Why do so many people think that abortion is acceptable?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't have a definitive definition of personhood, I'm not even sure there is one. Fortunately I do not need one for my position. Be careful before you argue yourself into an abhorrent stance.

The legal definition of person in US law:

"An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. "

Not a lawyer but that sounds like anyone up until they become an adult is not a person.

It costs $40,000 in Canada and the US to adopt a child. If the adoption price dropped to $400 - the same price of an abortion, many more children would be adopted. There are also foster parents who are trained to raise special needs children who do want to adopt special needs children.

Another thing. I'm biologically female, but I self-identify as male due to my Gender Dysphoria.

There are personal attacks in this thread. I understand that this is a topic that set off strong feelings, but keep to the topic and attack the opinion, not the person.
If the personal attacks continue this thread may be locked.

skilpadde, can't we block the offender rather than the thread? discussion is enlightening.

Hehe you weren't specific enough. I'll try to lay out my views intelligibly, this was fun writing, and I have refined my views further while writing it.

FYI:
When I say "natural course of things" I mean the progression of a human life without human intervention to end it.

---

Let's put to one side natural deaths, miscarriages etc. To keep things simple, we must assume we are talking about conception and pregnancies that have no medical complications for now, that will lead eventually to the creation of someone like you and me at the other end. This will be the general case for a natural conception.

We start by working our way backwards. We start with an adult human being, let's say it is you.
- Do we both agree you are a human being right now? I assume we both say yes.

- Do we both agree you were a human being yesterday? Again I assume yes.

- What about when you were 10 years old? Here, I think is the real sticking point. A 10 year old is not a fully developed adult, yet I consider you a human being at 10 years old. If you do not, then this argument must stop here. The point is to accept that a growing human being is also, of course, a human being. An old human being is a human being despite creaky joints and wrinkled skin. A young human being is a human being despite being small.

- Go back now day by day and look for a point in time where you cannot be considered to be a developing or growing human being (just from that sentence you should know that such a point in what is _your development_ cannot possibly exist). If you are honest, logic will take you all the way back at least to fertilisation, that is the point where all possible human combinations from natural human conception become one (or two in the case of twins etc.). Prior to that point a different sperm might make it to the egg, creating a different human being, a different future, a different life. Drawing the line at conception seems a reasonable thing to do for now, though I am open to changing my mind in either direction.

What does this step by step backwards facing logic look like when you reverse the direction? Is it possible to generalise without exploding heads I wonder. I'll try. Because we do not know the future, we have to change what will be into what may be. "Something that may, in the natural course of things, become (but not necessarily become part of) an individual human being, must also be a human being, the same human being in fact."

Now let's consider unnatural conception, the fertilised egg created in a laboratory. Put to one side the morality of creating it, does this fertilised egg have a future as a human being in the natural course of things? No, not according to our previous definition. Further unnatural intervention is necessary to make that happen.

Now let's bring in miscarriage and "natural abortion". First a question to ponder. If a human being does die prematurely, was it ever really a human being? It seems obvious that yes it was. A child who dies in the first year was still human. Just because we know with hindsight that a fertilised egg did not have a future beyond 2 or 3 days, until implantation fails, until the wheels of fate turn, we must consider it a human, granted a very short lived one.

You and I both know that pregnancy is a crap shoot on the best of days. The thing is, until recently so was childhood. Even today not all 3 year olds make it to 4. We wouldn't apply the "a few more won't matter" rule to 3 year olds. If a human is a human in the first trimester, then we cannot apply it here either. Even if 1 in 4 fertilised eggs don't implant successfully, and those that do have a good chance of not making it further, interfering negatively with that process is ending a human life prematurely. This is where I have refined my views: in natural conception a fertilised egg is a human. In unnatural conception, IVF style, the slightly more developed bundle of cells becomes human as soon as the implantation attempt is made, successful or not.

If humans are humans right from the beginning, unnatural human intervention to end that life and prevent their future is in general a moral evil. Never say never, there are exceptions, but there will need to be extraordinary reasons.

I've said before that it's possible these lines of thought could be extended before fertilisation, into the sanctity of every sperm and egg but I cannot myself make the leap. It would be an issue of whether it was moral or not to create more human life wherever and whenever you can. My postings are only about protecting humans as soon as they are created, regardless of how they are created.

Besides I was careful with how I worded it. A sperm or an egg alone cannot be or become an individual human being, they must fuse with one another to do so, it's only after that point my statement becomes relevant.