Atheism & Abortion

Scofflaw

Stepping for a moment out of the boundless vigour of the Death of Religion thread, I notice at least a couple of atheist posters have asserted their opposition to abortion. I'm interested - what's your reasoning? Emotive or logical?

I'll accept extensive argument from those who feel their position is justifiable, and a brief note from those who accept that their position is entirely emotional.

For the record, I am pro-choice, and voted that way in every Irish referendum on the question, so I am your opponent.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

My position:

http://therereallyisaspoon.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html

Written during the Miss D row, I am pro-choice but I would like to hear the positions of atheists who are opposed to choice.

aidan24326

I think it's impossible to give a conclusive argument on the subject either way, as it's very difficult to define at what moment someone is 'alive'. If it's ok to kill a 3 month old foetus but not a 6 monther, then why exactly? I don't think the issue will ever be resolved, it will always divide people as there are some tricky questions there that aren't going to be answered any time soon.

Overall I'd put myself more in the pro-choice camp. I would not favour abortion in every possible situation though, such as aborting a near-full-term foetus, however I can't really give a solid explanation as to why the 3 month foetus would be less deserving of my sympathy. Carl Sagan suggested the following: Allow it in the first trimester, only in special circumstances(to be defined) during the second trimester and never allow it thereafter. The lines drawn may be somewhat arbitrary but unfortunately we have to draw a line somewhere, one way or the other.

EDIT just read hivemind's blog. You make some interesting points, but while I usually tend to be a cold rationalist sort myself, I think you are maybe going at it too dispassionately. Even if the foetus can be seen as a parasite of sorts, we all were one of those parasites once upon a time. While I'm in favour of pro-choice I don't think it's as cut and dried as all that.

Tim Robbins

aidan24326 wrote: »

Overall I'd put myself more in the pro-choice camp. I would not favour abortion in every possible situation though, such as aborting a near-full-term foetus, however I can't really give a solid explanation as to why the 3 month foetus would be less deserving of my sympathy. Carl Sagan suggested the following: Allow it in the first trimester, only in special circumstances(to be defined) during the second trimester and never allow it thereafter. The lines drawn may be somewhat arbitrary but unfortunately we have to draw a line somewhere, one way or the other.

Yes I read something similar in his "billions and billions" book.
I thought he said the cut off was when the heart had formed.

Beruthiel

I am also very much in the pro-choice camp.

Tim Robbins

Beruthiel wrote: »

I am also very much in the pro-choice camp.

I think people should qualify what choices they are in favour of.
Do they think abortion is ok after 8.5 months for example?

aidan24326

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes I read something similar in his "billions and billions" book.
I thought he said the cut off was when the heart had formed.

I forget now, he may have said that. But I think he drew the lines more or less as I've said. Not saying I agree or disagree with him but it was just an example of the type of guidline we could have rather than all the fuzzy thinking that surrounds the subject.

daveharnett

I would reluctantly be in the pro-choice camp.
It seems to me in most situations, adoption would be a better option for all parties/organisims/whatever.
I also think that as a guy, my opinion on the matter is pretty much bollocks.

Rev Hellfire

I would be anti-abortion in any case except where medically necessary for the survival of the mother. I'd accept that a week or two feotus is not a qualified human, but I'd veto it on the simple principle of not killing your own kind for trivial reasons.
As for when dealing with issues of disability I'm less certain in my position but would side to the pro-life side on that matter.

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think people should qualify what choices they are in favour of.
Do they think abortion is ok after 8.5 months for example?

Interesting question.

At 8.5 months a foetus is capable of taking responsibility for its own continued survival. If it does so then no one else has the right to interfere with that.

However.

While the foetus is still within the womb it is not taking responsibility for its continued survival and is relying on the mother (host) to provide for its every need (nourishment, oxygen, excretion etc). The question is, how does one approach this scenario in terms of whether it is right to terminate.

