The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Abortion, souls, and you
Qingu
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
In light of Prop 8's likely pass in California, I think it's time to discuss abortion—but I'd like this to be sort of a meta-abortion thread, in that it examines the reasons and worldviews behind the abortion debate, rather than jumping into the debate itself.
I've realized that much of the abortion debate hinges upon ideas about what the human soul is.
Religious people believe that human souls are separate from human bodies and minds. The soul is a special quality that exists completely apart from the material world, except for the fact that it's somehow bonded to human flesh for a time. Most tend to believe that only humans have "souls" in this sense, owing to our special significance to God. It's important to note that a religious person's soul is all-or-nothing—you can't have a half-soul, your soul doesn't grow. When sperm hits egg, *poof*, you have one soul, and that soul stays with you until you die, and then it goes to heaven.
Secular people, including many scientists, have a very different conception of a soul. Many don't use the term, and when they do they mean something like "consciousness"—the subjective experience of being alive. To us, the soul is an emergent property of the brain's physiology—in the same way that flocking behavior is an emergent property of the individual behaviors of a group of birds, or the stock market emerges from individual behaviors of traders. No birds = no flock; no brain = no soul. This also means that you can have "degrees" of souls—as the brain develops, so too does the extent of human consciousness. A two-cell blastula does not have any consciousness; a brain-dead coma patient may not have any consciousness either. It also follows that animals would have degrees of souls/consciousness as well, proportional to their brain complexity.
Both religious and secular moral systems are based on their respective conceptions of the human soul. Religious philosophy treats the soul as a fundamental unit of life and moral relations—abortion and euthanasia are "murder" because you're extinguishing souls. Secular utilitarian philosophy, on the other hand, is more fundamentally concerned with the subjective experience of souls—preventing suffering and increasing happiness.
These moral systems, themselves, are not mutually exclusive at all. Religious people would also obviously value preventing suffering, and secular people would value preventing the extinguishment of souls. The problem is that we don't agree on what the soul actually is.
I've realized that much of the abortion debate hinges upon ideas about what the human soul is.
Religious people believe that human souls are separate from human bodies and minds. The soul is a special quality that exists completely apart from the material world, except for the fact that it's somehow bonded to human flesh for a time. Most tend to believe that only humans have "souls" in this sense, owing to our special significance to God. It's important to note that a religious person's soul is all-or-nothing—you can't have a half-soul, your soul doesn't grow. When sperm hits egg, *poof*, you have one soul, and that soul stays with you until you die, and then it goes to heaven.
Secular people, including many scientists, have a very different conception of a soul. Many don't use the term, and when they do they mean something like "consciousness"—the subjective experience of being alive. To us, the soul is an emergent property of the brain's physiology—in the same way that flocking behavior is an emergent property of the individual behaviors of a group of birds, or the stock market emerges from individual behaviors of traders. No birds = no flock; no brain = no soul. This also means that you can have "degrees" of souls—as the brain develops, so too does the extent of human consciousness. A two-cell blastula does not have any consciousness; a brain-dead coma patient may not have any consciousness either. It also follows that animals would have degrees of souls/consciousness as well, proportional to their brain complexity.
Both religious and secular moral systems are based on their respective conceptions of the human soul. Religious philosophy treats the soul as a fundamental unit of life and moral relations—abortion and euthanasia are "murder" because you're extinguishing souls. Secular utilitarian philosophy, on the other hand, is more fundamentally concerned with the subjective experience of souls—preventing suffering and increasing happiness.
These moral systems, themselves, are not mutually exclusive at all. Religious people would also obviously value preventing suffering, and secular people would value preventing the extinguishment of souls. The problem is that we don't agree on what the soul actually is.
Qingu on
0
Posts
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
You can answer it if you pick some metrics of what makes a person a person.
but they're listening to every word I say
Try finding a nonarbitrary metric.
I think you're overgeneralizing a bit here.
If I'm legally dead when brain activity ceases, am I legally alive when brain activity starts?
Well, personhood is a definitional problem. Definitions are arbitrary. Why is a chair called a chair?
