 |
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/22/2003 5:34 AM (GMT -6) |   | To illustrate the problem of order approach, below is a simple position paper that is written with the objective of renewing and improving the quality of debate regarding the political questions surrounding the abortion. From a personal, moral perspective, the author is quite conservative in his view points regarding abortion.
A religious person’s position in the abortion debates depends implicitly on their views of the relationship between Science and Religion and the Church and State and their religion’s teachings on abortion. My view, as an Evangelical, Protestant Christian is that the incompleteness of our knowledge of the relevant scientific facts and the inconclusiveness of the scriptural evidence that structure the debate make it unwise to pronounce what is right or wrong either way, authoritatively. There is scientific evidence against human life beginning at conception. It includes how when two eggs are fertilized simultaneously and then subsequently collide within at least the first couple of days, they merge and become one zygote. Also, it is very common at the beginning of a pregnancy for a zygote to be absorbed by the womb. Apparently, the womb is unable to distinguish that the zygote is a separate being and naturally terminates many Zygotes. Additional evidence can be found from the observation of the fetal development. The key point is that, while the human fetus is certainly a life, whether it is a human life (having a soul), that we are forbidden to kill, is something that needs to be determined by careful observation, deliberation and discussion.
As for scriptural evidence, my views revolve around the distinction between being a life-form and a human life. For the most part, scripture doesn't say when human life begins. Our ability to observe and abort the fetus has grown considerably in recent years and is light years apart from what was the case in Bible times. As such, ethical questions about Abortion today were not the same as during Bible times. There are also strong socio-economic differences, which impinge on the question. In a predominantly agricultural society, there is no such thing as an unwanted child, apart from unmarried mothers and prostitutes, since there is always a need for another hand to help with the harvest. The case is very different in an industrial society with child labor laws and without the social pressure to marriage. So the hermeneutical principle that a text should not be made to say anything beyond what it was meant to say to its original audience makes it difficult to claim that the Bible authoritatively settles the abortion question.
Rather it is more appropriate to put one’s religious beliefs as to when human life begins as part of Tradition, stemming both from reflection on scripture as well as the natural world and Church history. From the scriptural point of view, John the Baptist’s ability to respond to the moving of the Holy Spirit by leaping while he was in the womb would be a good indication that he did have a soul at that point. Yet, it would have been difficult for his leap to be felt by his mother if she was not advanced in her pregnancy. One could try to check the customs for when women would go to assist with a pregnancy back then to get a better notion of at what stage was Martha likely at in her pregnancy at the time. Similarly, when in Psalm 139:13, David reflects, “For You did form my inward parts; You did knit me together in my mother's womb," [The Amplified Bible] this reflection does support the notion that human life begins before birth, but it leaves the question of when unanswered.
As far as tradition goes, the same ambiguity still exists. Apparently, Thomas Aquinas believed human life began during the third trimester, though this could be due to how he lacked our ability to observe the human fetus’ development. He did not discuss the matter of abortion in his Summa Theologica. Furthermore, while Augustine did oppose all abortion his reasons for his opposition were different before and after the third trimester. After the third trimester, his opposition was for the same reasons as Aquinas. Before the third trimester, it was based on his view that all sex is sinful unless it is for the purpose of procreation; a view that was undoubtedly influenced by his personal history as a former sex-addict and clearly not normative for all Christians. (These characterizations are taken from an online review of the book, "Dissenting View: A Brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion." by Anthony T. Padovano at http://www.cath4choice.org/conscience/archived/DissentingView.htm.)
The question is one about the problem of identity, what makes us human? When you are knitting a sweater, at what point does it become a sweater and not a bunch of thread partially interwoven together? Each one of my cells has the same genetic code, but they do not comprise a human life. Likewise, if all but the stem of my brain dies and my body is on life support, have I died? Does my soul still reside in my earthly body? While we may not be able to resolve these sort of issues definitively, from a practical standpoint we have revised our legal definitions of when death occurs so as to protect doctors from lawsuits. Is this not the same sort of problem surrounding whether or not the human fetus is a human life?
As such, while Roe V. Wade legally defined human life as beginning at birth, this is an arbitrary definition that doesn’t take into account our increasing knowledge of fetal development. For me, it seems likely that human life begins sometime between the first month, when all of the fetus’ organs are formed and the fifth or sixth month when the fetus is viable with the assistance of incubation chambers. Thus, it would be wrong to say we should never legally redefine when human life begins.
Moreover, to develop a new social consensus as to when the legal defn of human life should begin would be a very good thing for the USA. This is because it removes the most ideologically divisive subject since the abolition of slavery in US from public debate and drastically reduces the influence it has played on our politics. Yet, it seems to me that, due to the political balance of power and difficulties in altering the interpretation of the constitution, that it would, at this time, only be likely for restrictions to be placed on abortions after twenty-fourth week of pregnancy, as is currently done in New York.
And given the likely, continued disagreement among groups as to when human life begins, it seems in accord with the separation of church and state that we work out a compromise that can be acceptable to all parties (possibly based on a minimum level of a supra-majority(more than 50 percent) of the population), which would then allow individual faith organizations to develop their own additional standards enforceable within their memberships.
At the heart of my views on this issue is a belief that all abortion is because of sin, the extent to which we are divorced from trying to follow God’s will in the ways we live our lives. As such, for a believer, it should be imperative that their church be involved in her choice regarding abortion. One solution would be to, perhaps, hold a service for the fetus and allow for a time of mourning, which would then be followed with forgiveness with the repenting parties slates being wiped clean. This gives the woman a choice but recognizes the claims on her life and behavior by her fellow believers through her church. So while this does restrict a woman's choice some, it seems that none of our rights to choose are absolutes and not potentially subject to public restrictions. It is important to bear in mind that it is not some impersonal “Government” interfering with a woman’s right to choose. Rather, it is her fellow citizens trying to set out updated ethical principles for our right conduct, consistent with a commitment to the sanctity of human life. This right for fellow citizens to interfere with a woman’s right to choose is the same right which allows my fellow citizens to restrict my right to own firearms or a corporation’s right to pollute or produce products. Under this alternative faith-based position, a females' right to choose will continue to be expanded through changes in technology and better education. This is the case, even if their right to choose to have an abortion were legally narrowed to before the 24th or 20th week... . Of course, one should allow for exceptions in the cases where a woman’s life is strongly endangered and may be saved by an abortion during the third trimester. This difficult choice can be left to the woman’s conscience.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 05/16/2003 10:15:22 AM
Edited by - DLW on 06/10/2003 8:21:48 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/22/2003 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is a letter I wrote in response to a very Pro-Choice email sent out by Martha Robertson, the running mate of Tim Penny, the Independence party candidate for Governor in MN this past year.
It illustrates how being even-handed and avoiding manicheistic language can be useful in managing political differences so as to avoid the degradation of democracy that has accompanied the polarization of the US over Abortion.
ProChoice:Tim Penny believes in the law of the land; that law gives women the right to make choices regarding their bodies, their own health and their well being. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is between a woman, her family and her doctor. Period.
I find your language does not help to address the issue in a reconciliatory manner. The issue at stake is what should be the law of the land. At what stage of the pregnancy should the human fetus be given legal rights analogous to those currently given to a new-born infant, as opposed to being considered legally as part of the woman's body. Now, the answer of many pro-lifers is at conception and many pro-choicers is birth, but the point is that the key issue is the redefinition of when human life begins, not whether or not women should have choices or not. All of our choices, whether male, female, corporate executives or union leaders are subject to legal regulation and the public/private distinction commonly made in this issue is not clear-cut and subject to contention.
ProChoice:Tim would veto ANY legislation that would inhibit a woman's right to choose and hinder her access to abortion if she so chooses. He would veto abortion waiting periods and clinic restrictions.
What if by a miracle, there suddenly emerged a consensus among USAmericans that the New York law prohibiting abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy should be the law of the land? Would Tim veto this legislation?
Both pro-choicers and pro-lifers use way too much manicheistic language that clouds this issue, which is why it has proven to be the most ideologically divisive issue in the US since slavery and polarized our politics.
It is not some impersonal govt, but your fellow citizens seeking to make the laws of the land more in accordance with their moral commitment to treat all human life as sacred that constitute the pro-life activism. Now their official positions can be argued against, the case for birth beginning at conception has numerous holes in it, and inconsistencies in their willingness to spend their political capital to protect human life before and after birth can be pointed out. But, to have this sort of debate requires for what it is that is being debated to be more clearly delineated and civility on both sides.
I think it is worth pointing out that, in the face of changing technology and social support of the elderly, we have changed the legal definition of when death occurs. The analogous problem exists with respect to abortion, our ability to observe and abort the human fetus has changed dramatically in recent years and so why should not our definition of when human life begins also change?
It is also worth pointing out that the language used by pro-choicers more often than not is the same as that used by economic conservatives. In both cases, they serve to obscure the fundamental questions that are being addressed, whose interests should government protect(above and beyond big corporations) and at what stage of pregnancy should the human fetus have rights analogous to those currently given to a new-born infant.