Personally, I think if a mother has reached the point that the foetus can survive externally and autonomically then it should be given the chance to do so either by cesarian or inducement. The mother (former host) is under no obligation to provide for that organism (child) since the connective tissue (umbilical cord) is severed and the organism (formerly parasitic) is unable to draw sustainance. This implies that the mother is entitled to choose whether to continue to support the infant or not.

At this point there are options such as adoption.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think people should qualify what choices they are in favour of.
Do they think abortion is ok after 8.5 months for example?

I think that's fair, and I imagine most of us draw the line somewhere. I'd draw a dotted line at the point where the foetus is naturally viable independent of the mother.

However, I don't want this initially to become an argument over where the line should be drawn. I'm interested in the reasons for opposition at the stage where the foetus is clearly dependent on the mother.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think people should qualify what choices they are in favour of.
Do they think abortion is ok after 8.5 months for example?

Tim, I think you should listen first.

To clarify up front, I know many who are against it, I am pro choice.
However, my discomfort with the issue is that the focus should be on supporting the individual to make the correct choice for their situation. I guess I have not yet resolved the stance I have that each instance should be treated on a case by case basis. And each case will be different.

Scofflaw

daveharnett wrote: »

I would reluctantly be in the pro-choice camp.
It seems to me in most situations, adoption would be a better option for all parties/organisims/whatever.
I also think that as a guy, my opinion on the matter is pretty much bollocks.

Not really. As a guy, you still get to be a parent, both genetically and materially.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Seeing how there are many 'sciencey people':) here, and the question really being, 'when does life begin I suppose, Is there a scientific answer to when life begins?

stevejazzx

I can't see any logic that contradicts being pro choice but IMO it should be an issue of circumstance. I mean people getting and pregant and aborting in restless cycles just can't be a good idea. I'd propose a fairly straighforward system of assesment and advice for each woman who found herself contemplating the issue with ultimately the decision being made by that woman but not before consultation - and in some cases giving the power of intervention to the authority involved for example where issues of mental health or self harm are evident. So basically a pro choice system where women involved have a professional organisation offering consultation and advice and ultimately, if the woman choses, the procedure itself. The organisation can in some cases refuse the prodcedure but only on strong grounds....somthing like that.

Beruthiel

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Do they think abortion is ok after 8.5 months for example?

Hell no.
imo this is something you should have thought out well before hand.
What I mean by that is, don't wait until you are pregnant to make such a big decision, have half a clue what you would do under certain circumstances should they occur.
Within a month the vast majority of women know they are pregnant, defo by 6 weeks unless they are paying no attention whatsoever to their bodies. Therefore it shouldn't take 8.5 months to decide.
If you haven't made your decision by 12 weeks or so, then you are way too undecided and should probably keep the baby.
This is not an easy decision to come to, therefore if you are not very sure of it, it will come back to haunt you.
If, on the other hand you know yourself well and what it is that you want, the time later will be easier to take. If that makes sense to you.
That's my opinion for myself though, for other women, I would not deem to have the nerve to make that decision on their behalf. Their life, they are the ones to live with it and pretty much none of my business.

Hivemind187

JimiTime wrote: »

Seeing how there are many 'sciencey people':) here, and the question really being, 'when does life begin I suppose, Is there a scientific answer to when life begins?

Depends on the qualification for "life". A virus is kind of alive since it contains nucleic acids and has a life cycle.

Dinxminx

I'm pro-choice. Each situation is unique.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote: »

Seeing how there are many 'sciencey people':) here, and the question really being, 'when does life begin I suppose, Is there a scientific answer to when life begins?

In the case of reproduction, there's no point at which it ceases. A living sperm and egg fuse to make a living zygote, which grows into a living foetus, etc etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really. As a guy, you still get to be a parent, both genetically and materially.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lol, when you have carried a couple of bowling balls around in your belly for nine months losing emotional stability, melanin and bladder control in the process then say you have as much right

Sangre

I don't know what my stance is and I doubt I will ever truly know until I am faced with it as an option in reality.

