My problem with abortion

Jmondi · #1 Mar 20, '12, 11:52 am

I learned in science class that doctors can detect heart beats around 18 days after conception. Brain waves can be detected around 40 days. Abortions are performed on average between 7 and 11 weeks. Let's do some 1st grade math. 7 weeks = 49 days. If a heart beat, a sign of LIFE, can be heard around 18, and brain waves, the second sign of LIFE, around 40, doesn't that make abortion murder?

This troubles me, because in a world where we lose so many souls to abortion with so little guilt ( if any at all ) for this, people still deny it as murder. What is your opinion?

achmafooma · #2 Mar 20, '12, 12:36 pm

You're right. And you can go even further -- as soon as conception occurs, the zygote (human being) has its own unique DNA, and its cells begin growing and separating and forming into a body immediately. This happens independent of the mother's body, although certainly supported by it for sustenance.

Scientifically speaking, life begins at conception. Morally speaking, the same. This can only be denied by one who takes a very novel definition of what life is -- saying that it's not life if it can't survive on its own (which, following the logic through, wouldn't include born infants, the mentally ill, the very elderly and infirm, etc. as life either).

But logic isn't in-play here. Most pro-'choice' people I've engaged in conversation with haven't reasoned things through this way. My hunch is that they started with the conclusion -- that they can do whatever they want with 'their body,' inclusive of an unwanted child in the womb -- and then worked backwards from there to rationalize the position.

I can't think of any other way you'd end up at the position that a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. isn't alive, and killing it isn't murder... it's incredible to me that this has become a socially acceptable position when less than 100 years ago it would have been almost universally abhorrent.

Stumblesalot · #3 Mar 20, '12, 1:13 pm

It IS the taking of a life, I pray for the souls of aborted children every day.

God bless

Will B · #4 Mar 20, '12, 1:14 pm

Our nation has been deceived.. According to Me, deception is the greatest sin of all...

Jesus said "If anyone cause one of these little ones to stumble and fall, it would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and tossed into the sea.... " Well our nation has been deceived.. Our youth of today believe that human life begins well after birth. After all is some areas of the world, if a baby survives an abortion that baby must be left unattended so it can die.

In the late 50s and early 60s homosexual activity was considered a perversion.. Now it is accepted as an alternate life style.. Even the children in public schools are being taught that it OK for two men or two women to get married..

"We the People" have been deceived ... Who get to wear the millstone??

losh14 · #5 Mar 20, '12, 1:21 pm

I'm in full agreement that life begins at conception. This is a fundamental point within our argument, for the scientific reason of having DNA and the propensity to become a fully-formed human being, as well as for the moral reasons that at conception a human is created.

A recent conversation with a friend of mine, who is both a scientist and a Jew, came to loggerheads over this point. She argued that Jews don't believe life begins at conception but rather at Crowning (her branch may believe this - the Orthodox Hasidim do not), and that as a scientist it isn't life until it can survive outside the womb. This of course is nonsense - it's actually rather unscientific for the reasons you point out.

But don't be too surprised by the lack of science in pro-abortion arguments - these are the same people who justify the wholesale eugenics of the mentally disabled, as our abortion laws make it possible for 90% of Down's Syndrome babies to be aborted in the U.S. I'm having trouble finding data on the percentage of pregnancies that are aborted - one site, with which I'm not familiar says 22.6% in the U.S. (and more than 50% in Russia), but I can't find reliable statistics as to the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion by US ethnic group. I would assume that it is much higher for Blacks nationwide than for Whites, and for Hispanics than for Asians, given the data that were recently publicized from New York - a breakdown of something like 60% of all black pregnancies, 23% of all Asian and 20% of all white pregnancies. While I have a really hard time believing that these rates hold constant across the country, I would think that the rate among blacks is far higher than that for whites. New York likely has a higher rate in general, and having a larger proportion of blacks than other parts of the U.S. mean that its abortion rate, which is a weighted average across ethnic groups, would be higher as well.