The thing is we assign importance to personhood. We are assuming being a person in moraly higher than not being a person.
Therefore, to come up with a meaningful description we have to pick metrics.
but they're listening to every word I say
or anyone who knows anything about the theory side of computer science.
The human brain is equivalent to a Turing machine. This means that (given sufficient memory) a human brain can be simulated on a Turing machine, or something else that's equivalent to a Turing machine. (And believe me, we'll be there within the next century). Does a sufficiently powerful computer have a soul? I mean, you could go all Leibniz and say that each atom has its own mini-soul attached to it, I guess, but then why does a living being have a soul while a corpse does not?
That said neither I, nor the government, have any right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I really do not understand why there is anything more that needs saying on the subject. Every single pro-life argument comes down to "You have to be an incubator." No one, not me, not the government, not the church, no one, should be able to force a woman to do that against her will.
That reminds me of a discussion I had about the anti-abortion symbolism. It shows the fetus floating in a black oval, and I think even recently, they got rid of the umbilical chord in the symbol.
There is not even any mention of the mother, just as if the fetus was a thing floating in space.
but they're listening to every word I say
Perhaps we'll be able to calculate someday when a human brain reaches sufficient processing power to become sentient.
Also, it's entirely irrelevant to abortion anyway.
I disagree. I mean, if you look at a car factory you start with peices that continously(or very quickly) get put together to form a car. That does not mean there is no point where you might consider it a car rather than a bunch of peices.
Similarly there would be a point where you might consider a fetus to be a person.
but they're listening to every word I say
And that line changes as science advances. So things get pretty strange then.
but they're listening to every word I say
Luckily, I subscribe to Judith Jarvis Thomas's arguments about abortion, which work even if a baby has a soul and is a person at conception:
Full Text: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
Summary for lazy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Also interesting to note is the question of "ensoulment", or the when of souls. When does a soul supposedly enter a fetus? Before answering this question, be aware that zygotes have been known to split into twins as late as ten days after fertilization.
That said, the best rational argument against abortion I've heard, examined what it was that made the act of killing (human beings) wrong. it isn't the intrinsic nature of ending the lifespan of a biological being; otherwise killing plants and mice would be wrong. it was also, however, not because a fetus is sentient, because they're not. It was also not because humans are "special", because if we (for instance) encountered sufficiently intelligent extraterrestrial life forms, it would be wrong to kill them also.
The reason settled upon was that the concept that by killing someone, you deny them a future. The essay then went on to to show that only destroying a fetus ( and not eggs or sperm or some unmixed combination thereof) would be wrong because only the fetus, if left to it's own devices, would become a person.
Now, that is not the reason I have the postion on abortion I do. I'm against it on moral but not legal reasons. That is to say, it is wrong, but you can't really (and shouldn't) outlaw it.
As a Christian, I consider abortion morally wrong. Before I go on, I must state that that this is an opinion and NOT a argument. I am less concerned with whether people consider it wrong or not and more with how we should deal with it legally, irregardless. From my Christian standpoint, that means that one should not get an abortion (if female or in relationship with someone who is pregnant). However, you cannot enforce one's moral views upon others, as Jesus did plainly state that we can't judge others (or more clearly, we are responsible only for judging our own behavior.) We don't know the circumstance or motivation of others; we would have to be psychic to accomplish that.
Some people would argue that we do have a duty to stop abortion because it is immoral, which is the same reason we outlaw stealing and killing. These people are misguided. killing and stealing are outlawed because they are disruptive to society; any rational society, secular or otherwise, would outlaw these acts because they prevent society from functioning normally.
Abortion is wrong, yes, but it does not intrinsically disrupt society, which is laws should be concerned with. In it's wrongness, we may see that one should refrain from getting abortions, but one is not obliged to stop it. The onus lies with the woman, her spouse, and the medical personnel involved. It is their decision, and while one can oppose it on moral grounds, it is no more rational to outlaw abortion than it is to outlaw adultery.