Previously I would have said that I would be against abortion as once the zygote is formed it will form into a human and there is no logical reason to decide a cut off point at 4 weeks or 24 weeks. Unless stopped this thing will become a fully functioning human being. Once we decide human life has an intrinsic value then I couldn't find a logical reason to distinguish between a foetus 2 months before birth or 2 months after. Both will die without the care of others so the fact that the foetus draws life from the mother is irrelevant.

Of course, as I've grown older I've become less sure of my ideas.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Lol, when you have carried a couple of bowling balls around in your belly for nine months losing emotional stability, melanin and bladder control in the process then say you have as much right

Ha! When you've supported emotionally and physically someone carrying the bowling balls through their carriage and removal, taken over the entire running of the household in order to support a deranged new mother, waded through just as many nappies and sleepless nights, and continued to support everyone financially through that time, then you've earned your rights. And I haven't even mentioned perineal massage.

Pregnancy and birth turns out to be a very small part of having a child.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Sangre wrote: »

I don't know what my stance is and I doubt I will ever truly know until I am faced with it as an option in reality.

Previously I would have said that I would be against abortion as once the zygote is formed it will form into a human and there is no logical reason to decide a cut off point at 4 weeks or 24 weeks. Unless stopped this thing will become a fully functioning human being. Once we decide human life has an intrinsic value then I couldn't find a logical reason to distinguish between a foetus 2 months before birth or 2 months after. Both will die without the care of others so the fact that the foetus draws life from the mother is irrelevant.

Of course, as I've grown older I've become less sure of my ideas.

I specifically draw issue with that. The vast majority of pregnancies are aborted by the female body and flsuhed often without the woman even being aware of it. You also have myriad other issues such as massive defects that call into question whether being human is a state of mind or simply one of genetic material.

I also have issues with the "intrinsic value" of human life argument.

I can see your logic and certainly if one assumes life to have "intrinsic value" then it is nearly impossible to draw the line. Until you take that out of the equation as an abstract concept and you look at it objectively, then you wind up with the sometimes disturbing conclusions I have drawn.

Calibos

I'd probably be in the emotively against abortion camp. I just find it distasteful. slicing and dicing and hoovering out a little potential human. I'd be pro abortion in the very early stages of gestation and in some other limited circumstances.

ie. To show you how arbitrary my reasoning is. I'd be against abortion after the eyes and fingers and toes have formed. Maybe thats strangely linked to my attidue to food. I can't eat anything that looks like it did when it was alive. I can eat a steak but not a crab etc. Once the fetus starts to look human I start to get grossed out at the thoughts of aborting it......or eating it

I'd be pro-abortion later in gestation in the case of severe disability where the fetus/baby/child would have no quality of live or would not live long after birth. I would be against the abortion of Downs Syndrome fetus' for instance but would be for the abortion of a fetus that might live a year or two after birth but would spend its short life hooked up to tubes in a hospital in pain etc

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ha! When you've supported emotionally and physically someone carrying the bowling balls through their carriage and removal, taken over the entire running of the household in order to support a deranged new mother, waded through just as many nappies and sleepless nights, and continued to support everyone financially through that time, then you've earned your rights. And I haven't even mentioned perineal massage.

Pregnancy and birth turns out to be a very small part of having a child.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ooooh yeah. I forgot about the nappies

Rev Hellfire

Calibos wrote: »

I'd be pro-abortion later in gestation in the case of severe disability where the fetus/baby/child would have no quality of live or would not live long after birth.

Out of curiosity how would you define 'quality of life' and at what point would you need to reach to make it unacceptable.

Very much pro-choice.

Dades

I'm somewhat abnostic.

However if it came to the crunch I would probably be pre-choice. But I would really hate to see it become a form of contraceptive for ignorant teens. Especially knowing personally good people who have had difficulty conceiving.

Dave!

I'm pro-choice, but I'm not really sure of the 'cut-off point'.