The arbitrariness of birth as when life begins is pointed out by the writings of the Princeton philosopher, Peter Singer, who has argued that infanticide may be moral in some circumstances. Against this view, with its faith in the individual, is the view that rules, even imperfect ones, are important and necessary for preserving our values such as the respect for life. Hence, the question is what sort of rules should we have for all of us as a country. This gets at the heart of the private/public distinction, since pro-lifers who would prefer an earlier legal definition of when human life begins can set and try to enforce their own sets of rules. What is at stake here is not whether there should be rules, no pro-choicer claims that a family's right to infanticide is being violated or interfered with by the existing law of the land, but what sort of public, formal rules do we accept to govern ourselves.
So we need more than common sense to address this issue, we need to reconceptualize the issue and find a more neutral grounds upon which it can be debated so we can decide whether we should legally redefine the beginning of human life, or whether those people who have opposing views of when human life begins just need to accept that their rules will not be made the law of the land. But resolving when at a minimum the large majority of us believe human life begins is of importance both for abortion as well as resolving the moral issues surrounding fetal stem cell research.
Thank you for reading this, I want you to know that I support you and Tim Penny regardless of your official position on this paper, but that I care about this issue as well as the way that it has led to much waste of political capital on the behalf of both pro-choicers and pro-lifers, to not speak up against what I consider language that isn't charitable to both sides on this divisive topic.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/9/2003 12:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Some Political-Economic Thoughts regarding Abortion
David Wetzell
Universidad de las Americas-Puebla
If we abstract, temporarily, from the moral/religious side of the abortion debate, it can be characterized as a dispute over when we should legally define the beginning of human life. At what point do we consider the human fetus as not just part of a woman's body but a human being with legal protections against its loss of life? Now, my area of study, Economics, does not offer any guidance about saying when life begins. It does talk about the importance of having well-defined rules for economic and social relations due to the resources spent in trying to capture the gov't for the purpose of rent-seeking or enthroning one's rules on others. It also talks about the need to consider the opportunity costs of how we use our political capital/activism. Economics also, generally, includes the insight that the decentralization of power, through the separation/autonomy of public and private spheres(which could also be said for Church and State) or competition is important. These views provide some insight for pro-lifers that would like to change the legal definition of when human life begins.
If we return to the moral/religious side of the abortion debate, it can be said that the current definition of birth as when human life begins is arbitrary(as is illustrated by the writings of Peter Singer who has argued for the morality of infanticide in several cases) and wrong. Because of the reality of Sin, none of our rights to choose are absolutes and not potentially subject to public restrictions. The right for fellow citizens to interfere with a woman's right to choose is the same right which allows other citizens to try to interfere with the right to own firearms or a corporation's right to pollute or produce defective/harmful products. Redefining when human life begins, and abortion should be prohibited in most cases, also weighs importantly in on determining the ethics surrounding the use of fetal tissue for medical research, another potentially divisive issue that we need to settle.
However, the current tactics being used to alter the legal definition of when human life begins are not working. New tactics are needed and the debate needs to take into account the importance of the autonomy of Church and State. To do this, it will help to make a distinction between setting out the rules for members in a congregation and the rules for citizens of a state. There are many wrong things that any fellowship of Christians would try to hold each other accountable against but which we would not try to outlaw. For Christian groups to try to make national and international law conform to their belief that human life begins at conception, when most people do not share this belief, may violate the separation/autonomy of Church and State. In the process of trying to capture the Supreme Court, compromises and alliances have been made that require the pro-life activists groups to support numerous additional issues distinct from Abortion. This matters because the lack of autonomy on the other issues has harmed their collective witness to others and, in the long-run, that collective witness may be more important than over-turning Roe-V-Wade.
It is also important to think through what the likely consequences would be if pro-lifers were successful in reversing Roe-V-Wade. One must bear in mind the enforcement costs of trying to force people to obey the changed law. Chances are there still would be many people performing "civil-disobedience" abortion procedures and there still would be legal struggles regarding the specifics of when abortions are legal at the state-levels. So a commitment to making all abortions illegal will require a continued high expenditure of political capital on the issue and, of course, this political capital may be better used elsewhere. There are other political issues that deal with the sanctity of human life in other areas.
Finally, the past high-levels of political activism have acheived very little, but they have succeeded in polarizing US politics and crowding out other issues in elections. In doing so, the autonomy of Church and State has been compromised with the exacerbation of the importance of religious differences for party affiliation. The conduct of no politician, in the course of their political tenure, should be taken as representative of a given religious body. Lord Acton's dictum implies that any consolidation of political influence by a religious group should be heavily qualified and checked.
An alternative would be for pro-lifers to switch tactics and push for a national referendum that would redefine human life as beginning at the 24th week of pregnancy. This referendum could require eighty-percent of the vote to pass. After it passed (and the rights of women were not rolled back completely), another referendum could be made regarding the 20th week. What will make this work, as opposed to alternative attempts at compromise that have failed in the past, is the fact that requiring an eighty-percent supra-majority for the legal change will set an important precedent. This precedent will make it very difficult to change the legal definition of when human life begins without a near consensus. So, given only a minority of US citizens believe human life begins at conception, pro-choice advocates will not have to worry about treading too far out onto the slippery slope of having a woman's right to choose completely usurped(in their view).
If pro-lifers accept this restriction of political goals then it might be possible to weigh in on the selection of Democratic presidential candidates and guarantee that further reform will take place in the coming years. If the political stakes concerning abortion are lowered then perhaps other issues like the regulation of the abortion industry to remove perverse incentives for them to try to drum up additional business, or a more careful, objective assessment of the health risks associated with abortions(so as to facilitate a woman's choice) can be made possible.
Also, accepting the above limitation in the political sphere would free pro-life abortion activists to concentrate on non-political methods for reducing abortions such as witnessing, peaceful protesting and the mentoring of others on the importance of abstinence and the need to value the sanctity of human life.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 05/10/2003 8:42:26 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 5/9/2003 4:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
There is scientific evidence against human life beginning at conception. It includes how when two eggs are fertilized simultaneously and then subsequently collide within at least the first couple of days, they merge and become one zygote. Also, it is very common at the beginning of a pregnancy for a zygote to be absorbed by the womb. Apparently, the womb is unable to distinguish that the zygote is a separate being and naturally terminates many Zygotes. Additional evidence can be found from the observation of the fetal development. The key point is that, while the human fetus is certainly a life, whether it is a human life (having a soul), that we are forbidden to kill, is something that needs to be determined by careful observation, deliberation and discussion.
Your evidence poses no problem for the view that human life begins at conception.
Case 1: Two zygotes form and then merge to become one.
The life begins at conception explanation is simply that we had two human lives, but in the merging of the zygotes one of them dies, leaving one human life.
Case 2: Zygotes absorbed by womb.
Again, we have a human life that is terminated by the mother's body. This is a case of spontaneous abortion.
The observation of fetal development shows a continuity of development from zygote to toddler to adulthood, supporting, rather than undermining the pro-life position. Take any zygote, give it a suitable and nourishing environment, and it will naturally develop into a mature human adult, showing that the zygote and the adult are the same being.
The basic pro-life argument is very simple and powerful:
1. It is wrong to take an innocent human life.
2. Abortion takes an innocent human life.
3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
The argument is valid. Premise 1 is a fundamental moral intuition. Premise 2 is evidenced by the facts of fetal development, and there is no evidence, that I am aware of, that it is false.
I think you are right, DLW, that political realities being what they are, that pro-lifers will probably have to work to curtail abortion bit-by-bit.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/9/2003 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Case 1: Two zygotes form and then merge to become one.
The life begins at conception explanation is simply that we had two human lives, but in the merging of the zygotes one of them dies, leaving one human life.
yes, but the new zygote has the dna of both original zygotes. That is how people who are both male and female develop. It is because a male and female zygote collided. The argument I had heard for conception as the beginning of human life was based on the formation of the dna that would provide the basis for the future development of the individual.
quote:
Case 2: Zygotes absorbed by womb.
Again, we have a human life that is terminated by the mother's body. This is a case of spontaneous abortion.
The mother's body is unable to tell that it is her offspring as opposed to some other organic molecule floating around in the womb. Nature knows!!
And the whole thing rests on unobservables such as the transfer of a soul. That is what makes us a human life, not our dna or our inherent capacity to become a human life.
quote:
The observation of fetal development shows a continuity of development from zygote to toddler to adulthood, supporting, rather than undermining the pro-life position. Take any zygote, give it a suitable and nourishing environment, and it will naturally develop into a mature human adult, showing that the zygote and the adult are the same being.
I think the observation of fetal development is definitely supportive that human life begins before birth, but would argue that it is not conclusive regarding when human life begins.
So the fact a human zygote has the potential to become a mature human adult makes it the same being as that potential human being?
I had the potential to be a really good psychopathic killer(okay, I'd be better at the psychopath part than the killer part.) but now I am not a psychopathic killer(I only kill people if I get paid well enough ).
