Using logic and reason to oppose abortion...

[questioner4]

Okay, even though I've been questioning my faith for over a year, I am still firmly pro-life - although I believe 'traditional' pro-lifers go about it the wrong way. I believe thast abortion is wrong, because I oppose discrimination on all grounds. I believe it is being discriminatory to deny basic human rights to the smallest humans, simply because they are still dependant on the mother. It really would be nice to hear people oppose abortion on grounds other than the Bible.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Are you a 'non-traditional pro-lifer'? If you are Christian and pro-life, can you think of any non-Biblical reasons to oppose abortion?

[AlAyeti]

So? The DNA contained in the billions of sperm that could have been alternative me's was also present. They could have been other people who would have lived other lives. According to your argument, my being born is an injustice to those people.

Actually you are holding a mistaken belief. IF, sperms carried the "exact" DNA as each other, than children of the same parents would be clones. It is an absolute fact that of the billions and billions of humans that were allowed to be born, that we can observe the mistaken belief you presented. Every sperm is different. Every ovum id different. Every child has its own uniques DNA.

It's a scientific fact, I'm sorry, that you are mistaken.

Now, if you multiply the odds of YOU existing, you would need a calculaot bigger than the observable (known) universe to compile the odds that YOU exist. In the terms of mathematical science, there is a point where numbers become a "mathematical" impossibilty. Somewhere with a number with say thousands of zeroes.

With all of the trillions and trillions of sperm of your biological father ONLY one COULD be you. BUT, only if ONE of those trillions and trillions of sperms fertilizes (another trillions to one shot) one of thosands of ovums!

Take a couple of hundred millions of years to add up the "ODDS" of "YOU" existing.

What about frozen embryos?

What are the "ODDS" of an evolved ape somehow discovering the fact of reproduction and somehow stumbling its way into a lab to somehow get one of trillions and trillions of sperms to impregnate one of thousands of ovum?

Both YOU and the frozen embryo should be recognized for what you truly are.

A proven miracle.

[juliod]

Every sperm is different. Every ovum id different. Every child has its own uniques DNA.

So you are agreeing then, that each sperm reresents an individual, and that your opposition to abortion includes the right of each of these putative people to be born. What steps do you recommend in order to rectify this situation?

Both YOU and the frozen embryo should be recognized for what you truly are.

A proven miracle.

Do you support legislation to require the incubation, implantation, and birth of every embryo created by in vitro fertilization?

It seems your attempt to use logic and reason to oppose abotion have led to a totally unworkable system.

DanZ

[McCulloch]

Both YOU and the frozen embryo should be recognized for what you truly are.
A proven miracle.

Miracle a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of God.
Miracle An event in the natural world, but out of its established order, possible only by the intervention of divine power.
Miracle An event that contravenes the laws of nature. Such events were not thought of as freaks but as signs of the action of God.
Miracle an event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God, operating without the use of means capable of being discerned by the senses, and designed to authenticate the divine commission of a religious teacher and the truth of his message. It is an occurrence at once above nature and above man. It shows the intervention of a power that is not limited by the laws either of matter or of mind, a power interrupting the fixed laws which govern their movements, a supernatural power.

Unless I am missing something, I did not think that the formation of human embryos from human sperm and ova involved direct supernatural intervention. We are not miracles. We are not above nature. We are part of the natural environment. We are animals, vertebrates, mammals and primates.

[AlAyeti]

Unless I am missing something, I did not think that the formation of human embryos from human sperm and ova involved direct supernatural intervention. We are not miracles. We are not above nature. We are part of the natural environment. We are animals, vertebrates, mammals and primates.

And all of what you believe flows from that assertion. That is how you choose you see the evidenve of the importance of life. That is your right.

I realize how impossible it is to contemplate the enormity in craetion. All any of us can do is to judge things for ourselves.

I myself can only contmplate numbers to a certain degree. I am not alone.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Bube.html

Science in Christian Perspective

Letter to the Editor

Mathematical Impossibility

Kenneth P. Bube, Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
Seattle, WA

From: PSCF 52 (March 2000): 74-75.