As a general point, I will say that I don't consider it to be a human life at the point of fertilisation, nor implantation. But at 9 months it is of course a human life. So at some point between implantation and birth, this collection of cells becomes a human deserving of the same respect and rights as you or I.

I don't know enough about pregnancy to place a cut-off point for abortion, but since prior to 4 weeks I do not consider it to be more than a bunch of cells, I'll say that I'm pro-choice. Once you get further into the pregnancy, then it gets more tricky.

Dades wrote: »

abnostic

Dades strikes again! Nice

JimiTime

What is the difference between killing a baby when its in the womb, and killing a baby when its out of the womb?

humanji

Personally, I'm against abortion unless medically necessary, but I'm all for other people to have the choice. It's just not for me. I'm not fully sure why I'm against it. I think it might just be that I think it's a waste of potential. Plus, the way I live my life, I'm going to need plenty of organ donors.

Hivemind187

JimiTime wrote: »

What is the difference between killing a baby when its in the womb, and killing a baby when its out of the womb?

I'll refrain from off colour jokes on this one.

However, the difference, in my opinion, is that while in the womb it is a parasite and when outside (asuming you mean born and separated from the umbilical) it can take responsibility for its own continued existance (by breathing mainly)

Asiaprod

I am not interested in debating the when does life begin issue.
Nice post Breu.
I am interested in debating the original post

Asiaprod

JimiTime wrote: »

What is the difference between killing a baby when its in the womb, and killing a baby when its out of the womb?

Jimi, this thread has become my new baby, I will be very protective of it:)

Conar

I'm extremely pro choice, but its not a choice I would ever make.

Hivemind187

Calibos wrote: »

I'd probably be in the emotively against abortion camp. I just find it distasteful. slicing and dicing and hoovering out a little potential human. I'd be pro abortion in the very early stages of gestation and in some other limited circumstances.

I think you are pushing the rabid pro-life angle their a little with the slicing and dicing. But it does raise the question, is it an issue you have with the perception of pain or suffering on behalf of the foetus that causes you distress?

Calibos wrote: »

ie. To show you how arbitrary my reasoning is. I'd be against abortion after the eyes and fingers and toes have formed. Maybe thats strangely linked to my attidue to food. I can't eat anything that looks like it did when it was alive. I can eat a steak but not a crab etc. Once the fetus starts to look human I start to get grossed out at the thoughts of aborting it......or eating it

Is it perhaps that you are attributing characteristics etc to the assortment of cells that constitute the foetus? Also, it might seem facetious but why is it when it is a human it is an abortion and when its a chicken its an omlette?

Calibos wrote: »

I'd be pro-abortion later in gestation in the case of severe disability where the fetus/baby/child would have no quality of live or would not live long after birth. I would be against the abortion of Downs Syndrome fetus' for instance but would be for the abortion of a fetus that might live a year or two after birth but would spend its short life hooked up to tubes in a hospital in pain etc

I'm pretty certain you mean pro-choice (although I have met some people who make a good argument for pro-abortion)

From the reading of this you appear to be more pro-choice than pro-life. You hold similar opinions to many people who are pro-choice.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

What is the difference between killing a baby when its in the womb, and killing a baby when its out of the womb?

There's no "baby" in the womb...?

That and there's quiiiite a difference between
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/zygote.jpg
and
http://z.about.com/d/huntsville/1/0/G/g/1/BabyKineticaJoulePeer.jpg

Rev Hellfire

Hivemind187 wrote: »

However, the difference, in my opinion, is that while in the womb it is a parasite and when outside (asuming you mean born and separated from the umbilical) it can take responsibility for its own continued existance (by breathing mainly)

Its not really a viable example you give there Hivemind since an infant is not capable of sustaining its own life, and by your definition remains a parasite for a number of months (if not arguably years).

Dave!

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I think you are pushing the rabid pro-life angle their a little with the slicing and dicing. But it does raise the question, is it an issue you have with the perception of pain or suffering on behalf of the foetus that causes you distress?