In light of this, we must consider that the decision, for better or worse, lies with the woman. It is certainly not the place of some misguided politician to try to control the decision of others when this is ultimately a decision that should be made mainly by women.
TL;DR: Regardless of whether it's wrong, you can't justify forcing abortion to be illegal, even from a religious (or at least a Christian) perspective. You can refuse to have one yourself, but that's about it.
- I'm against most abortion bans because they also ban them in crappy situations. That's dumb, and it sets a precedence on the government's ability to intervene in terms of medical care.
- I'm against abortion bans because it's none of my business.
- I'm against abortion bans because all it does is create a black market where more lives are at stake, more money is wasted, etc.
- I really dislike the use of abortion as a mere contraceptive. I don't mean on the levels of condoms, birth control, or the day after pill. Those I support. I mean, "Oh my precious snowflake is pregnant, but it's going to be a burden/it's a big no no in our social circles so let's have it aborted". That's kind of disgusting and irresponsible. But so is getting knocked up and doing the nasty without protection.
- I really wish the Pro-Choice people would not pander the "It's not a baby until it's born" crap. Yes, in the early stages it's a coagulated mass of cells, body fluids, and goo. That doesn't negate the fact that in a few months it will be a kid. I know being labeled a person is hotly debatable, and both sides make a good point, but regardless of who is right, it will still be a living, breathing, person in time.
- I do not want public funds to pay for abortion unless there is a serious medical issue at hand.
- I'd like for doctors who do not want to perform them to be allowed to opt out. Conversely, pharmacies that have employees that refuse to sell contraceptives, or doctors that refuse to afford birth control, should be fined or forced out of practice.
- I'd also like to see partial birth abortions stay banned, and if it isn't, I'd like to see third trimester abortions also banned.
I'm not trying to be particularly inflammatory, but I've seen a hundred abortion debates so I figured I'd just be blunt about it.
To say that a zygote consisting of a few hundred cells has the same rights as a newborn baby (much less a grown adult) is silly.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
- Murder is bad, mk?
I am for abortions because:
- We have enough people already, thanks.
The thing that has always bothered me about this is what if you're the violinist. You're supposed to be disconnected and die because some involuntary accidentally got connected to you? I mean, tough shit, 9 months is 9 months, but dead is forever.
That said, I think that while it does prove a point, the thought experiment can only go so far before you have to say "wait, what?"
I pretty much have to agree with most of the points made here.
The woman in that example was put into a crappy situation against her will. Pregnancy is the result of two consenting people and their participation in conceiving. While her example would work in a case of rape, it doesn't really apply to your average barefoot and pregnant scenario.
I don't have a problem with that. I would view kidnapping someone and hooking them up to the violinist highly unethical for precisely the reason she notes. And if I was on the opposite table, I'd be out of there as fast as I could disconnect the machines.
I believe everyone has a moral obligation to help when it is effortless or nearly so, but there is no moral obligation to help when it is difficult. It is commendable to do so, but to attempt to mandate it legally or socially is itself unethical, because you impose undue duress on those who do not deserve it.
That's covered in the argument. Even if someone consents to sex, they are not necessarily consenting to carry a fetus to term, esp. if they attempted to use contraception. And even if they originally consented, they can change their mind
To use a medical analogy, even if I say I will donate an organ, it is the lesser harm for me to go back on my word, than for me to be strapped to a metal table and have the organ ripped out of my restrained body. Similarly, it is the lesser evil for a pregnant woman to abort, than to be treated like a mere baby factory and forced at gunpoint to have the baby.
Two things wrong with that analogy.
1) I'm not sure there is a point where it's clear it's a car or not. Do you need the body pieces? Is it not a car if there's no hood? What about the cupholders, or the brake lights, or radio?
2) Cars are not built like humans. Humans grow once cell at a time, cars are assembled.
To look at a biological entity and declare it "not human" but after one more cell grows or one more brain connection is made, to then declare it "human" is arbitrary and meaningless.
A sperm and an egg by themselves hold no potential to become human life. Once becoming a zygote, however, they do hold that potential. At that point I consider that a human being with human rights. The only logical way I would agree with Pro-Choice is if I would be okay with killing unwanted infants too, because if the definition of human is advanced cognitive thought, then an infant which is no more intelligent than various breeds of more intelligent animals is not exempt from this case.