Isn't it also implicit in your argument a view of what is natural? A human zygote with loving parents, educational and economic opportunities will develop into a mature human adult, but that isn't exactly natural. I am not saying that I want to play God, but there are some important suppositions you are making.
quote:
The basic pro-life argument is very simple and powerful:
1. It is wrong to take an innocent human life.
2. Abortion takes an innocent human life.
3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
No. 2 is based on non-falsifiable presuppositions that have no biblical support. I.e., the question is more complicated. Although, I do believe in conservativism, inspite of the inherent ambiguity over when human life begins.
In the Reilly-Singer factor, I describe some of my views further.
quote:
The argument is valid. Premise 1 is a fundamental moral intuition.
It is not intuition, but derived from a culturally inculcated commitment to the commandments given by God to Moses.
quote:
Premise 2 is evidenced by the facts of fetal development, and there is no evidence, that I am aware of, that it is false.
The belief that human life begins at conception may not be falsifiable. This would require us to put our cards on the table and specify what sort of evidence would make us change our views regarding when human life begins. You study Peirce. You know that the fixity of our beliefs do not in and of themselves make them true.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 5/9/2003 5:39 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: yes, but the new zygote has the dna of both original zygotes. That is how people who are both male and female develop.
Alan: Au contraire. Humans come into being when gametes (sperm and egg), not zygotes, merge. The gametes are not human beings, the zygote is.
DLW: The mother's body is unable to tell that it is her offspring as opposed to some other organic molecule floating around in the womb. Nature knows!!
Alan: So? Whether the mother's body correctly detects the zygote or not makes no difference to the ontological status of the zygote.
DLW: And the whole thing rests on unobservables such as the transfer of a soul.
Alan: This is no more a problem for my view than for yours.
DLW: So the fact a human zygote has the potential to become a mature human adult makes it the same being as that potential human being? I had the potential to be a really good psychopathic killer ... but now I am not a psychopathic killer.
Alan: No. The zygote is not a "potential human being". It is an actual human being, a young and not fully matured human being, but a human being nonetheless. Think about it this way. If it's not a human being at conception then it must be some other kind of being until it suddenly becomes something fundamentally different, a human being, at "ensoulment" or what have you. What kind of being would it be? Well, let's see, it comes from human parents, has a complete complement of human DNA, will naturally mature into an adult human given time and nourishment. What reason is there for thinking that the zygote is anything other than a human being?
DLW: Isn't it also implicit in your argument a view of what is natural? A human zygote with loving parents, educational and economic opportunities will develop into a mature human adult, but that isn't exactly natural.
Alan: What isn't natural? Dog fetuses mature into adult dogs. Cat fetuses mature into adult cats. Human fetuses mature into adult humans. What would be unnatural would be for a human zygote to develop into anything other than a mature human being. That would really be weird!
quote:
The basic pro-life argument is very simple and powerful:
1. It is wrong to take an innocent human life.
2. Abortion takes an innocent human life.
3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
DLW: No. 2 is based on non-falsifiable presuppositions that have no biblical support.
Alan: Non-falsifiable? Hardly. All you'd have to do is show either that the fetus is not alive or that it's not human or that it's not innocent in the relevant sense. It is alive? Yes. We know this because it grows and develops. Is it human? Yes. We know this for the reasons I have given above. Is it innocent? In the relevant sense, yes. The fetus has not committed any act deserving punishment by death.
DLW: [Premise 1] is not an intuition, but derived from a culturally inculcated commitment to the commandments given by God to Moses.
Alan: Au contraire. Paul writes in Rom. 2 that the moral law is written on the hearts of men. Thus, knowledge of the moral law is not fundamentally derived from Scripture, though it can be significantly refined and sharpened by Scripture. Furthermore, C.S. Lewis has a nice appendix in his book "The Abolition of Man" in which he documents that consensus among major cultures Eastern and Western that Premise 1 is true. The vast majority of people in all places, times, religions, etc. have agreed that it is wrong to take an innocent human life. Thus this is not a merely accidental cultural artifact due to the influence of Moses.
DLW: The belief that human life begins at conception may not be falsifiable. This would require us to put our cards on the table and specify what sort of evidence would make us change our views regarding when human life begins.
Alan: Show me an incommensurable discontinuity in the developmental process of the fetus, such that prior to time t we have one kind of being, and subsequent to time t we have another (e.g., prior to time t the fetus has non-human DNA; after time t it has human DNA) and I will have to change my views. Regardless, I think the burden of proof rests on you. There is prima facie good reason for thinking that the fetus is a human being (it has human parents, human DNA, and will naturally develop into an adult human if given the chance). What reason do you have for thinking that prior to a certain point in development it isn't?
Enjoying the discussion,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/10/2003 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW: yes, but the new zygote has the dna of both original zygotes. That is how people who are both male and female develop.
Alan: Au contraire. Humans come into being when gametes (sperm and egg), not zygotes, merge. The gametes are not human beings, the zygote is.
You misunderstand me. After two eggs are both fertilized, if the zygotes collide they merge into one zygote and that zygote has the dna of both of the earlier zygotes. Its not that one absorbs the other, but that the two become one.
quote:
DLW: The mother's body is unable to tell that it is her offspring as opposed to some other organic molecule floating around in the womb. Nature knows!!
Alan: So? Whether the mother's body correctly detects the zygote or not makes no difference to the ontological status of the zygote.
The womb is s'posed to provide support and nurture to a fetus. That is its purpose. So if it cannot detect the true nature of the zygote then perhaps, at that point it has yet to develop into a human life. Why assign souls to zygotes if half the time they get absorbed into the Mother's womb? That would be a wasteful arrangement.
quote:
DLW: And the whole thing rests on unobservables such as the transfer of a soul.
Alan: This is no more a problem for my view than for yours.
My view explicitly acknowledges the ambiguity.
quote:
DLW: So the fact a human zygote has the potential to become a mature human adult makes it the same being as that potential human being? I had the potential to be a really good psychopathic killer ... but now I am not a psychopathic killer.
Alan: No. The zygote is not a "potential human being". It is an actual human being, a young and not fully matured human being, but a human being nonetheless. Think about it this way. If it's not a human being at conception then it must be some other kind of being until it suddenly becomes something fundamentally different, a human being, at "ensoulment" or what have you. What kind of being would it be? Well, let's see, it comes from human parents, has a complete complement of human DNA, will naturally mature into an adult human given time and nourishment. What reason is there for thinking that the zygote is anything other than a human being?
Well, it can't think yet. It has a high chance of being absorbed like some randome piece of plasma. Its individuality is not set out enough yet, that it might not merge with another zygote. As of the first month, it has not developed all of the body-parts of a human. At that point, its brain activity starts to trickle, but it isn't until the third trimester that it really starts to develop. It cannot be viable outside of its mother yet.
If I become braindead, I will still have my dna and I'm sure there could still be some activity in my brain-stem coordinating the lower-body functions. Would I still be a human life? Would my soul still be chained to my body?
Having the potential to become a human life isn't the same thing as being a human life.
quote:
DLW: Isn't it also implicit in your argument a view of what is natural? A human zygote with loving parents, educational and economic opportunities will develop into a mature human adult, but that isn't exactly natural.
Alan: What isn't natural? Dog fetuses mature into adult dogs. Cat fetuses mature into adult cats. Human fetuses mature into adult humans. What would be unnatural would be for a human zygote to develop into anything other than a mature human being. That would really be weird!
No, you miss my point. The term natural has a very strong ideological connotation. Yes human fetuses will not develop into anything else beside human beings, but often the term is used to describe the process from conception to birth as "natural" or sacrosanct. Just as it is natural for us to have sex without condoms or any birth-control. I am implying that the social-economic relations of our world are so fallen that it may be important for some people who are not prepared for raising children to have access to some abortion technology for first-trimester fetuses(preferably in the first month).
quote:
The basic pro-life argument is very simple and powerful:
1. It is wrong to take an innocent human life.
2. Abortion takes an innocent human life.
3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
DLW: No. 2 is based on non-falsifiable presuppositions that have no biblical support.
Alan: Non-falsifiable? Hardly. All you'd have to do is show either that the fetus is not alive or that it's not human or that it's not innocent in the relevant sense. It is alive? Yes. We know this because it grows and develops. Is it human? Yes. We know this for the reasons I have given above. Is it innocent? In the relevant sense, yes. The fetus has not committed any act deserving punishment by death.
I do not think either of us have specified well what we mean to be human. You basically gave the dna argument, but that will not satisfy for the reasons I gave already. I think what makes us a human life is the Imago Dei, having a spirit, but that renders when we become a human life as based on unobservables.
Also, within the Baptist tradition, it is believed that young children that die before they reach the age of accountability will go to heaven. The same could be said for human fetuses if they did acquire souls. I am not saying we should abort all fetuses so they could all go to heaven. That clearly is forbidden, but what I am saying that while it is tragic, it is not the ultimate tragedy of when someone rejects God and then dies.
