Atheist And Abortion?

[gradstu09]

Meta post about framing that might be of interest: http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/about.php

[Ouroboros]

No, you're not wrong that a fetus will have reflexes and be active, but that doesn't mean jack when it comes to actually sensing things occuring.

Sounds like the reflexes and basic pain response is from the peripheral nervous system only, and not all the way to the lower brain-stem.

 

I was thinking about that earlier, how there are several levels of pain sensation. I think there's a primary system that comes from the spine, and then there's a secondary, the sympathetic autonomic nervous system that responds, with the endocrine system, and then there's perception on top of that (at least 0.5 seconds later). Which one of the "pain" responses are we really talking about? The fetus has not developed the synaptic network in the brain yet for a full "experience" of what pain is. The responses are mostly automatic and intuitive. As you can see in a few posts above, I don't think pain is a good argument against abortion, it's not indicative of "humanness", because there's no link between the fact about pain-sensation/response and the value human-identity.

[Asimov]

Just saying those are the two camps use as arguments.

 

Pro-choice: A fetus is not human, but just a non-human parasite, and as such it doesn't have any rights.

 

That's a terrible strawman, Hans. A child in utero at any stage of development is human because it contains human DNA. A child in utero is a child in utero and not a human person. There is a specific delineation between a person and a nonperson. That specific delineation is birth. That point at which a child becomes born and takes its first breath is the point at which it becomes a human person and is granted the rights and responsibilities therein that a human person has.

 

Personhood is a conventional term, of course.

 

Those are the basic arguments, and I think neither holds, because they're both right and wrong. The embryo/fetus is it's own unique category, and it doesn't help to compare it to dogs, cats, virus, bacteria, amoeba, parasites or Einstein. It has to be treated separately.

 

Of course it has its own unique category...it's a human "child in utero" (meaning at any stage of development). That's what I'm trying to get across, but I probably am not expressing it properly.

 

The relationship that occurs between a child in utero and the host is parasitic, regardless.

 

According to your argument above, the fetus is not uninvited anymore, but is a welcome "parasite" in her body. Now, if she changes her mind, does she have the right to do so or not? If it's based on "welcomeness" she would not, since she decided to become pregnant to begin with. But my argument is that she still have the right to an abortion, because only she knows why she changed her mind, so the "uninvited" argument doesn't hold for every situation. (It does only for rape, or unintended pregnancy, but not for planned which later was reconsidered.)

 

It has nothing to do with unwelcomeness, Hans, it has everything to do with it being her own body, her own property, and if you can welcome something in, you can kick something out.

 

Termination of a pregnancy results in the death of the child in utero, within the shady grey areas of viability. If there was a method of terminating a pregnancy and giving it to a happy couple that did not result in its death, that would be fine. A womans right to her property gives her the right to exact the maximum force necessary to protect her property. If that force requires death, then so be it.

[Ouroboros]

Meta post about framing that might be of interest: http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/about.php

Framing is what humans do, all the time. We build the contextual schema within we try to understand the world. And then we analyze the world based on the framework we built. And when experience or new knowledge won't fit our schema, we either reject reality or modify our schema.

[Asimov]

Thank you. I've got a few beers in me and I'm feeling chummy, but may I ask why you're being such a dick? Even if you have a good argument, you only hurt it when you become aggressive.

 

*takes a couple breathes* You're right, I will calm down.

 

Anyway. There is confusion about what I meant by 'childbearing. family relationships, parenting, and human life.' I meant to refer to these things as such. As in, 'do you think that bearing children, parenting, family, and human life are good things in themselves.' So what I see you saying is this:

1. you don't regard bearing children as a good thing in itself.

2. you do regard family relationships as good things in themselves

3. you don't regard parenting as a good thing in itself

4. you're not sure that human life is a good thing in itself

 

Are we on the same page here?

 

Ok, I don't think anything is good or bad in and of themselves. Nothing has inherent value or worth. Value and worth are external applications based on someones perception.

 

I don't regard any of those things as good in and of itself. Bearing children is a goal some people have, and that's great for them, it also happens to be a goal that some people have but not at the moment they are thinking of it. It might also not be a value that some people have at all. Creating a black and white concept of "good and bad" without any context whatsoever renders your argument meaningless.

 

The same applies for all, including human life. Human life is too broad and abstract to really mean anything. A human life who seeks to destroy all other life is not a good thing, in my estimation, nor is a human life who rapes and kills others. A human life that is valuable to one person may not be valuable to another. It's quite dynamic.

