Is Abortion Murder?

Vox Popoli:

There is not a single pro-abortion argument that stands up to science and reason. Every single one is not only spurious, but easily demonstrated to be spurious. It is not necessary to bring religious arguments into the debate to conclusively settle the matter in favor of the pro-life position, in fact, the Bible-based arguments against abortion are, in my opinion, weaker than the rational and scientific arguments.

Comments

[Alex]

Nonsense. There is not a single anti-abortion argument that stands up to science and reason. Making such silly proclamations doesn't prove anything - it only shows that the author cannot make a rational argument to back up his views.

[Francis W. Porretto]

Before I launch into this tirade, please know the following: I am pro-life, all the way to the instant of conception. I consider abortion an absolute moral horror. Anyone who resorts to it, except to save the mother's life, is unimaginably self-indulgent and dissolute: no better than a junkie willing to kill for his sexual "fix."

An unborn child is, by his uniquely human DNA and by continuity with his born self, an individual human being with a right to life. There is no conceivable argument against this fact; the reductio ad absurdum of partial-birth infanticide makes it perfectly clear, which is why abortion advocates hate to have it brought up. Therefore, if no other considerations intrude, an abortion is a homicide.

BUT: Other considerations do intrude, and must be factored into the question of whether abortion can be criminalized, either categorically or contextually, without causing net harm. It's those other considerations:
-- Whether the mother's property rights over her body somehow trump the developing infant's right to life;
-- Whether the protection of the developing infant can be achieved without harming or invading the mother's body, or the infant;
-- Whether the attempt to enforce a law against abortion would unacceptably abridge Constitutional bounds around the State;
...that make abortion a difficult legal / political subject even for those of us who are committed to the pro-life position.

Persons who "think" with their emotions refuse to address these matters; they'd rather just scream "Fascist!" and "Baby killer!" at one another. The rest of us suffer agonies over them, because we know two things the others refuse to acknowledge:
-- "You can never do only one thing." -- Marc Stiegler.
-- Living systems don’t react to your thrusts according to what you want; they react according to what they want. -- Your Curmudgeon.

I commend the contemplation of these principles to anyone who thinks there's a simple answer to the abortion debates.

[Alex]

By your definition, every sperm is also a unique human being. After all, they each contain unique DNA, and they have a line of "continuity with their born self" (a meaningless phrase, but you started it). Therefore, every time you have a wet dream, you unintentionally commit genocide.

Sorry, I don't find such classifications useful in furthering the debate. Your entire position is reductio ad absurdum (and, by the way, you misused that phrase).

[Francis W. Porretto]

Alex, I assume you're only pretending to be clueless. A sperm by itself has no possibility of attaining human stature; it has only 23 chromosomes. Until and unless it unites with an ovum, it is merely an emission of the male body.

The essence of a fertilized ovum -- the sperm / egg combination -- is that, unless interfered with fatally by miscarriage or abortion, it will become a born human baby. That is its nature -- the same nature that gives you a right to life.

Try defending partial-birth abortion, Alex: A baby ready to be born has its body extracted from the mother's womb, and then has its brains sucked out before the head can emerge. What distinguishes a victim thereof from a born baby, except for its position in space? And what distinguishes that victim from its predecessor a day ago, and a day before that, and so on? Continuity is identity.

Moral imbeciles, libertines, and degenerates make me tired. But there are so many of them nowadays, concerned with nothing but their next orgasm and remaining apart from any of its consequences. You'd think we'd forgotten how to teach our children self-restraint. Well, perhaps we have.

[Alex]

"A sperm by itself has no possibility of attaining human stature"

Neither does an embryo by itself. Otherwise we wouldn't be having discussions about abortion, now would we? We'd just pull 'em out and let them go live a productive life on their own.

"The essence of a fertilized ovum -- the sperm / egg combination -- is that, unless interfered with fatally by miscarriage or abortion, it will become a born human baby."

The essence of a sperm is that, unless it is wasted in a gym-sock, and unless it fails to fertilize an ovum, it will become an embryo, and then a born human baby.

Now, did you have some sort of point to make, or are you just discussing embryology for the fun of it?

[Adriane]

Alex - Your argument equates a witness who saw a man other than the man on trial perform the actual crime with no witnesses testifying at all, because all of them have been killed. Either way, the suspects walks free, but for the rest of us, we see the 'lack of proven guilt' for very different reasons.

[Alex]

A good analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.

[Mike T]

By your definition, every sperm is also a unique human being. After all, they each contain unique DNA, and they have a line of "continuity with their born self" (a meaningless phrase, but you started it). Therefore, every time you have a wet dream, you unintentionally commit genocide.

Gametes only have 50% of the genetic sequence of a human being. Ergo, you lose.

[Mike T]

Neither does an embryo by itself. Otherwise we wouldn't be having discussions about abortion, now would we? We'd just pull 'em out and let them go live a productive life on their own.

An infant is likewise incapable of living a life on its own. Your argument in defense of the life of the infant versus the embryo would have to be based on biological development and technology, not essential nature and principle.

[Mike T]

There is not a single anti-abortion argument that stands up to science and reason.

I guess the fact that genetics is the standard used for identifying an organism is meaningless to you.