But there are some cases where I think it is sadly necessary like if the mother was in danger, but if you think it should be a form of birth control I would dropkick you in the face if I ever met you.
It is a broad generalization, but I am concerned by how many people are against abortion, but refuse to pass measures that provide good quality of life to children in need, including housing, living expenses, education, etc. If someone's supposed compassion ends as soon as the child is pushed out of the uterus, I don't have any respect whatsoever for their position.
You've said before you were raised as a Jehovah's Witness. Don't the JW's have a unique perspective on souls and interpretation of scripture about souls? For one, the soul is mortal. Two, every living thing has a soul. Wait, they don't have souls but they are souls. Big difference. Is that all right?
I agree with this too, because I have met people like that.
So, why doesn't a sperm near an egg hold potential? The sperm's going to swim to the egg and fertilize it, it's not exactly like there's a lot of choice in the matter.
The potential to make a human life is with every fertile man and woman. There is absolutely no functional difference between killing a zygote and using a condom. Either way you are destroying only the potential to become a human, not an actual human.
And you're right, intrinsically, a newborn baby isn't much better than one about to be born. However there are very good practical reasons to disallow killing babies after they are born, such as emotional connections and adoptions. Allowing abortions does not mean you have to allow killing unwanted babies to be logically consistent.
A) Personhood clearly resides in brain activity. There is no legitamate argument one can make otherwise.
C) As another, anything without a brain is obviously not a person. So that creates a lower limit were there is no real argument that abortion is not okay, namely before the brain develops. IIRC, this is in the first trimester or so.
D) This also creates a some what more vague line for when it's not okay, which I think we can safely safe includes partial-birth and possibly also third trimester. Though even then, considerations as to the safety and health of the mother are valid reasons for doing it anyway.
E) That does still leave a wide questionable area in which we should favor allowance of proscription. Ultimately, better defining the limits requires advancing the science.
Because, like I said, by themselves they have no potential to grow into human life. Only a zygote does. Lets not try to make a mechanical analogy because it doesn't apply. Machines don't build themselves.
No it's not, because a fertile man cannot create a child. A fertile woman can't either. A fertile sperm can't either, and neither can a fertile egg. Only a zygote can.
You're really confusing the idea of potential here. A sperm has 0% chance of becoming a human being. An egg has a 0% chance. Only a zygote has the ability to become a fully functioning human, and that is where I believe human life begins.
Well that's bullshit. If you want to live in a world dictated by logical solutions without regard to moral emotions, then you could easily condition people to think babies are no more significant than what people consider zygotes, or killing a dog. You claim that emotional connection is a logical reason to keep the baby alive. Why? Emotions don't have anything to do with logic. In fact then it would be inconsistent, because now that you've established with me there is no intrinsic different between a newborn and a fetus, then I am assuming you're agreeing with me that they are human in all stages. So what would be wrong with killing a baby compared to a fetus in the logical consistency? Emotion would not factor into it. Historically societies have operated like this before. I point out the Spartans who were if nothing else, like their fellow countrymen, very logical people.
But I find the practice pretty barbaric to do to even a zygote. Using rubber is a completely different story.
Are they human beings right after they're born, but not before? Any line you draw, in terms of the intrinsic worth of the entity, is going to be arbitrary. At birth just seems, practically, like a pretty good one to draw.
Children don't grow themselves. It's only through the self-sacrifice of their mother that they are born at all.
I don't think this really makes sense. A zygote has a chance a few magnitudes of order higher, but it's unreasonable to say a sperm has a 0.000000% chance of becoming a human, being as millions of them become people every year.
Especially considering, with science, a single woman, if she happens to be an accomplished scientist, can complete the entire process from fertilization to birth by herself.
An abortion is the least harmful way of getting rid of a zygote. You can get rid of a baby simply by dropping it off somewhere it will be safe anonymously. Many states have provisions for this to be done legally.