 

Vigile? Person with the cat icon? I think I was misunderstood by you two too. Not to mention gradstu, but I'm not really concerned about him.

 

No, I'm Asimov. Spock Avatar.

 

I didn't actually express a value of mine, I provided the sketch of an argument I've acquired and am ready to defend.

 

Ok.

[Asimov]

You know, I have to say, the ad hom shit is getting old.

 

Yes, and I'm ashamed of my part in it.

[Ouroboros]

Just saying those are the two camps use as arguments.

 

Pro-choice: A fetus is not human, but just a non-human parasite, and as such it doesn't have any rights.

 

That's a terrible strawman, Hans. A child in utero at any stage of development is human because it contains human DNA. A child in utero is a child in utero and not a human person. There is a specific delineation between a person and a nonperson. That specific delineation is birth. That point at which a child becomes born and takes its first breath is the point at which it becomes a human person and is granted the rights and responsibilities therein that a human person has.

 

Personhood is a conventional term, of course.

It was you who used the term "parasite" about the fetus, not me. My point above was based on observation of the pro-choice camp. So for in this thread there has been strong points made how little the fetus is considered to be a human, not how similar to human. IF that's the strawman, I didn't invent it. I only reported what I saw.

 

What you see above is not my opinion about the fetus, but the arguments that have been brought up in this thread. A fetus doesn't have rights, because it's not a human, and it's not human because it's not fully developed to a human. I didn't make that strawman. I only observed and summarized tha argument.

 

So is the fetus a parasite or not?

 

Those are the basic arguments, and I think neither holds, because they're both right and wrong. The embryo/fetus is it's own unique category, and it doesn't help to compare it to dogs, cats, virus, bacteria, amoeba, parasites or Einstein. It has to be treated separately.

 

Of course it has its own unique category...it's a human "child in utero" (meaning at any stage of development). That's what I'm trying to get across, but I probably am not expressing it properly.

 

The relationship that occurs between a child in utero and the host is parasitic, regardless.

Ah. Now I'm with you. We're on the same page then. Yes, the relationship between the fetus and the mother is parasitic; however, that is not enough as an argument for or against abortion (IMO).

 

According to your argument above, the fetus is not uninvited anymore, but is a welcome "parasite" in her body. Now, if she changes her mind, does she have the right to do so or not? If it's based on "welcomeness" she would not, since she decided to become pregnant to begin with. But my argument is that she still have the right to an abortion, because only she knows why she changed her mind, so the "uninvited" argument doesn't hold for every situation. (It does only for rape, or unintended pregnancy, but not for planned which later was reconsidered.)

 

It has nothing to do with unwelcomeness, Hans, it has everything to do with it being her own body, her own property, and if you can welcome something in, you can kick something out.

If a woman become pregnant by her own choice, she has welcomed the "guest". Does she have a right to change her mind? Not if the core argument is as stated earlier. That's why I think (just like you admit here), the fetus being welcomed or not has nothing to do with the right for the woman to decide about the abortion.

 

Termination of a pregnancy results in the death of the child in utero, within the shady grey areas of viability. If there was a method of terminating a pregnancy and giving it to a happy couple that did not result in its death, that would be fine. A womans right to her property gives her the right to exact the maximum force necessary to protect her property. If that force requires death, then so be it.

Agree.

 

It's my opinion that terminating the life of a fetus, is still a form of terminating a life, but it is acceptable and without prejudice.

[Asimov]

It must have something to do with those pictures of blood and gore and severed limbs from the aborted fetus.

 

Are you comfortable with open-heart surgeries and medical amputations?

 

It should be a last measure. Ideally contraception should be used to avoid conception in the first place - so that people only get pregnant when they want kids. I know that could never happen - because contraception can always fail - but abortion should only ever be a last resort.

 

It is a last resort...I'm not sure what other resorts should be used after one conceives in order to not have a baby, Evolution.

[gradstu09]

Meta post about framing that might be of interest: http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/about.php

Framing is what humans do, all the time. We build the contextual schema within we try to understand the world. And then we analyze the world based on the framework we built. And when experience or new knowledge won't fit our schema, we either reject reality or modify our schema.

 

Yes, I know. It's just interesting to look at the half dozen or so frames people are using here and noting who is talking past who. This is running very similar to every abortion debate I've ever been in. All the usual players are here. The one way in which it's different is that several people here have actually switched sides, so you'd think that the level of communication would be higher b/c they'd "get" the arguments from both sides. That doesn't seem to be happening though.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, I know. It's just interesting to look at the half dozen or so frames people are using here and noting who is talking past who. This is running very similar to every abortion debate I've ever been in. All the usual players are here. The one way in which it's different is that several people here have actually switched sides, so you'd think that the level of communication would be higher b/c they'd "get" the arguments from both sides. That doesn't seem to be happening though.