Note that the Guttmacher Institute defines the abortion rate as being number of women having abortions, not number of pregnant women. I am a statistician - an economist by training but working in a related field. I've presented original research at conferences and I consult on statistical matters to the financial sector. The more I read about Guttmacher's methods, the more I think they're intentionally inaccurate. It's not the calculations but rather the framing of their surveys. Remember that well-publicized "98% of Catholic women use birth control" deal over the past few months? The survey is skewed to look only at Catholic women who are currently sexually active, between the ages of 15 and 48 (I think 48), and not pregnant or trying to get pregnant. That 98% figure has to be pretty heavily qualified to exist. Even where Guttmacher reports it accurately, the Institute knows that the media aren't going to get it right.

No, if you want to find out the rate of birth control use among Catholic women, make your base all Catholic women. In fact, I'd love to conduct my own survey, though I don't want to incur the ire of diocese, and I know that participants on this site would probably skew the number lower.

King Lazy · #6 Mar 20, '12, 1:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmondi

This troubles me, because in a world where we lose so many souls to abortion with so little guilt ( if any at all ) for this, people still deny it as murder. What is your opinion?

Because we cannot relate as easily to humans at the earliest stages of their lives. I think that's why people will consider "feeling pain" or "being able to survive outside the womb" as cut-off points. Those are the points in the development of a foetus that we can begin to relate to. But these grounds are entirely subjective and one's ability to empathise does not make something human or non-human.

I can empathise with dogs very well, but that doesn't make them human. But this sort of subjective empathy is probably also the reason why some people want to confer human rights on non-human animals that aren't remotely like humans. To a significant degree, it's all very much to do with irrational feelings and not the rational mind.

Khalid · #7 Mar 20, '12, 1:44 pm

The infamous Peter Singer is at least honest when he agrees that life begins at conception, and that it's dishonest to argue otherwise - and takes it to its logical conclusion, that infanticide should be legal and is morally equivalent to abortion.

Catholics see infanticide and abortion to be morally equivalent, as well. The difference is Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism doesn't allow for preferences to be held by non-persons (not the same as a "human", but "a being that is capable of wishing to continue to experience mental states and express that preference unambiguously"), the preference of any person is moral and overrides anything that lacks preferences. To boil that down, Peter Singer sees them as morally equivalent, but neither as wrong. At least he's an intellectually-consistent abortionist.

As regards the above poster, Peter Singer does consider some forms of animal life to be "persons" by the aforementioned definition, and is most well-known outside of academic philosophy circles as the guy who wrote Animal Liberation (the bible of PETA).

King Lazy · #8 Mar 20, '12, 1:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khalid

The infamous Peter Singer is at least honest when he agrees that life begins at conception, and that it's dishonest to argue otherwise - and takes it to its logical conclusion, that infanticide should be legal and is morally equivalent to abortion.

Catholics see infanticide and abortion to be morally equivalent, as well. The difference is Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism doesn't allow for preferences to be held by non-persons (not the same as a "human", but "a being that is capable of wishing to continue to experience mental states and express that preference unambiguously"), the preference of any person is moral and overrides anything that lacks preferences. To boil that down, Peter Singer sees them as morally equivalent, but neither as wrong. At least he's an intellectually-consistent abortionist.

It's not just Peter Singer now. There was an article advocating "after-birth abortion" in the Journal of Medical Ethics recently, and the authors also readily agreed that the foetus is clearly and undeniably human. These opinions are gradually becoming more mainstream nowadays, and are no longer seen as being as extreme as in the past.

Khalid · #9 Mar 20, '12, 2:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Lazy

It's not just Peter Singer now. There was an article advocating "after-birth abortion" in the Journal of Medical Ethics recently, and the authors also readily agreed that the foetus is clearly and undeniably human. These opinions are gradually becoming more mainstream nowadays, and are no longer seen as being as extreme as in the past.

I would have thought that physicians would have used a term such as "postpartum abortion" instead, being as they are.

King Lazy · #10 Mar 20, '12, 4:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khalid

I would have thought that physicians would have used a term such as "postpartum abortion" instead, being as they are.

Yes, I was thinking "post-natal" myself, especially since "afterbirth" is another word for placenta, but there you go.

losh14 · #11 Mar 21, '12, 8:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Lazy

Because we cannot relate as easily to humans at the earliest stages of their lives. I think that's why people will consider "feeling pain" or "being able to survive outside the womb" as cut-off points.