In my experience, how we have dealt with the abortion issue politically has served as a barrier to reaching others for Christ.
quote:
DLW: [Premise 1] is not an intuition, but derived from a culturally inculcated commitment to the commandments given by God to Moses.
Alan: Au contraire. Paul writes in Rom. 2 that the moral law is written on the hearts of men. Thus, knowledge of the moral law is not fundamentally derived from Scripture, though it can be significantly refined and sharpened by Scripture. Furthermore, C.S. Lewis has a nice appendix in his book "The Abolition of Man" in which he documents that consensus among major cultures Eastern and Western that Premise 1 is true. The vast majority of people in all places, times, religions, etc. have agreed that it is wrong to take an innocent human life. Thus this is not a merely accidental cultural artifact due to the influence of Moses.
I don't want to pursue this line of reasoning here.
quote:
DLW: The belief that human life begins at conception may not be falsifiable. This would require us to put our cards on the table and specify what sort of evidence would make us change our views regarding when human life begins.
Alan: Show me an incommensurable discontinuity in the developmental process of the fetus, such that prior to time t we have one kind of being, and subsequent to time t we have another (e.g., prior to time t the fetus has non-human DNA; after time t it has human DNA) and I will have to change my views. Regardless, I think the burden of proof rests on you. There is prima facie good reason for thinking that the fetus is a human being (it has human parents, human DNA, and will naturally develop into an adult human if given the chance). What reason do you have for thinking that prior to a certain point in development it isn't?
Once more, I define a human life as possesing the imago dei and having a soul. The DNA we get from our parents is neccessary but not sufficient. It is not until right before the first month that there is some brain activity. The brain activity doesn't grow that much until the third trimester. It isn't until the 16th week that a fetus has any chance of surviving outside of the womb(I think).
My point is not that I believe that any of these development facts can settle the question of when human life begins, but that, given the Bible doesn't touch upon the question of when human life begins, which I think you conceed to me), we are called to carefully observe the fetal development process and to consider whether or not, due to the sinfulness of the world, some abortions may be the lesser of two evils in some cases.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/10/2003 7:18 AM (GMT -6) | | This is taken from the O'Reilly-Singer posting under the Breaking Down Walls Forum.
SeanG:DLW, the following is from a debate I am currently having elsewhere:
################################
You keep bringing up religion, so I will hit this head on. Natural Law only is effective if there is an Ultimate, personal Being that has created us. This is how the founders could write and sign the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They knew that everyone deserved these freedoms. However, if you reject this Ultimate, who’s to say that infanticide is morally wrong, or homosexuality, for example:
quote:
Steven Pinker, professor of psychology at the Massachusetts Institute of Psychology and a leading popularizer of evolutionary psychology, says it is a genetic imperative. Writing in the New York Times, Pinker argued that what he termed neonaticide is not attributable to mental illness because “it has been practiced and acceptable in most cultures throughout history.” Rather, he went on to say, a capacity for neonaticide is hard-wired into the maternal genes by our evolutionary history.
Or take these excerpts from the book, Writings on an Ethical Life, by Peter Singer (the Ira W. De Camp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University’s Center for Human Value). I am curious if you agree with him or not?:
“We have already seen that the strength of the conservative position lies in the difficulty liberals have in pointing to a morally significant line of demarcation between an embryo and a newborn baby. The standard liberal position needs to be able to point to some such line, because liberals usually hold that it is permissible to kill an embryo or fetus [all nine-months an abortion is legal] but not a baby. I have argued that the life of a fetus (and even more plainly, of an embryo) is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, etc., and that since no fetus is a person no fetus has the same claim to life as a person. Now it must be admitted that these arguments apply to the newborn baby as much as to the fetus. A week-old baby is not a rational and self-conscious being, and there are many nonhuman animals whose rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week or month old. If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to a nonhuman animal. Thus while my position on the status of fetal life may be acceptable to many, the implications of this position for the status of newborn life are at odds with the virtually unchallenged assumption that the life of a newborn baby is as sacrosanct as that of an adult.” (p. 160-161)
“In our book Should the Baby Live? my colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggested that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others. This is clearly well before the infant could have a sense of its own existence over time, and would allow a couple to decide that it is better not to continue with a life that has begun very badly.” (p. 231)
Would you agree with Pinker’s and Singer’s statements? Is infanticide morally wrong? Or just culturally wrong, and nor really morally wrong? You are equating animal sexual behavior to that of human, much like Pinker and Singer.
################################
SeanG:When do you define life as beginning?
I wrote:I do not set out a clear-cut line for when human life begins and I have problems with conception. In my position paer, I raise some scientific facts that complicate the notion that it begins when the zygote is formed. For example, if two zygotes are fertilized simultaneously and subsequently collide within a couple of days of they merge and become one human being. Also a woman's womb does commonly absorb the zygote in the first couple of weeks after fertilization. This could be all tragic abortions, or it could reflect how the womb is unable to recognize the zygote for what it is as opposed to some other organic object floating around inside the womb.
My view is that Singer's line of reasoning neglects how we recognize ourselves in the human fetus/new-born baby and form expectations about what they will develop into. My view is that the human fetus become a human life, receives its soul, after the first month and before the 20th week. I believe that as Christians we should deal with this sort of ambiguity by practicing conservatism. But that is all kingom ethics for members of a Church. I think that with regards to the legal redefinition of when human life begins that the wise course is gradualism as I describe in my link and, of course, non-political means of encouraging people not to have abortions.
I shared some of my views with a Mexican student who was the floor-supervisor of the dorm I lived in last semester. He shared with me how he and his ex-girlfriend had had sex and she had gotten pregnant and they had had an abortion a month after conception. He was really concerned that I would think he was a bad person for having caused an abortion(something that I was impressed with).
I told him that the sooner one has an abortion, the better, and that having a baby together was a bad reason for getting married and that it is tragic for a baby to grow up with one parent or a broken-family. I then told him that it still was a sin, but that we all make mistakes and that the important thing was to avoid these mistakes in the future. That went over well with him.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/12/2003 9:47 AM (GMT -6) | | "Pregnancy" is defined medically as when implantation occurs, and not just fertilization. I agree w/ DLW- it is estimated that about 80% of fertilized eggs do not implant, and thus pregnancy has not occurred. If there is a soul present at the moment of fertilization, then about 80% of "people" are dead before they even are attached to their mothers' womb. That makes no sense.
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/12/2003 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"Pregnancy" is defined medically as when implantation occurs, and not just fertilization. I agree w/ DLW- it is estimated that about 80% of fertilized eggs do not implant, and thus pregnancy has not occurred. If there is a soul present at the moment of fertilization, then about 80% of "people" are dead before they even are attached to their mothers' womb. That makes no sense.
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell
any legal advice on my idea for gradually altering the legal definition of when human life begins?
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/12/2003 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW- are you talking about attempting a constitutional amendment that life begins at 24 weeks?
It's really not possible to have a constitutional amendment just stating that. I suppose it is theoretically possible to get an amendment stating that no abortion may legally performed after 24 weeks. But I think the chances of that amendment passing are slim to none.
As far as state's laws - as it stands now, Roe v. Wade, as outdated as it is, is the law of the land, prohibiting any state from criminalizing abortion, no matter of 100% of the residents wanted that. Roe v. Wade would first have to be overturned - if that ever happened (snowball's chance in hell) -then each state would be free to enact laws criminalizing abortion - that is, if their legislatures could get the support. EVen so, those laws would be subject to legal challenge under state constitutions.
I really think the only way to combat abortion is to not focus on the legality or illegality of it, but to focus on getting the message out to people about the reality of what they are doing. Education is probably key. Also support for adoption.
Just b/c something is legal doesn't mean it needs to be exercised. The right to abortion could be perfectly legal and yet few people would exercise it if they sincerely believed they were actually killing a human being (idealistic, I know).
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 5/12/2003 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Interesting discussion, althought a bit more verbose than necessary.
I think it would be fair to say from the exchange that the focus of the debate is "when does an eternal soul enter the body and when does it leave"? Answering this will seem to lead to who is right.
In general, all parties seem to agree that in most cases, it at least falls in the interval from birth to death. However, there are some debateable "what about's?" (zygotes [merged or not]), a brain dead person ["vegetable"], etc.)
We could argue the "soul starts here" and therefore terminating it would be sin until we are blue in the face.
For the record, I DO believe life begins at conception, but in order to address the issue I propose a different angle which will still lead to the same conclusion about abortion being morally wrong.
The Bible looks upon "intent of the act" very strongly (sometimes equalling the crime itself). As Jesus stated, you need not engage in the act of adultery or murder, but merely the lustful or rageful heart is sufficient for sin and guilt.
Although society is not always consistent with this principle, it often adopts a similar philosophy. It's why we have a crime called "attempted murder". Meaning of course, if it was shown that the taking of a life was premeditated, and even if the act carried out an unsuccessful, you are still guilty (consequences may not be as severe as actual murder, but that is besides the point). Applying this train of thought, and knowing that abortions are quite intentional (including premeditation), abortion would fall into this same guilt.
