I was an agnostic for years and so I feel like I've been down that line of reasoning before.)

The only correction would be that you use "life" where I'd put "sentience", but I think we're talking about the same thing. It's just a semantic detail.

I find Sun Tzu's desire to preserve life a refreshing take on the pro-choice stance because so often pro-choicers are not concerned with the life of the unborn. They choose to ignore it. If all the pro-choicers in the world were like Sun Tzu, I think we'd have a much better world than we do now because society's respect for life would be much elevated.

I'm not all that familiar with either side of the debate, really...But I suspect that most pro-choicers are pro-choice for roughly the same reason as me: We just don't think there's a person in there until the brain develops.

The experiences which brought me out of agnosticism are very personal and while they serve as concrete evidence for me, I don't think it would be too helpful for others.

Perhaps, but I would not mind in the least if you explained them (though it is possible you'd rather not, if it's so personal). I am curious about the subject, after all.

[Nikas_Zekeval]

Is that not contradicted by certain coma victims whose mind has been irrevocably destroyed, yet whose bodies still function?
Not to mention plants. Though admittedly, I would be hard-pressed to actually prove plants have no mind.

Well, see, that's the thing... when we say "brain dead", we're going on a definition created by doctor's trying to determine point of death. Yet even that term is being heavily debated by people who feel we're terminating people who could eventually recover and live, even with brain damage. Terri Schiavo is an example, and it's hard to argue whether she was "brain dead" or not. The period at which we should've gotten more evidence was lost when her husband got the family and video cameras banned from her bedside. So we don't know.

The Schiavo case had two big sticking points for me. One it rested on the testimony of the husband, who's impartiality was questionable at best. Given that he had in effect a common law wife and two children after Terri became a vegitable. So did she really say that, or did the husband believed she'd want that as an easy out to get on with his life? Since nothing was written we don't know for certain. My mother, who is an Oncology Nurse who advised both set of my grandparents on their living wills, found it troubling that water was deliberately withheld from Terri when there was no written evidence of those being her wishes. In her profession without written direction to the contray the default position is to take all measures to preserve life.

Two, this was not 'pulling the plug' on machines artificially keeping her breathing and heart beating. This was withholding fluids. If an animal shelter killed their excess strays in that manner the entire staff would be in cuffs and doing the perp walk on the six o'clock news, with the local Humane Society throughing spoiled produce and offal at them. Instead those that objected to both the uncertainity of Terri's wishes and the barbarity of the method of killing her were lambasted as cruel and extreme, with no questioning the morality of the methods or the decisions that brought us to that point. IIRC disabled people and their advocates hate the Schiavo decision because of it's implicit assumption that if you can't have a perfectly healthy body you are assumed to be better off dead.

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Well, like I said, Sun, those are the definitions from the Christian viewpoint. In the verses I quoted before, we see God dealing with the unborn as He would deal with anyone else, and we also see the unborn as having a spirit and a mind. I see that you consider the spirit's functions as belonging to the mind, but again, that is what we believe, according to 1 Thessalonians 5:13 and Hebrews 4:12.

Non-human living beings, like animals, have a body and, I'd dare say, a mind. They, however, can't tell right from wrong. If a bear is hungry enough and there's no other food available except a human, it would try to eat the human, whether it's Mother Teresa or an axe murderer. Hence, they don't have a spirit or self-aware conscience. It's capable of some amount of reasoning and it does have memory, but it doesn't know Right and Wrong as you know it.

There IS once incident in the Bible, albeit allegorical, where we see an anthro with a real conscious spirit given to it: Daniel 7:4


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i. "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

[NydaLynn]

Questions. From where I am sitting it looks like the main points of comprosmise are having some kind of cut-of point. The two main ones are the ability to live outside the womb (assisted or unasisted) and the development of mental thought.

If the mind or mental thought (or even simply the ability to sense) is synonomous with brain activity and with our medical technology we can clearly see brain wave activity in a fetus, then why should there be any elective terminations after that point in development?

Once the brainwaves develop and the pregnancy is unninterupted then from a survival standpoint there is no reason to abort the pregnancy unless there is evidence that leaving the fetus to develop to full term would, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, result in the untimely death of mother and/or child. Agree or dissagree? What is the trouble in reaching this legal compromise?