I think you are right about this sentiment. It's interesting, though, because when the tragedy of miscarriage occurs, we console the grieving parents on the loss of their child, not on the loss of their mass of cells. A foetus is intended to become a human and we anticipate that the purpose of a pregnancy from the moment of conception is to create another human being. Unfortunate but natural events may take place biologically that prevent that from occurring, but unfortunate natural events also prevent children and adults from living the expected life span. In neither instance is the foetus or the fully-formed human any less human for losing his or her life to a natural cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Lazy

I can empathise with dogs very well, but that doesn't make them human. But this sort of subjective empathy is probably also the reason why some people want to confer human rights on non-human animals that aren't remotely like humans.

What a tremendous irony - we'll grant human rights to apes but not to pre-natal humans. Isn't that a form of age discrimination?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khalid

The infamous Peter Singer is at least honest when he agrees that life begins at conception, and that it's dishonest to argue otherwise - and takes it to its logical conclusion, that infanticide should be legal and is morally equivalent to abortion.

That is the logical conclusion, and the difference between a legal abortion and a shocking and abhorrent crime in the United States is only a matter of time, though the end result - the murder of a defenseless innocent child - is identical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khalid

Catholics see infanticide and abortion to be morally equivalent, as well. The difference is Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism doesn't allow for preferences to be held by non-persons (not the same as a "human", but "a being that is capable of wishing to continue to experience mental states and express that preference unambiguously"), the preference of any person is moral and overrides anything that lacks preferences.

I see you're well-read. Do you know if Singer would extend personhood to those humans who are disabled - mentally or physically - to the extent of being unable to communicate their will unambiguously?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khalid

To boil that down, Peter Singer sees them as morally equivalent, but neither as wrong. At least he's an intellectually-consistent abortionist.

Indeed he is. I wonder how he'd feel if I took a brood of unhatched, fertilized chicken eggs and crushed them underfoot - would that be immoral or perfectly acceptable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khalid

As regards the above poster, Peter Singer does consider some forms of animal life to be "persons" by the aforementioned definition, and is most well-known outside of academic philosophy circles as the guy who wrote Animal Liberation (the bible of PETA).

Yep. And every time I think of PETA I see two things:
1) The Onion article: PETA Commandos kill 59, save rabbit
2) A billboard posted within sight of my old parish right around Easter, showing a pig and with the words "He died for your sins". I think I went to KFC for brunch out of sheer spite.

Khalid, you've read Singer enough that you may know the answer; Singer's policy argument in Animal Liberation is that animals should not be made to suffer needlessly or be used in the sense of "slavery", as mere means to the purposes of another. Does that conclusion derive from his imputing of personhood to animals, or does he impute personhood to animals to provide a philosophical basis for his argument? Within Catholicism there's merit to the perspective that animals should be treated humanely and that vegetarianism and veganism are both allowed to be conducted out of sense of respect for Creation, but without the need to recognize a sense of personhood to animals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Lazy

It's not just Peter Singer now. There was an article advocating "after-birth abortion" in the Journal of Medical Ethics recently, and the authors also readily agreed that the foetus is clearly and undeniably human.

Positively ghoulish. I would trust no doctor who laid claim to such a terrible argument. As expected, they call upon the Groningen Protocol which allows the murder of severely disabled children in Dutch hospitals.

Citations:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...11-100411.full
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/06/af...ology-apology/

It's simply astonishing and reminds one of Nazi eugenics programs. The focus of the medical profession ought to be the prevention of disease and amelioration of its effects to improve quality of life. It should not be to destroy those with defects - what a terrible and forsaken poverty this is. To even attempt to assess a dividing line between those truly sentient and those too handicapped to be considered human would be disgraceful and nightmarish. For an adult with cerebral palsy, is an IQ of 78 acceptable but an IQ of 70 means execution? What if he can carry on conversations but hasn't the full use of both hands? What should be done in the treatment of a fully-sentient, normal human adult who loses the ability to communicate during a stroke - put her down like a wounded horse rather than provide compassionate care for the remainder of her life?