Now one objection that may be brought up is, "So what? You still haven't established that you are truly killing something that is 'human' (meaning has an eternal soul)". True. It would be analogous to saying, "Should someone be held guilty for shooting someone who is already dead?" Good question.
This is where things get tricky. You have essentially 4 possible scenarios of intent vs. actuality for an abortion:
1. Person believes abortion is killing, zygote (or whatever you choose to use) does in fact have a soul.
2. Person believes abortion is killing, zygote does in fact NOT have a soul.
3. Person believes abortion is not killing, zygote does in fact have a soul.
4. Person believes abortion is not killing, zygote does in fact NOT have a soul.
In each of these, you can make up your own Guilty/Innocent verdicts for this person. Of course, our opinion doesn't matter as much as God's. From the Bible, we know these 2 truths:
- If we believe we are right, and God thinks the action is wrong, we're wrong (guilty)
- If we believe we are wrong, and God thinks the action is OK, we're still wrong (guilty)
Romans 14:22-24
"So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."
The context Paul is talking about are those 99%-of-all-issues-which-aren't-explicitly-in-the-Bible (Eating meat, birth control, R-rated movies, rock music, gambling, smoking, etc. etc. etc.). He says here that even if something is not truly a sin, if you can't do it in confidence, then it IS sin. I admit I have been very guilty of this in the past.
So how should this apply to abortion? At first it seems to give strength to DLW's argument that since we cannot TRULY know when a soul is bound to the physical substance that we ought to not condemn those who take this view. True, they MAY in fact be guilty of sin, but should we not treat it as a "Christian Liberty" issue like so many others as trivial as that sounds?
However, let's look at the flipside. The Bible as well as society puts great significance on the heart and in some instances excuses the letter of the law (Sabbath, eating consecrated food, etc.). This shows the letter is always subservient (although often in harmony with) the spirit (heart) of the law. It's why the 2 Greatest Commandments on which ALL OTHERS hang are to love God first and love people second.
Given this, let's try and examine the heart of an abortionist. WHY is that person wanting to have an abortion?
- Perhaps pure convenience? Wrong heart attitude. Guilty.
- Didn't think the decision through sufficiently? Sorry, but our society also values responsibility and consequences for actions. Guilty.
- Child may be other than "normal" (deformed, retarded, etc) and we don't want it to suffer? A bit better, but seems to me a cop out attitude as they aren't even attempting birth and would rather not "take any chances" of not being able to "cut their losses" later (there have been documented cases where doctors misdiagnosed fetuses as serverly retarded who came out perfectly healthy at birth). Guilty.
- Endangerment to mother's life? Now perhaps not guilty.
Sure, I didn't cover all the bases and "what about's...?" but you get the point. In just about all abortions that I know of, the heart does not seem to be in the right place. It isn't interested in this life at all (or "potential life" if you want to call it that) and is more self centered. This flies in the face in of the love that God was talking about.
Conclusion: Although I cannot say with 100% certainty that ALL abortions are sinful, I will say that seeing the fruits of action which give a good indication to the heart warrants sufficient condemnation of abortion in general.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/12/2003 12:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Interesting discussion, althought a bit more verbose than necessary.
I am, notwithstanding occasional terse tidbits, in nearly every setting verbose.
quote:
I think it would be fair to say from the exchange that the focus of the debate is "when does an eternal soul enter the body and when does it leave"? Answering this will seem to lead to who is right.
I agree the exchange focuses on that, but I think an additional important issue is what forms of political action should we take regarding abortion. I think we could agree that human life begins at conception or within a week/month or so of conception and still disagree on what forms of political action should be taken.
quote:
In general, all parties seem to agree that in most cases, it at least falls in the interval from birth to death. However, there are some debateable "what about's?" (zygotes [merged or not]), a brain dead person ["vegetable"], etc.)
We could argue the "soul starts here" and therefore terminating it would be sin until we are blue in the face.
We could also try and delineate as many facts that could be relevant to when we believe the human fetus is a human life as possible.
quote:
The Bible looks upon "intent of the act" very strongly (sometimes equalling the crime itself). As Jesus stated, you need not engage in the act of adultery or murder, but merely the lustful or rageful heart is sufficient for sin and guilt.
Although society is not always consistent with this principle, it often adopts a similar philosophy. It's why we have a crime called "attempted murder". Meaning of course, if it was shown that the taking of a life was premeditated, and even if the act carried out an unsuccessful, you are still guilty (consequences may not be as severe as actual murder, but that is besides the point). Applying this train of thought, and knowing that abortions are quite intentional (including premeditation), abortion would fall into this same guilt.
Now one objection that may be brought up is, "So what? You still haven't established that you are truly killing something that is 'human' (meaning has an eternal soul)". True. It would be analogous to saying, "Should someone be held guilty for shooting someone who is already dead?" Good question.
This is where things get tricky. You have essentially 4 possible scenarios of intent vs. actuality for an abortion:
1. Person believes abortion is killing, zygote (or whatever you choose to use) does in fact have a soul.
2. Person believes abortion is killing, zygote does in fact NOT have a soul.
3. Person believes abortion is not killing, zygote does in fact have a soul.
4. Person believes abortion is not killing, zygote does in fact NOT have a soul.
I think one can still believe all abortions are wrong/sin but that in some cases they may at earlier stages be the lesser of two evils.
Clearly, it must be killing(a life is extinguished), but whether it is murder is part of the problem of order(i.e., we set up working definitions of when human life begins and ends and rely on these defintions for
quote:
Romans 14:22-24
"So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."
The context Paul is talking about are those 99%-of-all-issues-which-aren't-explicitly-in-the-Bible (Eating meat, birth control, R-rated movies, rock music, gambling, smoking, etc. etc. etc.). He says here that even if something is not truly a sin, if you can't do it in confidence, then it IS sin. I admit I have been very guilty of this in the past.
As I remember from this passage, Paul does waffle somewhat over whether it is wrong to eat the meat from the temple or not. His condemnation of it, was based on the premise that it might harm the walk of those who were weak in their faith.
quote:
So how should this apply to abortion? At first it seems to give strength to DLW's argument that since we cannot TRULY know when a soul is bound to the physical substance that we ought to not condemn those who take this view. True, they MAY in fact be guilty of sin, but should we not treat it as a "Christian Liberty" issue like so many others as trivial as that sounds?
It is true that liberal pro-choicers do use the inability to know for sure when human life begins argument to justify not making any legal changes to when human life begins. However, my position doesn't support this line of reasoning. I believe we should observe and deliberrate on when human life begins very much and set up rules within Churches and at the national level that restrict abortions.
quote:
However, let's look at the flipside. The Bible as well as society puts great significance on the heart and in some instances excuses the letter of the law (Sabbath, eating consecrated food, etc.). This shows the letter is always subservient (although often in harmony with) the spirit (heart) of the law. It's why the 2 Greatest Commandments on which ALL OTHERS hang are to love God first and love people second.
Given this, let's try and examine the heart of an abortionist. WHY is that person wanting to have an abortion?
- Perhaps pure convenience? Wrong heart attitude. Guilty.
- Didn't think the decision through sufficiently? Sorry, but our society also values responsibility and consequences for actions. Guilty.
- Child may be other than "normal" (deformed, retarded, etc) and we don't want it to suffer? A bit better, but seems to me a cop out attitude as they aren't even attempting birth and would rather not "take any chances" of not being able to "cut their losses" later (there have been documented cases where doctors misdiagnosed fetuses as serverly retarded who came out perfectly healthy at birth). Guilty.
- Endangerment to mother's life? Now perhaps not guilty.
Sure, I didn't cover all the bases and "what about's...?" but you get the point. In just about all abortions that I know of, the heart does not seem to be in the right place. It isn't interested in this life at all (or "potential life" if you want to call it that) and is more self centered. This flies in the face in of the love that God was talking about.
Conclusion: Although I cannot say with 100% certainty that ALL abortions are sinful, I will say that seeing the fruits of action which give a good indication to the heart warrants sufficient condemnation of abortion in general.
I think we are basically in agreement about what Christian Conduct should be and the sinful attitudes that underly much of abortion. I stress conservatism, inspite of the ambiguity as to when human life begins. But I don't think this should be made law.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/12/2003 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW- are you talking about attempting a constitutional amendment that life begins at 24 weeks?
It's really not possible to have a constitutional amendment just stating that. I suppose it is theoretically possible to get an amendment stating that no abortion may legally performed after 24 weeks. But I think the chances of that amendment passing are slim to none.
