Monday, May 13, 2013

An Abortion of a Post

A Catholic apologist I follow recently said that “religion isn’t required to show that an unborn child is a human being.” The particular phrasing of this statement makes it obvious. A child of a human is a human. No need for debate there. The less clear question is this: is an unborn zygote or fetus a child? For the sake of argument, let’s say yes, but that still isn’t entirely the point. After all, the corpse of a human is still a human. The morality of abortion must take into account more than black and white definitions.

Killing cells isn’t a morally wrong act by anyone’s standard. If it was, everything from sun tans to common medical procedures would be stigmatized or illegal. A fertilized egg is a very active collection of cells. In my opinion, the main distinction between human cells and human people is consciousness. While the moral argument of aborting a mind cannot be made until the brain develops, the moral argument for aborting a soul can be made at conception...providing one accepts that the spiritual enters the material during orgasmic climax or shortly thereafter. I know breeders tend to say “on my God” in bed, but I’m not sure that’s exactly what they mean. It’s magical thinking, and it’s the foundation for religious pro-life reasoning.

This post is probably painting me as a bleeding heart pro-choice advocate. I don’t consider myself as such--my view is more nuanced. Unlike religious pro-life reasoning, there is valid secular pro-life reasoning that takes into account the terms of the pregnancy as well as other factors. When the brain and nervous system develop and the unborn child begins to think and feel, I am far less comfortable with abortion. Watching the ultrasounds of my twins, I learned that this development happens surprisingly early. It’s hard to say exactly when my feelings on the subject change. As a rule, I am pro-choice for the first trimester and pro-life for the third, with my opinion during the second trimester contingent largely on the situation--but still leaning pro-life. I think this is a common take on the moral dilemma of the issue. The religious pro-lifers tend to defend their position with images of near-fully developed kids cut out of women’s bodies. This is always gruesome and, at least in my case, a straw man pictorial. In a way, it’s also misrepresenting their own position, considering Catholics focus the lion’s share of their propaganda  on late term abortions while they feel the exact same way about morning after pills.*

*This may be a generalization, but it’s a well informed one. I’m representing the Catholic Church’s position and very few Catholics defect from the Church’s position on anything much less a hallmark like abortion.

10 comments:

  1. The other thing is, many anti-abortion people will stick to their guns even in extreme situations, like when the mother's life is at risk and the baby isn't viable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I' think Catholics have the doctrine to save the woman's life first, then the baby's, but I'm not sure.

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure about that. That recent case from (Ireland?) comes to mind. The baby still had a heartbeat so they wouldn't abort and the mother wound up dying. Perhaps they weren't to the point where they were sure the mother's life was truly in danger so they wouldn't do it yet, then it got away from them once it crossed that line.

      Delete
  2. Since spontaneous abortions occur in at least 25% of all pregnancies (and possibly as high at 50%), religious pro-lifers are enabling their abortion-frenzied god, don't you think? He ain't so pro-life. Double standard much?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great point. God must want us to do as he says and not as he does.

      Delete
    2. Spontaneous abortion happens a lot more than anyone is aware of due to the fact that a woman's body will abort before she ever knows she's pregnant. It's more like 70% of the time according to my psychology of gender class. The other thing, sorry boys, is that since a woman's body is inhospitable for male semen, as well as male children, most of the cells which are aborted would have been male. Crazy huh! And for the record, I am totally for abortion. I feel that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body. No church could ever keep me from making a decision based on theist doctrine...but then, I don't believe there is a god either.

      Delete
    3. "a woman's body is inhospitable for male semen, as well as male children, most of the cells which are aborted would have been male."

      do you have a source for that? That would seem to be surprising to me as I've never heard it before.

      Why would the birth rate between boys and girls still be about 50%? Are initial fertilization favored toward boys but then the difference is spontaneously aborted away?

      Delete
  3. I have a similar pov to you on this matter; I actually have an unfinished draft that covers similar ground. I also posted something (link at the end) recently which I though was original on the abortion subject...if you are interested to check it out. http://sight66.com/2013/05/08/abortion-saves-lives/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for commenting. I checked your blog, good stuff.

      Delete
  4. The whole abortion debate should not have any religious grounds, and in my opinion should have nothing to do with men...as we cant be pregnant. I think we can only be pro-choice.

    On another note, there are other things that live in humans and feed of them... we call them parasites.

    ReplyDelete