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?

[juliod]

On one extreme, we could say human personhood starts at birth (or even later?). ON the other, at conception. Sperm and ovum by themselves I don't think we should put in the mix (you can accuse me of being arbitrary if you wish ).

It is obvious that there is no clear answer to this question. We don't reach full person-hood until at least 21. As for newborns, they have no autonomy and the care they recieve is at the discretion of the parents. It is important to note that after birth there is no point at which the maintenance of life is paramount without consideration of the condition and quality of that life.

Prior to birth the question is even harder. If personhood starts at conception, then it is equally murder to fail to incubate frozen embryos. Also, in that case the loss of an embryo by miscarriage should be akin to the loss of a living child. Yet most miscarriages are unnoticed, as indeed was the pregnancy that ended in the miscarriage.

If embryos have personhood then we should have, at least, a formal investigation of all miscarriages (known or suspected) to determine if the mother contributed to the death, followed by criminal proceedings.

It is not clear why eggs and sperm should be excluded. They are alive and every bit as human as you or me.

Once we know the rules are arbitrary we can pick a good starting point. A live birth is a good starting point because that is where we have a new corporeal individual human to deal with. That's also historically where it has been understood to be.

Let me make a wild analogy. Is drilling for oil in the ARctic National WIldlife Refuge a responsible behavior? It is arguably relatively safe, at least for humans. It is also effective in helping to meet U.S. energy needs.

Well, yes, I would see that as a "responsible" policy, at least potentially. It may not be the best available option, but just because I may oppose it doesn't mean I can't see it as a viable option.


It comes down to the same point: If abortion is safe and effective, are they any "logic and reason" arguments against it?

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

It comes down to the same point: If abortion is safe and effective, are they any "logic and reason" arguments against it?

The DNA in the fingers that typed the above was there at the moment of conception. The only difference is that those fingers were allowed to develope and be born and be given a name. Otherwise the "person" that typed the above was "who" he was always going to be.

[juliod]

The DNA in the fingers that typed the above was there at the moment of conception. The only difference is that those fingers were allowed to develope and be born and be given a name.

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.

What about frozen embryos?

DanZ

[ShieldAxe]

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?

Great approach to this issue. I believe that we are our brains. If the brain is not yet formed, i have no problem with abortion (1st trimester). If the brain is formed (after 1st trimester) then you better have a good reason (mother's health, severe genetic defect etc).

[juliod]

Here is a statement about abortion safety.

"Legal-abortion mortality between 1979 and 1985 was 0.6 death per 100,000 procedures, more than 10 times lower than the 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births between 1979 and 1986."

It comes from this paper:

"Induced termination of pregnancy before and after Roe v Wade. Trends in the mortality and morbidity of women." JAMA 1992 V 268, n 22, p 3232.

I haven't seen any data on abortion being unsafe. If you search the web there is a lot of bogus claims made by the anti-abortionists, but I found nothing of interest.

DanZ

[juliod]

If the brain is formed (after 1st trimester) then you better have a good reason (mother's health, severe genetic defect etc).

I appreciate your reasoning, but I think you've created more problems. You view sets up a conflict between reasons for having an abortion and reasons to not. Your "good reasons" for having an abortion after the first trimester are not sufficient if you think the fetus has "rights" at that point.

I think by this line of reasoning we end up with less clarity rather than more.

DanZ

[ShieldAxe]

If the brain is formed (after 1st trimester) then you better have a good reason (mother's health, severe genetic defect etc).

I appreciate your reasoning, but I think you've created more problems. You view sets up a conflict between reasons for having an abortion and reasons to not. Your "good reasons" for having an abortion after the first trimester are not sufficient if you think the fetus has "rights" at that point.

I think by this line of reasoning we end up with less clarity rather than more.

DanZ

The line has to be drawn somewhere as i believe someone stated in another post. I draw it at the brain. I'm not sure when you say 'less clarity' what you are proposing that has more clarity. Is your approach based solely on the mother's safety? In other words when it's safer to give birth the mother can no longer to opt for abortion and when its safer to abort the mother can abort. Is that your view? I'm open to hear other views so slong as they are not based on mythology.

[juliod]

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

[micatala]

Here is a statement about abortion safety.

"Legal-abortion mortality between 1979 and 1985 was 0.6 death per 100,000 procedures, more than 10 times lower than the 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births between 1979 and 1986."

It comes from this paper:

"Induced termination of pregnancy before and after Roe v Wade. Trends in the mortality and morbidity of women." JAMA 1992 V 268, n 22, p 3232.

I haven't seen any data on abortion being unsafe. If you search the web there is a lot of bogus claims made by the anti-abortionists, but I found nothing of interest.

Thanks. THis is helpful and relevant.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I would also inlude in 'safety' long term effects of having an abortion, both physical and emotional. Yes, I am aware of the loud sound of axes grinding, but I think it should be addressed objectively.

[juliod]

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I would also inlude in 'safety' long term effects of having an abortion, both physical and emotional.

Right. And I think there are no general long-term effects. The right makes a lot of claims about this in the form of scare-stories, but there is no real evidence in support of it, as far as I know.

Of course, we need to consider the long-term effect of having a child. Few things are more disruptive, and the effects last for decades.

DanZ