The idea is the following, okay the SC determined that constitutionally a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body(including getting an abortion). However, this presumes that a human fetus has no autonomous legal status other than part of a woman's body up until birth. Given our changing technology for the observation and abortion of fetuses, it is ludicrous to claim that the Constitution set out what the legal status of a human fetus should be for all time. It is subject to redefinition. This legal redefinition should not be left to the SC justices but should be made by all US citizens. My point is that, so long as we require a supra-majority, this will permit redefinition but give pro-choice activists the assurances that any legal change will be gradual and Roe-V-Wade will not be overturned. All abortions will not be made illegal.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 5/12/2003 4:05 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: You misunderstand me. After two eggs are both fertilized, if the zygotes collide they merge into one zygote and that zygote has the dna of both of the earlier zygotes. Its not that one absorbs the other, but that the two become one.
Alan: OK. I follow. Still don't see how this poses a problem for my position. It seems like one or both of the original beings die in the merger and we are left with one human being.
DLW: The womb is s'posed to provide support and nurture to a fetus. ... So if it cannot detect the true nature of the zygote then perhaps, at that point it has yet to develop into a human life.
Alan: So then what kind of life is it prior to developing into a human life? Anyway, there could be many reasons for this phenomenon. It's hardly conclusive.
DLW: Why assign souls to zygotes if half the time they get absorbed into the Mother's womb? That would be a wasteful arrangement.
Alan: Couple points. First, it is really true that this happens half the time? I'd like to see some reference to the research literature. I'll look in some of my sources to see what I come up with. Second, in describing this as a "wasteful arrangement" you seem to think that my view implies that this phenomenon of zygote absorption is part of God's original design and you suggest in response that God wouldn't have done it that way. For the record, I doubt this is part of God's design. I suspect that it is rather a consequence of the Fall or of chemicals (like the Pill) that we take into our bodies. Furthermore, even if that isn't correct, how do you know that God wouldn't have done it that way?
DLW: And the whole thing rests on unobservables such as the transfer of a soul.
Alan: In my view there is no "transfer" of a soul. I don't think there is first a living physical body (in this case a zygote) and that God then transmits a soul into this body. Your position implies a Cartesian dualism between body and soul, in which we are souls that inhabit and utilize a body but have no essential connection with it. Why then does Scripture teach the resurrection of the body as though this is a restoration of us to our proper state. Christian tradition has held that we are essentially embodied beings.
DLW: Well, it can't think yet. It has a high chance of being absorbed like some randome piece of plasma. Its individuality is not set out enough yet, that it might not merge with another zygote. As of the first month, it has not developed all of the body-parts of a human. At that point, its brain activity starts to trickle, but it isn't until the third trimester that it really starts to develop. It cannot be viable outside of its mother yet.
Alan: All of these developmental factors
DLW: If I become braindead, I will still have my dna and I'm sure there could still be some activity in my brain-stem coordinating the lower-body functions. Would I still be a human life?
Alan: I presume you mean something like being in a persistent vegitative state, which is not the same as brain death. (No higher brain activity is not the same as no brain activity.) In brief, my answer is "yes", you would still be a living human being. As long as your body systems are functioning spontaneously in an integrated manner, you have not died.
DLW: Would my soul still be chained to my body?
Alan: Your metaphor of the soul be "chained" to the body again reveals your commitment to a Cartesian-type dualism, which I reject. I would put it this way: You would still be a psycho-physical unity, fully human, though not able to function at normal capacity due to a malfunctioning body.
DLW: Having the potential to become a human life isn't the same thing as being a human life.
Alan: Granted, but fetuses are actual human beings, not potential human beings.
DLW: I am implying that the social-economic relations of our world are so fallen that it may be important for some people who are not prepared for raising children to have access to some abortion technology for first-trimester fetuses (preferably in the first month).
Alan: Your point is morally plausible only IF the unborn are not fully human at the earliest stages of development. Assume for a second that they are fully human from conception on. Then your proposal says basically that when circustances get tough we can kill a certain class of human beings to spare ourselves from social and financial burdens.
DLW: I do not think either of us have specified well what we mean to be human. You basically gave the dna argument, but that will not satisfy for the reasons I gave already. I think what makes us a human life is the Imago Dei, having a spirit, but that renders when we become a human life as based on unobservables.
Alan: I concur with your view that as human we bear the Imago Dei and have an immortal soul. So I don't think that DNA is the only relevant factor. Where we differ is on whether human beings are psycho-physical unities or whether we are souls that are only extrinsically linked to a body.
DLW: It is not until right before the first month that there is some brain activity. The brain activity doesn't grow that much until the third trimester. It isn't until the 16th week that a fetus has any chance of surviving outside of the womb (I think).
Alan: Fine, but morally irrelevant. The onset of brain activity does not mark a substantial change in the nature of the fetus. Nor does viability have any bearing on the moral status of the fetus. On your own view what matters is "ensoulment", not viability.
DLW: ... the Bible doesn't touch upon the question of when human life begins.
Alan: This is not entirely true. E.g., Jer. 1:5, Ps. 139, Ex. 21:22-25 imply at the very least that human life begins before birth. For a powerful argument that the Bible is not ambiguous on the issue of abortion, see www.str.org/free/bioethics/abortBible.pdf.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/13/2003 2:49 AM (GMT -6) | | | Question for Alan: Are there any situations that may exist in which you feel abortion may be morally justified? If so, what are they? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 5/13/2003 5:32 AM (GMT -6) | | It seems from the responses, especially from DLW we are dealing with 2 separate issues.
One issue is whether abortion is morally wrong or not. For the most part, I believe "Yes", it is and also believe that many who responded to this thread (including DLW) believes the same. The main contention then is simply a matter of addressing "when is it truly abortion (murder) and when is it just removing excess tissue?" I tried to indirectly resolve this stating that because of the attitude of the heart and with Biblical and societal evidence, it is not necessary to definitely agree upon WHEN a soul begins and ends.
I believe in Alan's view of the "wholeness" concept, or stated simply, that a soul is transferred at the moment of conception (any earlier and we'd be forced to conclude that every non-fertilized egg [or sperm for that matter] results in the death of a soul. Maybe that is true though ).
To be fair to DLW, I do understand the skepticism of this viewpoint. Since we have the technology to manipulate genetic code long before embryotic development, we could feasibly change many things about a person, including appearance and more importantly, brain functions. This leads to an interesting question of "playing God". Theoretically, we could engineer a person with specific personality traits and adjust their body chemistry to be resistent/suseptible to different addictions and "sins" (remove the desire to steal?).
So is our "soul" based soley (no pun intended) in our brain, or with our whole person or an inseparable heart/soul/mind as the Bible seems to imply? Just what is the "true" person? Personally, I believe it is entirely perfect and good as well as immortal (Adam and Eve before the Fall). But once sin entered the picture, the entire process, including the conception and genetic process, has been perverted. I cannot say how "different" Believers will be with newly ressurected bodies, but whatever it is, it will be what God originally intended for us and of course better. But I think that is not important to dwell on. (Jesus didn't change that much because He was already perfect to begin with)
DLW seems to be addressing a different question though. That is, "How does this translate into a practical application of laws? Should we treat abortion equivalent to murder as we do for adults? Would that include the death penalty then if we support capital punishment (if we didn't then we'd be guilty of not viewing all human life equally valuable)?"
I do not believe that we ought to strive for a Taliban-like perfect Christian State as was attempted back in Constantine's Holy Roman Empire days or the days of Moses. The Bible says that pure Law only lead to death (Romans) and further attempts would be dismal failures.
However, that doesn't mean we resort to anarchy. God established the government for GOOD even if the government is as broken and corrupt as we are. The Bible is clear we are to obey the government unless it directly conflicts with God's commands (such as a ban on prayer or reading the Bible would have to be disobeyed).
The question is, "Does abortion fit into this category?" My answer would be "No". Morally we are to protect life and those who commit or condone such behavior will be judged by God accordingly. However, this is not an instance where we are obligated to civil disobedience simply because the Bible states it's wrong.
The main rationale for this position is that different cultures hold different interpretations and standards for behaviors. Every society believes "murder" (killing an innocent) is wrong but may have different qualifications. Likewise, some crimes we may consider trivial (petty theft) could be dealt with severely by other countries (Middle Eastern hand chopping).
We have SOME idea about the relative seriousness of sins both from Natural Law (most believe murder is more serious than a theft) but again the variances between cultures is extremely high. The Bible also gives us SOME guideliness but I think it unwise to use the Mosaic Law as the standard (otherwise we'd be having a lot more people killed or severely punished).
Since I believe abortion is truly murder and given the seriousness and finality of that crime, that morally as individuals who commit/assist it and we as a society will be judged by God harshly. However, OUR government has decided that it is acceptable, and thus we must abide by it allowing those who wish to exercise their "right".
This does not imply though that we should not speak out against it or pursue a change in policy. It should though give us a sense of urgency and priority to live as lights in this dark world.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 5/13/2003 2:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Question for Alan: Are there any situations that may exist in which you feel abortion may be morally justified? If so, what are they?
When the life of the mother is in imminent danger abortion is morally justified. It such cases we are faced with the regrettable option of taking the life of the unborn child or losing the mother (and probably the child as well). Abortion in that case is a necessary means to avert a greater disaster, and the intent is not to kill the child, but to save the mother.