In the case of very late abortions the issue of the ability to survive outside the womb comes up. Many babies are born prematurely (especially if they are twins, triplets, or more) and are able to reach a point where they are not dependant on artificial wombs to survive on thier own. (I am talking about breathing and ability to ingest food in this case.) So surely this could also be a clear cut-off point?

Is the debate about having 'arbitrary' time restrains on an abortion? Or have a missed answers to this question?

[Earl McClaw]

Questions. From where I am sitting it looks like the main points of comprosmise are having some kind of cut-of point. The two main ones are the ability to live outside the womb (assisted or unasisted) and the development of mental thought.

There's a third "cut-off point" that's being subjected to more debate - the "bonding" of a soul or spirit to the unborn. With no way to medically test this (i.e. when/if it occurs), opinions range from "ignore it" to "from the moment of conception".

While it would be very convenient to have a simple benchmark to tell us "this is a person" or "this isn't", there are enough varied opinions that I doubt it will be decided on this forum. And if it comes down to a difference in religous-derived beliefs, it may well be impossible to reach a consensus.

[Sapphire]

Non-human living beings, like animals, have a body and, I'd dare say, a mind. They, however, can't tell right from wrong. If a bear is hungry enough and there's no other food available except a human, it would try to eat the human, whether it's Mother Teresa or an axe murderer. Hence, they don't have a spirit or self-aware conscience. It's capable of some amount of reasoning and it does have memory, but it doesn't know Right and Wrong as you know it.

[WARP!!!]

This dissertation relies on a couple assumptions that I think need to be addressed. It's hard to figure out how to start, since they both fit into each other like Escher's hands which draw each other.

Well, the first of which I suppose is that this lumps all animals and all animal cognitive functions into one category, one that does not know 'right' from 'wrong.' But the animal kingdom does not exist on a cognitive flatline. It runs the gamet from sponges and slugs to ravens and dolphins. But animals, also, have done right. Take the tale of the courageuos pig which squeezed through a too-tight doggy door and laid down in the middle of the street in order to get someone to save her owner, who was having a heart attack. Or the dolphin who would guide ships to shore in the WWII era. Or the many stories of dogs and cats and what have you saving their owners from fires and earthquakes and avalanches and whatnot (here I speak of those without proper training to do so, which contradicts this being of the animal's free will)

This also assumes that this, again, is not part of the brain. This has to do, as shown by studying the different animals as well as ourselves, more to do with the forms of congnitive function which develop in humans as opposed to other animals. It is the development of our forebrain, our rational and orginazational skills, which sets us apart from other animals. I've already talked about this: the moral subtleties of humans is infinitely more complex than animals because humans are infinetely more complex.

But claiming a process of thought doesn't exist in the brain, or that we gain information by anything other than our five senses, is like saying we eat food with something more than our digestive tract, or that we breathe with some use of wind magic. If that's what is required to hold your particular position (this I highly doubt), then, I'm sorry, but I can't see your position as anything but wrong.

[NydaLynn]

Questions. From where I am sitting it looks like the main points of comprosmise are having some kind of cut-of point. The two main ones are the ability to live outside the womb (assisted or unasisted) and the development of mental thought.

There's a third "cut-off point" that's being subjected to more debate - the "bonding" of a soul or spirit to the unborn. With no way to medically test this (i.e. when/if it occurs), opinions range from "ignore it" to "from the moment of conception".

While it would be very convenient to have a simple benchmark to tell us "this is a person" or "this isn't", there are enough varied opinions that I doubt it will be decided on this forum. And if it comes down to a difference in religous-derived beliefs, it may well be impossible to reach a consensus.

Ah, I see now. Yes... checking out the soul or spirit is a tough one to judge. Yes, there are varied opinions, nearly as many as there are people. I personally would choose the brainwave functioning as a cut-off point becuase it is so easy for a pregnancy to sponaneously abort before that point. Even after, lots of things can happen to cause miscarriage. If things are going fairly decent and there is no imminent danger, seems to me they should at least be given as much chance as possible to come to full term.

I think a major issue in abortion is that those who seek it out might not be fully educated in all the aspects of it. The medical risks as well and figuring out how either direction will affect them at a personal level. (It -is- a medical proceedure after all, no matter if it is surgical or drug induced.)

If there is no medical reason to end a pregnancy early... why consider it?