Is it perhaps that you are attributing characteristics etc to the assortment of cells that constitute the foetus? Also, it might seem facetious but why is it when it is a human it is an abortion and when its a chicken its an omlette?



I'm pretty certain you mean pro-choice (although I have met some people who make a good argument for pro-abortion)

From the reading of this you appear to be more pro-choice than pro-life. You hold similar opinions to many people who are pro-choice.

You need to lay off the George Carlin, man!

Ahh no, I refrained from responding to Calibos's post because she acknowledged that it's emotion (and I would probably go further and say "irrationality") that leads her to her current stance.

There is of course no difference between eating a crab and a steak, but irrational human emotion makes you think twice about eating something that has eyes and is looking at you!
(I seem to remember Carl Sagan using this as it relates to Heikegani, the 'samurai crab', to explain natural selection )

Calibos may not see a logical reason to be pro-life, but at the end of the day the thought of destroying something (and by gruesome methods) that you can associate with a living being is icky.

Hivemind187

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its not really a viable example you give there Hivemind since an infant is not capable of sustaining its own life, and by your definition remains a parasite for a number of months (if not arguably years).

Ah Rev, you misunderstand. Allow me to explain.

By taking "responsibility" for your own continued existance I mean "breathing, swallowing, excreting etc" I do not mean holding down a job in McDonalds.

Essentially, during gestation a foetus is a parasite, it contributes nothing and takes everything. It relies solely on the altruism of the host to sustain it.

The host chooses to take responsibility for the parasite, it is not imperative to the host to continue to do so rahter it is at the hosts descretion. Therefore, should the host choose to, it can divest itself of the responsibility of supporting the parasite.

Once the host ceases to support the parasite it is then up to the parasite to take responsibility for its own existance. It must breathe for itself or perish. Once it chooses to take responsibility to breathe for itself then it has earned the right to continue to do so without interference. No one can have the right to interfere with that breathing since they have no responsibility for it.

The parasitic relationship ceases upon birth since the infant is capable of taking the said responsibility. Further to this the infant is also responsible for its own swallow function and waste management. While it still relies on the altruism of a more capable being it must still make the effort to live itself rather than relying solely on draining the host and therefor it is no longer a parasite.

It is an abstract concept and an instinctive drive in humans to protect what we percieve as a helpless infant however, objectively, it is owed no special treatment.

Rev Hellfire

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The parasitic relationship ceases upon birth since the infant is capable of taking the said responsibility. Further to this the infant is also responsible for its own swallow function and waste management. While it still relies on the altruism of a more capable being it must still make the effort to live itself rather than relying solely on draining the host and therefor it is no longer a parasite.

It is an abstract concept and an instinctive drive in humans to protect what we percieve as a helpless infant however, objectively, it is owed no special treatment.

It’s a small point but one I’d still like to see elaborated upon.
Your premise seems to be that before birth we are dealing with a parasite since it provides nothing and is totally reliant on the mother to sustain its life, I fail to see how this is much different in the time immediately after birth. A newborn child is incapable of self-sustainment and relies on the resources of the mother for food(breastfeed for example), shelter and warmth without providing anything in return. Surely it still matches your definition of a parasite, its just on one or two additional tasks.
Perhaps it’s the element of choice which provides the difference for you in that a mother has no choice but to sustain the child before birth but after can afterwards abandon it (maternal instinct not withstanding) ? Ie. Is it the element of choice that you see as important matter ?

Hivemind187

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It’s a small point but one I’d still like to see elaborated upon.
Your premise seems to be that before birth we are dealing with a parasite since it provides nothing and is totally reliant on the mother to sustain its life, I fail to see how this is much different in the time immediately after birth. A newborn child is incapable of self-sustainment and relies on the resources of the mother for food(breastfeed for example), shelter and warmth without providing anything in return. Surely it still matches your definition of a parasite, its just on one or two additional tasks.
Perhaps it’s the element of choice which provides the difference for you in that a mother has no choice but to sustain the child before birth but after can afterwards abandon it (maternal instinct not withstanding) ? Ie. Is it the element of choice that you see as important matter ?