As far as I can see, this is the only case in which abortion is morally justified.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/13/2003 3:20 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
Question for Alan: Are there any situations that may exist in which you feel abortion may be morally justified? If so, what are they?
When the life of the mother is in imminent danger abortion is morally justified. It such cases we are faced with the regrettable option of taking the life of the unborn child or losing the mother (and probably the child as well). Abortion in that case is a necessary means to avert a greater disaster, and the intent is not to kill the child, but to save the mother.
As far as I can see, this is the only case in which abortion is morally justified.
Alan
So long as your non-biblically-supported presupposition that human life begins at conception is true.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/15/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW: You misunderstand me. After two eggs are both fertilized, if the zygotes collide they merge into one zygote and that zygote has the dna of both of the earlier zygotes. Its not that one absorbs the other, but that the two become one.
Alan: OK. I follow. Still don't see how this poses a problem for my position. It seems like one or both of the original beings die in the merger and we are left with one human being.
Yes, but what would pose a problem for your position? If the existence of human life in a zygote stems from it having a soul, which is unobservable, then nothing can refute that possibility.
I don't expect for us to resolve the question of when human life begins. That is why the focus of my original postings was in suggesting alternative political courses one could take to make some changes in the law concerning abortion.
quote:
DLW: The womb is s'posed to provide support and nurture to a fetus. ... So if it cannot detect the true nature of the zygote then perhaps, at that point it has yet to develop into a human life.
Alan: So then what kind of life is it prior to developing into a human life? Anyway, there could be many reasons for this phenomenon. It's hardly conclusive.
Life is just a bunch of criteria that biologists agree to as taxonomizing what is alive and what isn't. Having human dna and the potential to develop into a human life doesn't make one human. Consider what ReasonableDoubt wrote regarding the futility of zygotes having souls since 80% of them wouldn't make it very far.
quote:
DLW: Why assign souls to zygotes if half the time they get absorbed into the Mother's womb? That would be a wasteful arrangement.
Alan: Couple points. First, it is really true that this happens half the time? I'd like to see some reference to the research literature. I'll look in some of my sources to see what I come up with. Second, in describing this as a "wasteful arrangement" you seem to think that my view implies that this phenomenon of zygote absorption is part of God's original design and you suggest in response that God wouldn't have done it that way. For the record, I doubt this is part of God's design. I suspect that it is rather a consequence of the Fall or of chemicals (like the Pill) that we take into our bodies. Furthermore, even if that isn't correct, how do you know that God wouldn't have done it that way?
I was being somewhat tongue in cheek in how I put it. But, if ReasonableDoubt is correct then I think it strengthens my point. I believe the uncertainty of a zygote developing into a fetus is one of the reasons why couples who want to get pregnant have difficulty doing so. Forms of birth-control like the pill just increase the likelihood that the zygote doesn't implant itself in the mother's womb so it can develop.
quote:
DLW: And the whole thing rests on unobservables such as the transfer of a soul.
Alan: In my view there is no "transfer" of a soul. I don't think there is first a living physical body (in this case a zygote) and that God then transmits a soul into this body. Your position implies a Cartesian dualism between body and soul, in which we are souls that inhabit and utilize a body but have no essential connection with it. Why then does Scripture teach the resurrection of the body as though this is a restoration of us to our proper state. Christian tradition has held that we are essentially embodied beings.
I don't think my position necessarily implies a cartesian dualism. Clearly there are life-forms that do not have souls. I am saying that the human fetus would not develop/become a human life without a soul. Clearly, as is attested by scripture, our souls wouldn't function if they weren't enmeshed in our bodies.
quote:
DLW: Well, it can't think yet. It has a high chance of being absorbed like some randome piece of plasma. Its individuality is not set out enough yet, that it might not merge with another zygote. As of the first month, it has not developed all of the body-parts of a human. At that point, its brain activity starts to trickle, but it isn't until the third trimester that it really starts to develop. It cannot be viable outside of its mother yet.
Alan: All of these developmental factors
So, you asked for a shift in the fetal development. I am saying that going from a piece of plasma to something recognizable as human and nourished by the womb is an important change. Likewise, with a living being that has some brain-activity to a third-trimester fetus that can respond to the moving of the holy spirit by leaping(Can a second trimester fetus leap?) or try to avoid the medical instrument being used to abort it.
quote:
DLW: If I become braindead, I will still have my dna and I'm sure there could still be some activity in my brain-stem coordinating the lower-body functions. Would I still be a human life?
Alan: I presume you mean something like being in a persistent vegitative state, which is not the same as brain death. (No higher brain activity is not the same as no brain activity.) In brief, my answer is "yes", you would still be a living human being. As long as your body systems are functioning spontaneously in an integrated manner, you have not died.
But my point is that we really don't know that this is the case. It cannot be settled by scripture and rests on unobservables. If I enter a vegetative state, I don't believe I will have the potential to kickstart the rest of my brain and return to my ability to interact with others.
quote:
DLW: Would my soul still be chained to my body?
Alan: Your metaphor of the soul be "chained" to the body again reveals your commitment to a Cartesian-type dualism, which I reject. I would put it this way: You would still be a psycho-physical unity, fully human, though not able to function at normal capacity due to a malfunctioning body.
I am talking about my mind. I am not talking about having malfunctioning body. They can still monitor the activity of my mind. How can I be a psycho-physical unity if my mind no longer functions for what it can do that no other animal can do?
quote:
DLW: Having the potential to become a human life isn't the same thing as being a human life.
Alan: Granted, but fetuses are actual human beings, not potential human beings.
Once more, what makes them actual human beings?
quote:
DLW: I am implying that the social-economic relations of our world are so fallen that it may be important for some people who are not prepared for raising children to have access to some abortion technology for first-trimester fetuses (preferably in the first month).
Alan: Your point is morally plausible only IF the unborn are not fully human at the earliest stages of development. Assume for a second that they are fully human from conception on. Then your proposal says basically that when circustances get tough we can kill a certain class of human beings to spare ourselves from social and financial burdens.
My point is that this assumption has no biblical basis and as I am not Catholic, I don't see why I am compelled to believe it.
quote:
DLW: I do not think either of us have specified well what we mean to be human. You basically gave the dna argument, but that will not satisfy for the reasons I gave already. I think what makes us a human life is the Imago Dei, having a spirit, but that renders when we become a human life as based on unobservables.
Alan: I concur with your view that as human we bear the Imago Dei and have an immortal soul. So I don't think that DNA is the only relevant factor. Where we differ is on whether human beings are psycho-physical unities or whether we are souls that are only extrinsically linked to a body.
I beg to differ, I do not define human belings as souls extrinsically linked to a body. I am saying that during the early stages of pregnancy the human zygote/fetus' body may not yet have a soul.
quote:
DLW: It is not until right before the first month that there is some brain activity. The brain activity doesn't grow that much until the third trimester. It isn't until the 16th week that a fetus has any chance of surviving outside of the womb (I think).
Alan: Fine, but morally irrelevant. The onset of brain activity does not mark a substantial change in the nature of the fetus. Nor does viability have any bearing on the moral status of the fetus. On your own view what matters is "ensoulment", not viability.
What is a "substantial" change in the nature of the fetus if not brain activity? Viability does signal the autonomy of the fetus from the mother. So while I suppose there may not be anything intrinsic to the fetus developing in its mother or elsewhere, it is a form of subjective intuition of mine that viability also signals the fact that the fetus has the imago dei, a soul.
quote:
DLW: ... the Bible doesn't touch upon the question of when human life begins.
Alan: This is not entirely true. E.g., Jer. 1:5, Ps. 139, Ex. 21:22-25 imply at the very least that human life begins before birth. For a powerful argument that the Bible is not ambiguous on the issue of abortion, see www.str.org/free/bioethics/abortBible.pdf.
The Bible is not ambiguous on the importance of human life. As you admit the passages only point to human life beginning before birth. Based on the hermeneutical principle mentioned before, it is unlikely the writers of the Bible dealt with whether the human fetus is a human life they are forbidden to kill in the manner in which we deal with the issue today.
So the Bible cannot settle this issue, this is why it is part of the problem of order. We do not have an infallible guide that points what exactly is right conduct in every case on this issue. However, if the human fetus does posess the imago dei then it should tear at peoples' heart-strings to observe it. That is why I think the supra-majority in a national referendum is the appropriate means for effecting when the human fetus is a human life as opposed to just part of a woman's body.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/15/2003 5:12 PM (GMT -6) | | When I was in law school, we discussed this extensively. The comparison was made to a woman who was hooked up to another person, another person who could not live unless she had access to this woman's kidney, or something like that (can't remember it all :)
Anyway, it was conceded that this other person was a "life." It was a person. The question was not was the other person deserving of life, but was any person forced, under our constitution, to sustain another person's life? I think it is an interesting question.
Points were made that this is not a comparable analogy, since, if a woman is pregnant, she has made the choice to have sexual intercourse, and is aware of the possibility of pregnancy - whereas, in the hypothetical, the woman is being hooked up to another person against her will, without a choice whatsoever.