I really feel the thoughts of 'I do not want a child. I'm too young for a child. I am financially unable to care for this child' is not strong enough reasoning to abort. Yes, there are downsides to adoption. But it gives them a shot at life and frees the birth parents from responsibility.

If it is a shame issue then the pregnancy is not the underlying problem in that situation. There is a larger outside problem if the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or coercion. Abortion will not solve that issue and is unlikely to heal any damage.

So perhaps it is not only timing that should be looked at but reasoning?

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Well, Sapphire, that is where Christianity begins to break off from conventional thought.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:8-9

It is the belief of the existence of the spiritual world from where we know that there has to be spiritual senses. That is where a person decides to either acknowledge the spiritual world (and everything in it) or reject its existence.


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

[Kerry Skydancer]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Well, Sapphire, that is where Christianity begins to break off from conventional thought.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:8-9

It is the belief of the existence of the spiritual world from where we know that there has to be spiritual senses. That is where a person decides to either acknowledge the spiritual world (and everything in it) or reject its existence.

Self-referential assertions, these are. You believe in something with no evidence, and so this belief itself constitutes evidence for what you believe in? Circular reasoning, with no valid conclusions possible.

And even granting your premises for the sake of argument - what makes you so sure no 'mere animal' has this 'spiritual sense'? Chimps, gorillas, some cetaceans, and elephants all seem to notice and mourn when one of their fellows dies.

[Earl McClaw]

One thing that would be interesting to incorporate is the (as yet unachieved) technological ability to transfer an implanted fetus from the gestating womb to a compatable surrogate or an artificial womb. Think of it as "adoption prior to birth," and it has the potential of addressing the issue of a pregnancy endangering the mother's life.

The classic example of a fetus transfer would be asking an anti-abortion protester if they would accept carrying an otherwise unwanted fetus to term and raising the subsequent child.

[Deckard Canine]

Wow -- at this time, the votes have nearly a three-way tie. Guess this is a well-balanced board.

Before this thread, I always figured that "soul" and "spirit" were synonymous. I think I'll look into some official church documents for more detail. Of course, when used figuratively ("This guy's got spirit"; "You've got soul"), they do have some distinction.

I now recall having read some pro-choice analogies involving live adult humans in place of embryos/fetuses/babies. One woman said that if the only thing that could save her life was a touch from Henry Fonda, then Fonda would be a nice guy to fly in from the coast and save her, but he would not be morally obligated to do so (implying that he should not be legally obligated either). I think Fonda would be an asshole not to do so, assuming he believed her.

[Sapphire]

Wow -- at this time, the votes have nearly a three-way tie. Guess this is a well-balanced board.

Except that two are in favor and one is opposed. Other than that, sure.

[The JAM]

Again, it's difficult to explain the spiritual world to those who already assume that it does not exist.
I'll concede the point in that we REALLY don't know whether animals have spirit similar to that which humans have, or not.
As for the existence of the spiritual world, I have seen cases of demon possession, have actively sensed demonic activity, and several friends (including 2 brothers) have seen angelic activity as well.

[Sapphire]

Again, it's difficult to explain the spiritual world to those who already assume that it does not exist.

And its impossible to prove it doesn't exist to those who assume it does. But what you have done is a typical antiskeptical backhanded comment about someone's disbelief in something tying it in to personal opinion and not considered reasoning. I have no experience with the supernatural, either in miracles, demons, angels, or the spiritual world. That you have some is irrelevant to me. It is simply impossible for me to convince you that you did not, and, instead of considering the reason behind that, you ignore the very idea and consider it some form of 'moral fortitude.'

I'll concede the point in that we REALLY don't know whether animals have spirit similar to that which humans have, or not.

Well, what, then? To what? For what? For what reason would animals have this sense? Since the two methods of the creation of animals espoused in this board are Evolution and Creationism, they would either require the sense as part of survival of the fittest, or God would require them to have it. Neither of these make sense. The former provides no known benefits (ignoring physical impossiblity), and the latter would be sense wasted on the unsentient.

As for the existence of the spiritual world, I have seen cases of demon possession, have actively sensed demonic activity, and several friends (including 2 brothers) have seen angelic activity as well.

These things can be sensed. These things can be witnessed. These are your assertions. But everything else we know to be witnessed or sense, all of them, and a great deal of things neither of them, can be observed or witnessed in such a way that it can be measured or reproduced. There is no measurement nor reproduction of anything involved in supernatural appeals.