I think the breakdown of communication most of the times happens at the finer points in the discussion. For instance, I think now that Asimov and I see it the same way, even though at first when I read his posts I didn't agree. But it's because when we say things in these posts, we usually don't mean literally/exactly/word-by-word what we say, but there's always a small nuance which is hard to convey in words. And sometimes we use strong language because we think the other party didn't understand "my point of view." Which then leads to a polarization of the ideas. Suddenly several people find themselves forced to be on one or the other side of a fence, when they in reality are standing closer to the middle. Just as the development of a fetus into human is a progressive transition, our ideas and opinions are not as crystal clear or categorical in every aspect. And these gray-zones of opinion are always hard to explain.

 

If we could transfer our mental images of what we really mean, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we found ourself agreeing almost completely.

[godlessgrrl]

Okay. So this is really the first time I've ventured terribly far into an abortion discussion here on Ex-C, even though they happen with some regularity... and I have to say, ya'll rock. This is the most reasoned 'net discussion on abortion I've ever seen. What's particularly interesting to me is seeing a discussion about abortion that hasn't involved religion at all. That's a new beast for me.

 

Anyway I'm gushing a bit, just had to gush I guess.

 

Oh and Jenna, thanks for your reply, about what penalties should happen for abortion if abortion is murder, and thanks for your honesty in admitting you don't currently have an answer. Truth is most people who regard abortion as murder haven't actually thought that far into it, so if the question makes you (or anyone) think about it, hey I'm happy with that.

 

Anyway.

[Pecker]

Okay. So this is really the first time I've ventured terribly far into an abortion discussion here on Ex-C, even though they happen with some regularity... and I have to say, ya'll rock. This is the most reasoned 'net discussion on abortion I've ever seen. What's particularly interesting to me is seeing a discussion about abortion that hasn't involved religion at all. That's a new beast for me.

 

Anyway I'm gushing a bit, just had to gush I guess.

 

Oh and Jenna, thanks for your reply, about what penalties should happen for abortion if abortion is murder, and thanks for your honesty in admitting you don't currently have an answer. Truth is most people who regard abortion as murder haven't actually thought that far into it, so if the question makes you (or anyone) think about it, hey I'm happy with that.

 

Anyway.

 

 

Have to agree, I don't think I've ever started a longer thread ever on the internet. And its been spirited, but not irrational.

[Ouroboros]

I reluctantly see your point.

But should it not be up to the pregnant woman to decide whether that abortion is right or wrong then? She is able to make the most informed decision.

I realized that maybe your reluctance is based on the slight confusion of the word "right". Right in "right or wrong" (rätt eller fel) doesn't have the same meaning as the word "right to choose" (rättighet). In the use of "right or wrong" it's a moral judgment, and as "right to act or choose" it's a legal standpoint, like "approved to do" or "allowed to do". The woman has the right to make the decision, and whatever decision she make is the right one (morally). However, only through proper education can pregnant women make better choices, and the education should be done without being moralistic. The proper moral ground is whatever the woman decides. But on a side-note, I find it personally a bit odd if a woman decide to do the abortion very late, because it shows she can't make up her mind. On the other hand, to her defense, there might be mitigating circumstances, like a husband or parents holding her back from making her own decision during all these months, and finally she could make herself free from their pressure.

 

(Honestly, did I kill this thread? Damn... )

[Asimov]

Hans, well-reasoned posts tend to do that.

 

Glad we could see eye to eye yet again on another issue after talking past each other for a few posts. It was fewer posts this time, I think! We're getting better!

[Misterspock1]

Wow, this discussion just absolutely took off. To think that the first post was three days ago and there are now over fifteen pages of responses! I haven't been able to get through the whole thing just because I have a life but I still would like to interject my opinion on the matter. I imagine some facsimile of this has already been said, and I apologize.

 

While I was still a Christian there was no question for me. Abortion was murder. God had "knitted the life together in the womb" and therefore as soon as conception occurred there was a human life there. Taking the life anytime after that would be one human taking the life of another and would therefore be murder, at the very least manslaughter. I didn't see how any circumstance, whether it be rape, incest, or even when the life of the mother was in danger, could justify murder. I always said that if rape is an excuse for murder, then kill the rapist, not the baby. Why should an innocent life suffer for the sins of another?