However, then we discussed how even the most conservative anti-abortionists, will make an exception in the case of incest or rape. So that means, if the woman is "totally blameless", i.e., she has been raped or a victim of incest, she should not be forced to carry a child, b/c she has not made the decision to risk getting pregnant by willingly consenting to intercourse.
So what it really boils down to - is yes, there are competing lives here. But should one person be forced against her will to sustain another's life?
I think this is something worth thinking about. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 5/16/2003 4:58 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt,
That is another classical pro-choice argument often used. It acknowleges that life begins at conception, but it then asks if is someone morally responsible for another person's well-being (your being attached to someone example). It claims that although it is "noble" to keep the life sustaining, there is no moral obligation to do so.
Of course, the strongest argument against this example in regards to pregnancy is that since a conscious choice was made to have intercourse, one is obligated to accept the "risks" involved and should not be absolved of being accountable for their actions.
But regardless, even in regards to rape and incest, from a moral standpoint at least, you are not automatically released from doing "the right thing". That entire argument is largely based upon the assumption that being a mother has no inherit societal obligations which is not true. Being a mother entails some degree of responsibility. Both Natural Law and our legal system affirms this. It's why we go after deadbeat dads and persecute neglectful parents.
The question then is "what specific responsibilities must a mother fulfill?" Well, given that they already acknowledged that that embryo within her is a life, they should at least be entitled to what the Constitution grants all other lives in this country. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention. Or in other words, the right to live. Therefore, abortion is not morally justified in this instance either.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/16/2003 5:13 AM (GMT -6) | |
I still think in both these cases that whether or not the human fetus is a human life, an autonomous being, or just having the potential to become a human life is critical.
With rape, if within the first week the zygote is not a human life, then there is technology that can abort the zygote at this early stage.
What about my idea of holding a service for the fetus after an abortion and allowing for a time of mourning, which would then be followed with forgiveness with the repenting parties slates being wiped clean? This gives the woman a choice but recognizes the claims on her life and behavior by her fellow believers through her church.
I think such a service would emphasize the sinfulness of the abortion and need to prevent its repetition, but not insist that the fetus be carried to term, so long as it is in the first trimester or so... .
Also, RD, I didn't get any feedback from you about my proposed alternate strategy for altering the legal definition of when human life begins?
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/20/2003 6:19 AM (GMT -6) | | A Texan pro-lifer friend of mine sent me the following article.
Texas Senate bill could derail Planned Parenthood abortions
By CINDY V. CULP Tribune-Herald staff writer
Planned Parenthood affiliates across the state, including one in Waco, would be forced to either stop providing abortions or forgo state funding under a provision in the Senate's budget proposal.
The provision, known as Rider 11, mandates that the Texas Department of Health not give any funds to family planning organizations that provide abortion services. Since state law already prohibits taxpayer money from being used for abortion-related activities, the money the agencies would lose are funds used to pay for other reproductive health services for men and women.
Pam Smallwood, executive director of Planned Parenthood of Central Texas, said that if her agency loses the $700,000 it currently receives from the state, it could spell the end of the organization's women's health clinic in Waco. The clinic treats about 6,000 women each year, 98 percent of whom are at or below the poverty line, she said.
"You can't provide free medical care for 6,000 women unless someone is going to pay for it," Smallwood said. "If (state legislators) take away the Texas Department of Health funding, this clinic that has been here since 1939 may not be."
The reason the local Planned Parenthood affiliate stands to lose funding is because it performs chemical and surgical abortions at its Audre Rapoport Women's Health Center, located at 1927 Columbus Ave. Even though that clinic is completely separate from the agency's Mary Ruth Duncan Women's Health Center at 1121 Ross Ave., which does not perform abortions, the provision would still apply since the organization runs both.
Smallwood said the absurdity of the provision is that although it aims to limit abortions, it would likely cause more of them. If 6,000 area women no longer receive health services such as medical exams and birth control pills, the logical result is that many of them will get pregnant, she said.
Some of those women will inevitably choose to have an abortion, Smallwood said. And the majority of the rest will have babies on the government's funds, since they would be eligible for Medicaid services, she said.
Smallwood questioned why the state would want to spend the $6,000 it costs the government for the first year of a child's life with a Medicaid birth, versus the $185 it costs for women to get a complete medical exam, lab work and birth control.
"The cost savings is a no-brainer," Smallwood said. "It's the old argument that prevention costs so much less."
Smallwood said some people might assume that if Planned Parenthood clinics lose funding, their clients could continue to receive free family planning services through Medicaid. But that's not true, she said, noting that only 5 percent of clients treated at the Ross Street clinic would qualify for family planning services through Medicaid.
The rest of the women fall into a category where their income is too high for Medicaid family planning services but at or below the poverty level, Smallwood said. The only time most of them would qualify for Medicaid is after they become pregnant, since pregnancy triggers higher income eligibility levels, she said.
But supporters of the provision — which was introduced by Sens. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, and Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, — said Planned Parenthood's arguments are false. The money the organization's 12 clinics in Texas receive would simply be shifted to different providers, said Kayleen Wright, president of the Texas Coalition for Life. County health districts, charities or other medical groups could pick up the slack, she said.
"I think for the kind of money that is there, plenty of players would step up to the plate," Wright said.
Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, said his group is supporting the provision because it would end the possibility of state money being co-mingled with private Planned Parenthood funds and used indirectly to fund abortions. He said there is public support for the idea, pointing to a 2001 Scripps Howard Texas poll that found 69 percent of adult Texans opposed the idea of the state paying for abortions.
"We just don't have the assurance that there is a true separation between the abortion funds and the family planning funds," Pojman said. "If (Planned Parenthood) would just get out of the abortion business, there won't be a problem."
Smallwood disputed Pojman's contention, saying Planned Parenthood is careful to comply with the law, going so far as to have different accounting systems and bank accounts for the two clinics. She also said the agency is audited each year by both the Texas Department of Health and an independent auditor.
"If folks don't believe an independent auditor, I don't know what more you can do," Smallwood said.
Supporters of the provision say Planned Parenthood could continue receiving state money if it stopped providing abortions, but Smallwood said such a choice is against the agency's mission of offering a full range of reproductive services. However, if the bill passes, it is something the agency will have to consider, she said.
Across the state, seven Planned Parenthood clinics do not offer abortions, said Heather Paffe, political director for the Texas Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates. That leaves five that would be affected by the budget provision.
If the provision passes, those five clinics would lose about $13 million, affecting about 110,000 patients, Paffe said. She said the idea that so many women could lose health care services is especially troubling, since only 2.3 percent of the services offered by Planned Parenthood in Texas last year dealt with pregnancy termination.
Whether the provision will become part of the final budget is anybody's guess, both supporters and those opposed to it said. Members of the House-Senate conference committee are scheduled to debate the rider this week as they work out differences between the budgets from the two chambers.
Cindy V. Culp can be reached at 757-5744 or at cculp@wacotrib.com.
I wrote him the following...
Very interesting.
If I were in Texas, I would want to leverage this possibility into getting the Dems/Pro-Choicers to accepting a state-wide referendum requiring an 80% majority to pass.
I say this, because this opportunity to make abortions illegal seems like a fluke, that will then change with the changing political fortunes of the respective parties in your state.
For real, permanent change to take place, it should be gradual and directed at changing the views of people regarding when exactly does human life begin. Setting up a referendum would force people to reflect on this question.
What you are doing will not get rid of abortions. They will still happen. It will just be a lot more difficult for poor people who needed gov't subsidies to get abortions. And, if GW isn't reelected or whatever, then you can be sure that the Dems/Pro-Choicers will reverse the ruling and so there is no certainty that the changes will be permanent.
So I hope and pray you will consider sharing my alternative with your fellow Texans(Leave out the weird stuff like me believing that we cannot know with certainty when human life begins or what-not, focus on the suggestions for political activism), since if the referendums succeed there, it will then be able to spread elsewhere.
Then, we will be able to exploit the legal angle as much as possible to discourage abortions and be able to focus on the social angle...
dlw
I think it would be worth praying for wisdom on the behalf or pro-life activists in how they deal with this situation politically. Yes, we should want change, but the most important change would change of hearts and mixing religion and politics too much may set up some barriers to hearts changing.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 05/26/2003 6:22:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/24/2003 3:48 PM (GMT -6) | | BJS posted a link to a thoughtful letter on when human life begins that draws on a careful legal analysis of how we define human life at death and then argues that we should use this to define human life at its beginning.
I wrote the magazine a letter describing my idea for a gradualist approach to changing when human life begins.
I hope they will publish it.
I think whether or not we can resolve the Abortion issue will be of political signficance in the upcoming election. If bipartisan support can be found for a gradualist approach then abortion will not be an issue in the election. I think I've mentioned elsewhere that I have friends that vote Republican solely because of this issue. Now, maybe some other issue will come up, but I doubt anything(except maybe homosexuality) could be as polarizing for the US than Abortion has been.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
| 291 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:27 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|