Monsters, these two doctors are. I hope they are disbarred from their profession and run out of town. I certainly don't expect them to have patients to care for in the near future.

Khalid · #12 Mar 22, '12, 8:38 am

Quote:

I see you're well-read. Do you know if Singer would extend personhood to those humans who are disabled - mentally or physically - to the extent of being unable to communicate their will unambiguously?

I highly doubt it, unless there was a likelihood of recovery (yeah, it's illogical). The "sleeping man problem". The sleeping man is no more aware or capable of having or expressing preferences than a corpse, but we have to acknowledge that it's not ethical to kill him if we wish, as if he was an infant instead of a temporarily disabled adult.

Preference utilitarianism eventually contradicts itself by relying on "essence" as much as Aristotelianism: that the sleeping man has already actually become a preference-professing person (has been "actualized"), and that essence remains when he sleeps, as it surely will resume. But, that it surely will resume relies on an inherently teleological view of the situation of the sleeping man - how else is he to be differentiated from the dead man, who also has already actually become a preference-professing person (but, oppositely, will not regain his faculties until the general judgment)? By appeal to "essence" and teleology. I'm pretty sure some reductionists would argue based on brain-wave detection (as I believe Singer does), i.e. the infamous "persistent vegetative state".

Also, no doubt he imputes personhood to animals as a justification. Although he probably truly believes that an objective evaluation of the facts would lead him to imputing personhood to certain animals. He could do with an undergraduate American philosophy lecture on how there's no such thing as objectivity or lack of bias.

ACCT · #13 Mar 22, '12, 2:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmondi

I learned in science class that doctors can detect heart beats around 18 days after conception. Brain waves can be detected around 40 days. Abortions are performed on average between 7 and 11 weeks. Let's do some 1st grade math. 7 weeks = 49 days. If a heart beat, a sign of LIFE, can be heard around 18, and brain waves, the second sign of LIFE, around 40, doesn't that make abortion murder?

This troubles me, because in a world where we lose so many souls to abortion with so little guilt ( if any at all ) for this, people still deny it as murder. What is your opinion?

Arguments about our beliefs can easily get very abstract. I would hope that you have the right beliefs. However, it does not matter if you are pro-life or not. Abortion is about bloodshed and victims. Over 4,000 babies are being killed every day, and we are not doing anything about it. Babies in the womb should be protected. The failure to protect life is a betrayal of human decency.

The United States Supreme Court took the first step down a dark and slippery slope by legalizing abortion in 1973. A child is legally entitled to life only if his or her mother wants that child. Abortion is murder, pure and simple. Abortion is not a religious issue. It is an issue of a human right – the right to life.

hazmat · #14 Mar 22, '12, 9:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmondi

I learned in science class that doctors can detect heart beats around 18 days after conception. Brain waves can be detected around 40 days. Abortions are performed on average between 7 and 11 weeks. Let's do some 1st grade math. 7 weeks = 49 days. If a heart beat, a sign of LIFE, can be heard around 18, and brain waves, the second sign of LIFE, around 40, doesn't that make abortion murder?

This troubles me, because in a world where we lose so many souls to abortion with so little guilt ( if any at all ) for this, people still deny it as murder. What is your opinion?

does a heartbeat and brain waves make something murder? we kill animals with those traits. to be fair, peta does call it murder--they get made fun of a lot.

timotheos · #15 Mar 22, '12, 9:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACCT

The United States Supreme Court took the first step down a dark and slippery slope by legalizing abortion in 1973. A child is legally entitled to life only if his or her mother wants that child. Abortion is murder, pure and simple. Abortion is not a religious issue. It is an issue of a human right – the right to life.

Yes, it is an intrinsic attack on this basic human right, and if it applies to the unborn, it necessarily applies to everyone. Once the court decides not to recognize abortion as murder, it becomes arbitrary how it then chooses to limit the definition of murder --- a definition subject to convenience.

If one person can decide without consequence whether another human being may continue to exist, we then do not all live under the same transcendent set of rules, and justice is not possible. The court, the laws, and indeed the nation itself, lose the foundation upon which they were created. After thousands of years, it turns out we are no better off than Abel.