 

After I de-converted and God was no longer part of the equation, I started really exploring this topic with an open mind. I read stories from women who had had abortions, how they felt going into it and how they felt afterward, and I started realizing my black-and-white thinking really didn't work for this particular issue (and countless others). While it is so easy for us on the outside to judge someone's motives and actions, we do not have all the facts and cannot possibly know the agony that goes through a mother-to-be's mind when she considers having an abortion. While there may be a few people in this world that could cold-bloodedly abort a fetus without a second thought, I don't think anyone else could ever come to a decision like that lightly. Even in the instance of aborting "out of convenience," there are usually other circumstances in play that make the situation much more of a grey area; the stigma itself, the fact that having a baby out of wedlock is still frowned upon by our society, creates so much pressure on a little junior high school girl who just found out she is pregnant and is completely overwhelmed. Here she made one little mistake, and because of that her life will in many ways be ruined. Should she go through with the pregnancy, put her body through all of that, and bring a baby into an environment that will most likely be far from nurturing, or should she go through with an abortion to salvage what little dignity she still has left? Yes, adoption is a valid option, but she would still have to go through the pregnancy, have people constantly whispering behind her back, and have to suffer the taboos of a society that is still WAY too conservative for its own good. She might as well just sew a giant red "A" on her chest. Regardless of the decision she makes, it is going to have lasting repercussions on her for the rest of her life.

 

To think that any of us who have never gone through something like that, especially those of us males who will never go through that and cannot possibly understand, can assume that we can foresee every possible circumstance is arrogant and absurd. I know that is something you constantly hear from women's rights advocates, but it really is true. We guys say that women can't possibly understand the pain we feel when kicked in the junk, and I think there are certain experiences unique to women that we will also never be able to identify with. Frankly, my opinion on the issue doesn't matter; the decision should be hers to make, and hers alone. If she thinks abortion is the way to go, then I think the option should be available to her in a safe, sterile environment.

[Ouroboros]

Glad we could see eye to eye yet again on another issue after talking past each other for a few posts. It was fewer posts this time, I think! We're getting better!

Yeah, you're right. It must be a record! And do know I always enjoy our battles, even if I tend to leave with a few scars here and there. They're educating and challenging.

[Asimov]

Glad we could see eye to eye yet again on another issue after talking past each other for a few posts. It was fewer posts this time, I think! We're getting better!

Yeah, you're right. It must be a record! And do know I always enjoy our battles, even if I tend to leave with a few scars here and there. They're educating and challenging.

 

Well I hope the scars I leave aren't too painful. I've been given quite a few correcting chomps on the neck now and then too from a lot of people on here.

 

I admit I was quite wrong on the fetal developmental stages thing, which is interesting because I read three different sites and they gave slightly conflicting pieces of information.

[.god]

"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"

When the Anti-Choice Choose

 

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

 

Interesting link, I find the following stories particularly interesting:

 

"We have anti-choice women in for abortions all the time. Many of them are just naive and ignorant until they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Many of them are not malicious. They just haven't given it the proper amount of thought until it completely affects them. They can be judgmental about their friends, family, and other women. Then suddenly they become pregnant. Suddenly they see the truth. That it should only be their own choice. Unfortunately, many also think that somehow they are different than everyone else and they deserve to have an abortion, while no one else does." (Physician, Washington State)

 

"A 21 year old woman and her mother drove three hours to come to their appointment for an abortion. They were surprised to find the clinic a 'nice' place with friendly, personable staff. While going over contraceptive options, they shared that they were Pro-Life and disagreed with abortion, but that the patient could not afford to raise a child right now. Also, she wouldn't need contraception since she wasn't going to have sex until she got married, because of her religious beliefs. Rather than argue with them, I saw this as an opportunity for dialogue, and in the end, my hope was that I had planted a 'healing seed' to help resolve the conflict between their beliefs and their realities." (Physician, Washington State)

 

"The sister of a Dutch bishop in Limburg once visited the abortion clinic in Beek where I used to work in the seventies. After entering the full waiting room she said to me, 'My dear Lord, what are all those young girls doing here?' 'Same as you', I replied. 'Dirty little dames,' she said." (Physician, The Netherlands)

 

"In 1973, after Roe v. Wade, abortion became legal but had to be performed in a hospital. That of course was changed later. For the first 'legal abortion day' I had scheduled five procedures. While scrubbing between cases, I was accosted by the Chief of the OB/Gyn service. He asked me, 'How many children are you going to kill today?' My response, out of anger, was a familiar vulgar retort. About three months later, this born-again Christian called me to explain that he was against abortion but his daughter was only a junior in high school and was too young to have a baby and he was also afraid that if she did have a baby she would not want to put it up for adoption. I told him he did not need to explain the situation to me. 'All I need to know', I said, 'is that SHE wants an abortion.' Two years later I performed a second abortion on her during her college break. She thanked me and pleaded, 'Please don't tell my dad, he is still anti-abortion.'" (Physician, Washington State)

[Emme]

I reluctantly see your point.