The book, A Case against Accident and Self-Organization by Dean L. Overman, has been capably reviewed by Charles E. Chaffey in the March 1999 issue of PSCF. Perhaps the greatest weakness of the book is to claim mathematical proofs in ways that are not consistent with the nature of mathematics itself. The author puts forth a quite reasonable argument: The probability that just chance occurrences led to the universe as it is, and in particular to life itself, is very low. But he overstates what he has shown by insisting on calling any probability less than 10-50 a mathematical impossibility (even probability 0 is not the same as mathematical impossibility). It appears that the author wants the authority of mathematical proof, but by insisting on this line of argument, he weakens his case, certainly for the professional mathematician.

Overman is unfortunately not quite well enough versed in mathematics for his illustrations to work for the mathematically informed. In his appeal to the Fibonacci sequence as "a mathematical code in nature left by an intelligence," he completely misses the fact that although the Fibonacci sequence has a lot of structure, it has very little "information content": it is generated by the very simple difference equation Fn = Fn-1 + Fn-2. In fact, mathematical biologists, who have studied the formation of patterns like leopard spots and tiger stripes, have observed similar situations where the patterns are the consequence of encodings which are not as complicated as the patterns they form. In his argument that the "information content" in DNA is too high for chance, he appears to be unaware of fractals, where, like the Fibonacci numbers, simple generation schemes can provide very intricate patterns.

The author manages to fall into some of the very traps he warns his reader about at the beginning of the book. In making the statement that "the paradigm for the emergence of life contains algorithms which must have at least as much information content as the genetic messages they claim to generate" (p. 85), he makes the implicit assumption that there is some sort of "conservation of information content." This sounds plausible, but by a very similar argument it might be claimed that a person is completely determined by the gametes that first join together at conception. His argument that "DNA can function as a code only if its base sequence is not determined by physical and chemical laws" (p. 88) relies again on underlying assumptions, some of which are suspect because of the way the codes themselves physically cause the features of the living organism they encode. The author's discrediting of computer simulation misses the point because he confuses the complexity of a compiler with the simplicity of a very simple computer program (like one that generates the Fibonacci sequence).

I would agree with the author's conclusion that "Life appears to be formed only by a guided process with intelligence somehow inserting information or instructions into inert matter ... Something besides chance caused and is causing life" (p. 101). But I would state it very differently. As stated, there is the underlying assumption that there is a separation between the very existence of "inert matter" and the "inserting" of information.

The big issue concerning this book is whether or not his arguments hold water. I would say that many of them include much reasonable cause for reflecting upon the great unlikelihood that all which we see truly came from nothing (Rom. 1:19-20), but they are not mathematical proofs. To the extent that he tries to present them as such, I as a mathematician must protest. To the extent that he may have overlooked other possibilities in many of his arguments, I would say they may be flawed.

The ultimately important observation is that there is plenty of evidence for Personal design in the universe in which we live, and that those who swallow modern "chance" folklore overlook this evidence to their own peril.

[juliod]

Al,

Do you ever consider the relevancy of what you say before posting it? That mathematical diversion may be interesting, but it is completely irrelevant to this thread.

For one, this thread is asking about the use of logic and reason to oppose abortion, not the use of mathematics to support intelligent design.

Secondly, we can do away with any argument based on "miracle embryos". If the formation of an embryo was a miracle then abortion would be impossible. I know of no miracle that could possibly be undone by a surgical procedure.

You've suggested a logical argument based on the uniqueness of the DNA of each egg and sperm. But an ejaculate contains millions of sperm. What do you propose do to to allow those millions of potential individuals to be born and live?

You've drawn an equality between a frozen embryo and an adult human. What do you propose to do about the thousands of frozen embryos not destined to be gestated? Should this be criminalized?

DanZ

[ShieldAxe]

I'm not sure when you say 'less clarity' what you are proposing that has more clarity.

It's my view that personhood starts at a live birth. That's about as clear as we can get, and also the traditional viewpoint. Whereas a view based on mental capacities must inevitably draw lines among ambiguities. I'm not hostile to your point of view, I just don't see it leading to a viable solution.

I think the medical ethics position is a lot more clear than anti-abortionists want to make it seem. Prior to a live birth the mother and child are a unit, and largely treated as such. In an emergency situation all reasonable medical efforts can be made to save both mother and child, but given that miscarriage and neo-natal mortality are fairly common, there is an inherent bias towards the existing life of the mother vs the putative life of the fetus.