Its the element of responsibility. Essentially the parasitic organism is not taking any responsibility for itself, it relies on anothe organism to do the work for it. Once it takes responsibility for its own breathing then it has the right to continue to do so without interference.

This is not the same as being fed etc since the relationship becomes a parent child/scenario where the parents gives the food but it is up to the child to swallow it and then excrete it. Also, at this point, there are emotional bonds etc developing which may be construed as being of mutual benefit creating a more symboitic rather than parasitic relationship.

My argument refers specifically to the gestation period and to "the right to life/responsibility for that life" paradigm.

I understand it may seem slightly cold to some.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote: »

I am not interested in debating the when does life begin issue.
Nice post Breu.
I am interested in debating the original post

I think we all agree that "killing a baby" is unacceptable. I'm certainly not interested in debating when a baby becomes a baby rather than a foetus - an argument that is interminable.

I am interested in why abortion is unacceptable to those atheists who find it unacceptable. I accept Calibos' argument from emotion as a valid post, but the argument over when an organism is 'parasitic' and when 'viable' is strictly off-topic. Please bear that in mind when posting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think we all agree that "killing a baby" is unacceptable. I'm certainly not interested in debating when a baby becomes a baby rather than a foetus - an argument that is interminable.

Surely thats the crux of it no? I'm not taking a stand here btw, i'm just curious as to when a baby is 'technically' a baby? Surely, even if I was an atheist I could present an anti-abortion stance based on this question? I am against abortion as I do believe its the killing of a baby, which is why i was asking, is there a 'scientific' stance on when you can call the child a human being? i don't want to carry it off down a pro -anti arguement, but is there an answer to my afore-mentioned question? As I said, I don't want opinion, I'm just checking if there is a scientific answer?

Zombrex

I believe, as anyone who has read my posts on this topic before, that the valuable quality of human existence is the consciousness, the "self", the "being", contained in the human brain.

Until a baby has developed the ability to produce this I'm pro-choice

After a baby has developed the ability to produce this I'm against abortion.

Do I know exactly when this actually happens in the development of the fetus? Nope, so don't even bother asking. I do know that it isn't when the child is a zygote or embryo, and I'm pretty sure it is before the child is born. As soon as the embryo starts to develop a brain that shows clear evidence of higher brain activity I start to get very nervous about the idea of aborting that child.

So people might say that this is too wishy-washy an argument to be useful, but then that is largely irrelevant. It is an argument from base principles, from the question "Why do humans deserve life and the protection of life?"

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I believe, as anyone who has read my posts on this topic before, that the valuable quality of human existence is the consciousness, the "self", the "being", contained in the human brain.

Until a baby has developed the ability to produce this I'm pro-choice

After a baby has developed the ability to produce this I'm against abortion.

Do I know exactly when this actually happens in the development of the fetus? Nope, so don't even bother asking. I do know that it isn't when the child is a zygote or embryo, and I'm pretty sure it is before the child is born. As soon as the embryo starts to develop a brain that shows clear evidence of higher brain activity I start to get very nervous about the idea of aborting that child.

So people might say that this is too wishy-washy an argument to be useful, but then that is largely irrelevant. It is an argument from base principles, from the question "Why do humans deserve life and the protection of life?"

So am I to gather from this that there is no scientific answer? Sorry Scofflaw and Asiaprod, I'm not looking to debate this, I'd just like an answer and I'll be on my merry way.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote: »

Surely thats the crux of it no? I'm not taking a stand here btw, i'm just curious as to when a baby is 'technically' a baby? Surely, even if I was an atheist I could present an anti-abortion stance based on this question? I am against abortion as I do believe its the killing of a baby, which is why i was asking, is there a 'scientific' stance on when you can call the child a human being? i don't want to carry it off down a pro -anti arguement, but is there an answer to my afore-mentioned question? As I said, I don't want opinion, I'm just checking if there is a scientific answer?