It is simple science. If there are parts of a person which may receive something, it (a) must be receiving something, and (b) must be something that is doing the receiving. With hearing, it's soundwaves and eardrums. With sight, it's lightwaves and eyeballs. But there exists no parallel in the supernatural world. If you could explain to me what the stimulus is in a fairly scientific manner, and explain what the receptor is in an equally scientific manner...

well, let's take it from there.

[Maxgoof]

I'm not sure I should be jumping into this discussion, but anyway...

There are other arguments besides when life begins against the unfettered use of abortion:

1) Say a man owns a female dog. He does not have her spayed. He does not keep her from having contact with other dogs, particularly male dogs. Every time the dog has a litter of pups, he gathers them up and drowns them in the bathtub. Such a man could be charge with animal cruelty and thrown in jail. Does a human fetus deserve less protection than a puppy?

2) Recently, a man who had oral sex with a woman, had to pay child support because the woman took the sperm out of her mouth and impregnated herself with it. The example is extreme, but illustrates the point that even if a man takes precautions to prevent pregnancy, if one occurs, he is responsible, and has no choice, whatsoever, to terminate it. His only choice is abstinence. Women have all the choices, men have only one. Men are not even given a say if the father wants to raise the child himself. Where is the man's choice in all this? Why can he not choose abortion? This is a violation of equal protection under the law.

There are others. These are only two.

[Deckard Canine]

I now recall an excerpt from someone's blog saying that one has the right to remove anyone in or on one's body, be it a fetus, a rapist, or someone begging to be saved.

Yeah, I'm sure it's your right to kill somebody for begging to be saved.

[Sapphire]

1) Say a man owns a female dog. He does not have her spayed. He does not keep her from having contact with other dogs, particularly male dogs. Every time the dog has a litter of pups, he gathers them up and drowns them in the bathtub. Such a man could be charge with animal cruelty and thrown in jail. Does a human fetus deserve less protection than a puppy?

This analogy in not apt because it compares a fetus (albeit human) to a newborn (ableit animal.) There are laws concerning abandonment and infanticide in humans, and they are (as they should be) harsher than laws regarding the equivalent in animals.

Besides which, there is little or no way for a dog to provide consent to an abortion. As I said, the analogy is not apt.

2) Recently, a man who had oral sex with a woman, had to pay child support because the woman took the sperm out of her mouth and impregnated herself with it. The example is extreme, but illustrates the point that even if a man takes precautions to prevent pregnancy, if one occurs, he is responsible, and has no choice, whatsoever, to terminate it. His only choice is abstinence. Women have all the choices, men have only one. Men are not even given a say if the father wants to raise the child himself. Where is the man's choice in all this? Why can he not choose abortion? This is a violation of equal protection under the law.

The issue you address should be handled as a seperate legal issue, and it is my concerned that he did not in any way provide consent for having a child, ergo, he shouldn't have been forced to pay child support.

In regards to a man's choice in pregnancy, If he has in some voluntary way gone through proper precautions, which can be demonstrated in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt, to avoid pregnancy, than he should have no legal ramifications in the raising or bearing of the child. It is completely the woman's choice, and, inherently, the woman's responsibility.

As well, the argument for equality of the sexes in regards to decision blatantly ignores the inequality of the situation in the same regard. There is almost no chance childbirth will kill the man, or that a man will be raped and an offspring produced, not to mention the several months a woman is going to be incapacitated.

Which brings me to another point: The controversy of abortion is drawing massive amounts of attention, most of which is away from where the points need to be made. Specifically, about nine months before. There needs to be more attention given to the prospects of celibacy and contraception. Advances in the contraceptive field have been slow, as of late, and the religious push needs to back off for realizing the negative effects that are being felt not only in unwanted pregnancies, but also in STD's. Too many people are too prudish or uncomfortable to behave like mature grown-ups and talk with other people about condoms and spermicides and those ring things (as a guy, that's a mystery to me).

One great new advancement, though, which I hope and pray will catch on through HIV-plagued places like central Africa, is the Pronto Condom

[Canis_lupus]

Too many people are too prudish or uncomfortable to behave like mature grown-ups and talk with other people about condoms and spermicides and those ring things (as a guy, that's a mystery to me).

Do you mean a Diaphragm ?