[Alex]

Gametes only have 50% of the genetic sequence of a human being. Ergo, you lose.

That's irrelevant to the argument that was being presented. Moreover, you don't get to set an arbitrary cutoff. If all human life is sacred, then a life-form which possesses half of the human genome and has the potential to become a full-fledged human being certainly qualifies for your "protected" category. Ergo ... try again?

An infant is likewise incapable of living a life on its own. Your argument in defense of the life of the infant versus the embryo would have to be based on biological development and technology, not essential nature and principle.

Bingo on the first sentence, horrible fail on the second. It wasn't me that was arguing based on "nature and principle" - it was your boyfriend, Francis. I simply took his argument to it's logical conclusion. Moreover, I certainly wouldn't have to base my argument on biological development; you've created a false dichotomy. MY argument, were I to make it, would be based primarily on rights and, to a lesser extent, on inherent human value judgments. However, I haven't actually presented an argument for abortion, so there's another way in which your second sentence is a failure.

I guess the fact that genetics is the standard used for identifying an organism is meaningless to you.

What the hell does that have to do with what I said? Purple monkey dishwasher!

What really, strikes me about the arguments being presented, though, is just how disingenuous they are. The argument against abortion has nothing to do with science. No matter how much camouflage you throw up, it's obvious to everyone that the argument is primarily a religious one. If we had no understanding of fetal development, or of the human genome, you would still be arguing that abortion is wrong simply because some guy in a funny hat told you so. The dogmatic, absolute rejection of all abortion began in the 1500's, at a time when we had no understanding of the fields which you're using to try and support your arguments. Prior to that even the church allowed abortion, but specified different time limits for female and male embryos (clearly illustrating that they knew absolutely nothing about the development of sex in the womb). Now, centuries later, a bunch of brainwashed theistic buffoons are continuing in the same tradition of ignorance, while trying to hide their beliefs behind science. It's pathetic, and amusing, and infuriating, all at once. At least have the balls to drop the charade and lay out your true beliefs for all to see. And if, in the process, you come to realize just how ridiculous they are, have the integrity to reconsider the basis for your beliefs.

[Hannah]

Alex,

I agree with Mike. I think the distinction is that a sperm is not a specific person while an embryo is a specific person. Every embryo has unique and predetermined (nevermind for the moment the effects of nurture and environment) sex, eye color, hair color, fingerprints, etc. It's not just an embryo, it's a fiery redhead who loves to dance and has migraines, she is absolutely irreplaceable and she could be your soulmate. No other embryo is just like her (not even her identical twin). It's our failure of imagination that we think they're amorphous blobs. When you think of an embryo try keeping that in mind. The pro-life position is simple and consistent, from the moment of conception a human life has rights and that's why abortion is murder.

It is not just a religious argument, the classic liberal position can get you to the same conclusion, though admittedly fewer seem to go this route. There are pro-life atheists out there, I've come across a few.

In other contexts we understand it intuitively, that killing a pregnant woman counts as double murder, that eating condor eggs (fertilized or unfertilized) is against the law. The reason we make it complicated is because we don't want to acknowledge abortion to be murder as it would challenge our sex-without-consequences utopia.

Regarding the church, from the beginning it was against abortion, for example, as the earliest catechism "Didache" shows.

Some interesting links:
http://www.blogher.com/why-im-pro-life
http://www.conversiondiary.com/2008/01/how-i-became-pro-life.html

[Alex]

It's not just an embryo, it's a fiery redhead who loves to dance and has migraines, she is absolutely irreplaceable and she could be your soulmate.

Are you suggesting that I'm a pedophile?

It's our failure of imagination that we think they're amorphous blobs.

No, it's a fact. I can show you pictures, if you like.

It is not just a religious argument ... there are pro-life atheists out there, I've come across a few.

Yes, and there are anti-semitic Jews, too. A few rare exceptions don't change the fact that anti-abortion views almost universally stem from religious dogma.

In other contexts we understand it intuitively, that killing a pregnant woman counts as double murder

Except that this "intuition" mysteriously didn't make it into law in the US until 2004, and still isn't recognized by law in Canada.

Let's take it a step further, though - if a pregnant woman falls down a set of stairs, should she be charged with negligent homicide when the fetus dies?

What about a woman who has a spontaneous abortion (a natural phenomenon) within the first week of conceiving? Most of these women aren't even aware that they're pregnant, but shouldn't they be held responsible for their actions anyway? Should we lock them up? What about the embryo - do we build a nano-coffin for it, and hold a funeral? Does it's "soul" go to "heaven", to wander for all eternity as a mindless group of cells?

Oh, and while we're at it, how long do you think the prison term should be for women who have abortions? Should they be eligible for life without parole? For the death penalty?

The reason we make it complicated is because we don't want to acknowledge abortion to be murder as it would challenge our sex-without-consequences utopia.

Well, maybe that's why you make it complicated, but it's certainly not the position of anyone who's actually thought about the issue. Only an ignoramus would think that abortion makes sex consequence-free; the rest of us have actually heard of STD's.

Regarding the church, from the beginning it was against abortion, for example, as the earliest catechism "Didache" shows.

Wrong. Or, if you meant "from the beginning but not for it's entire existence" then yeah, ok, you're technically right, but you're ignoring about a millennium of history.