In brief, the problem is that there is no scientific answer. What defines a baby from a foetus is at root a matter of opinion.

We can take a scientifically measurable criterion, such as development of the organs, viability outside the mother, having tiny fingers and toes, etc etc - but each and every such criterion yields a slightly different answer.

The problem is that while the measurement we use can be scientific and objective, the reason for using that particular measurement isn't. In the reductio ad absurdum of such "scientific criteria" for determining whether something is a human being, we have to wait until the organism proves it can successfully interbreed with established Homo sapiens examples - because that is the only current definition of being a Homo sapiens, and "human beings" are currently defined as only Homo sapiens.

We can assume that the offspring is Homo sapiens, because its parents are Homo sapiens - but that is an assumption only, since we are bound by the logic of evolutionary theory to accept that reproductive lineages need not remain within a species boundary.

This is why the argument is interminable...because there is no universally established objectively measurable criterion for being a human being except the species test. All we can uncover by having such an argument is what people regard as the best defining test for 'humanity'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote: »

In brief, the problem is that there is no scientific answer. What defines a baby from a foetus is at root a matter of opinion.

We can take a scientifically measurable criterion, such as development of the organs, viability outside the mother, having tiny fingers and toes, etc etc - but each and every such criterion yields a slightly different answer.

The problem is that while the measurement we use can be scientific and objective, the reason for using that particular measurement isn't. In the reductio ad absurdum of such "scientific criteria" for determining whether something is a human being, we have to wait until the organism proves it can successfully interbreed with established Homo sapiens examples - because that is the only current definition of being a Homo sapiens, and "human beings" are currently defined as only Homo sapiens.

We can assume that the offspring is Homo sapiens, because its parents are Homo sapiens - but that is an assumption only, since we are bound by the logic of evolutionary theory to accept that reproductive lineages need not remain within a species boundary.

This is why the argument is interminable...because there is no universally established objectively measurable criterion for being a human being except the species test. All we can uncover by having such an argument is what people regard as the best defining test for 'humanity'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks Scofflaw.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

So am I to gather from this that there is no scientific answer?

Depends on what you mean. Science will only give you an answer if you ask a specific question that has specific parameters.

It seems to be we haven't figured out what the specific question is yet. When we do the answer should be easy, relatively speaking.

Before one decides if an unborn child is or is not a "human being" (ie not just a human life form, but a being with rights), one has to look at how we first define a "human being", by asking the question what makes us, humans, special and deserving of rights and where these rights "live" in us (for want of a better word).

For example we turn off life support for brain dead humans, even if the body can be kept alive on life support. Why? What has happened to that person that we consider it perfectly acceptable to in essence, abort them?

Or another example, we transfer organs from one person to another, without transferring rights from one person to another. If I receive a kidney from a French person I don't get a French passport.

Pretty soon (ie next 100 years) a brain transplant may be possible. This raises the question of if your brain was transfered into another body, who would be "you" Would it be your old, brainless body, or would "you" be the brain that has gone into the new body (I would say it is the latter).

We have to know what a "human being" is defined by before we know if an unborn human is or is not a human being.

If we define this based on something testable then science can tell us when an unborn human becomes a "human being"

Scofflaw

So, coming right back round again - for those atheists who disagree with the abortion of foetuses, why?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

In brief, the problem is that there is no scientific answer.

Yes and we could go a step further and point out that there is no agreed defintion on what life actually is.

Aristotle said that a baby had a soul after 3 months if it was a man and nine months if it was female. This was the position by the RC Church until a certain Pope (can't remember name) decided it was the moment of conception.

The DNA for life is present the moment of conception, so some use this piece of scientific information to decide it is conception.
There is no change in the DNA code from this point on. The instructions to build the human are set.

But at that stage you can also put the embryo into the freezer.

Some people find it hard to reconcile the concept of putting life into the freezer for a long time and then putting by into the womb.

Crazy stuff really.