In a case of, for example, an emergency surgical delivery, reasonable effort is taken to preserve the baby. But it is well established ethics that there is no point to merely extending the life of the baby if there is no realistic possability of recovery and/or development. Above all, in the US, the amount of effort taken to save a neo-nate is dependant on the wealth of the parents. Note, again, that the people most likely to oppose abortion are also most likely to oppose universal health care that might save some of the babies they claim to be helping.

Anyway, we both support abortion. The question is whether there is a "logic and reason" case opposed to abortion. None has yet been presented so I think we can declare victory.

DanZ

From your post I infer that you are proposing abortion be allowed up until birth. That seems like a tough one to work out. How do you abort when the child can easily survive outside the womb - let's say in month eight? That sounds more like giving birth then killing then baby. I agree that the view based on brain development requires that a line be drawn, but i don't see a way around that. A line's gotta be drawn and birth is the last possible place to draw it.

As far as it being the traditional view, the traditional view holds no weight with me.

I have no argument on your medical ethics statements. Makes sense to me.

[juliod]

From your post I infer that you are proposing abortion be allowed up until birth. That seems like a tough one to work out.

Yeah, but it is in essence current practise. Babies can be aborted up to and during birth. Remember the "controversy" over partial-birth abortion? If there is sufficient need, an abortion can be conducted at any time.

The view as to when elective abortion is permissable is not really relevant. If abortion is "murder" then it is wrong in all cases, including emergencies, rape, incest, and hedonism.

How do you abort when the child can easily survive outside the womb - let's say in month eight?

That's called "emergency C-section". If the baby can be saved then reasonable attempts will be made. If the baby cannot be saved then an attempt to save the mother will be made. BTW, an emergency C-section where the baby doesn't survive is essentially an abortion.

In any case, these are all viable medical procedures and don't induce a criminal investigation.

As far as it being the traditional view, the traditional view holds no weight with me.

Oh, why not? Let's all be good conservatives. The traditional view is right 99.999% of the time. The most radical revolutionary only wants to change 0.002% of society. Think about it.


DanZ

[ShieldAxe]

From your post I infer that you are proposing abortion be allowed up until birth. That seems like a tough one to work out.

Yeah, but it is in essence current practise. Babies can be aborted up to and during birth. Remember the "controversy" over partial-birth abortion? If there is sufficient need, an abortion can be conducted at any time.

The view as to when elective abortion is permissable is not really relevant. If abortion is "murder" then it is wrong in all cases, including emergencies, rape, incest, and hedonism.


DanZ

I think there should be a distinction between elective and medically required abortions. Medically required can be done any time. Elective can be done before brain develops.

If the elective abortion at 8 months is considered a c-section birth, then how are we allowing (or can we allow) elective abortions at any time before birth? I'm trying to grasp how your view would work in practice. I guess your view is the woman can have the baby removed whenever she wants and if it lives it lives. If not its an abortion.

[AlAyeti]

You've suggested a logical argument based on the uniqueness of the DNA of each egg and sperm. But an ejaculate contains millions of sperm. What do you propose do to to allow those millions of potential individuals to be born and live?

Let "nature" take its course. Sperm are only part of the process of making a human. A human is when the sperm and ovum unite.

You've drawn an equality between a frozen embryo and an adult human. What do you propose to do about the thousands of frozen embryos not destined to be gestated? Should this be criminalized?

I have only recognized the truth in the science of DNA to prove a persons worth. I am only assuming of course that DNA is a real science.

[AlAyeti]

Anyway, we both support abortion. The question is whether there is a "logic and reason" case opposed to abortion. None has yet been presented so I think we can declare victory.

DanZ

Before I stigmatize the above, what "victory" are you declaring?

Have you ever seen an abortion? I was a mid-twenties "wild and crazy guy," when I saw "The Silent Scream" I almost had a nervous breakdown.

http://www.silentscream.org/

"Now for the first time, we have the technology to see abortion from the victims vantage point.
Ultrasound imaging has allowed us to see this."
-Dr. Bernard Nathanson

Should abortion be a birth control method?

Empiricism makes all the difference in deciding truth.