But should it not be up to the pregnant woman to decide whether that abortion is right or wrong then? She is able to make the most informed decision.

I realized that maybe your reluctance is based on the slight confusion of the word "right". Right in "right or wrong" (rätt eller fel) doesn't have the same meaning as the word "right to choose" (rättighet). In the use of "right or wrong" it's a moral judgment, and as "right to act or choose" it's a legal standpoint, like "approved to do" or "allowed to do". The woman has the right to make the decision, and whatever decision she make is the right one (morally). However, only through proper education can pregnant women make better choices, and the education should be done without being moralistic. The proper moral ground is whatever the woman decides. But on a side-note, I find it personally a bit odd if a woman decide to do the abortion very late, because it shows she can't make up her mind. On the other hand, to her defense, there might be mitigating circumstances, like a husband or parents holding her back from making her own decision during all these months, and finally she could make herself free from their pressure.

 

(Honestly, did I kill this thread? Damn... )

 

You're very generous to explain my change of the previous post this way, but my reluctance just came from not liking to be wrong. I was rash, you caught me, I had to rethink my post, that's all. And I don't think you killed the thread!

[Ouroboros]

... I read three different sites and they gave slightly conflicting pieces of information.

Really? That's bad.

 

I have only studied the fetal development on a very high level, so I can't really tell if the details are wrong. If you feel like it, you can point to the sites that seems to be conflicting. Just good to know.

 

This reminds me... I used to have book which had the details... where the heck did I put it?...

[godlessgrrl]

I love that link about anti-abortion people's own abortions, SilentLoner. I've seen it before; it's an interesting commentary on the shortsightedness of the self-righteous. I wonder how many anti-abortion women have actually shifted their thinking on the topic once they've found themselves needing to abort.

 

Here's another little interesting current tidbit on the whole abortion/birth control issue: Birth Control to be Redefined as Abortion

 

According to this article, the HHS draft itself has not been released for public comment. I find that frustrating, as I like to look at primary documents where possible, to see what they actually say. What I've been able to gather from blogs and articles and so on is that the Bush administration is pushing to alter a current federal HHS regulation on abortion, complete with a new definition of the term:

 

"any of the various procedures -- including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

 

There are some interesting implications to this language. For one thing, it changes the whole ball game by changing the definition of the term "abortion" entirely. The current medical definition would not apply anymore; abortion would no longer be a matter of ending a pregnancy (that is, an already implanted embryo or fetus), but backs the issue up to the moment of conception. Under the new regulation, even preventing implantation post-conception becomes a form of abortion. Which means that a whole host of birth control methods suddenly count as abortion, according to the Bush administration. IUD's, birth control pills, Plan B, anything that prevents implantation.

 

On the surface of it, the regulation is allegedly intended to bolster the right of medical practitioners to deny procedures or medications they feel violate their own moral compass. The deeper implications are disturbing to me, though, as a woman. The whole struggle leaves me with the distinct impression that, at the bottom of all the arguments and debates and fights about sex, birth control, abortion, and so on is this cultural revulsion towards female sexuality. People simply don't want women having sex without some kind of culturally sanctioned control. Whether that control is marriage or religion or law or whatever, I really think the idea that women can and should be able to have sex the same way men have always had it - without fear of pregnancy in particular - really just freaks a lot of people the hell out.

 

Hence the slut shaming. Hence the abstinence-only sex ed programs. Hence the various roadblocks to women's access to reliable birth control. Hence the moral posturing. Hence the common assumption that abortions happen because of irresponsible women. Hence the mythology of the Partial Birth Abortion. And so on.

 

Anyway. I dunno if this really added anything or not, but thanks for reading my ramble.

[Guest erick]

I'm glad you're re-evaluating your thoughts and making the effort to come up with a secular reason to oppose abortion. Becoming an atheist doesn't always mean you have to abandon values you held as a believer, but it does mean that the reasoning behind the values might have to change. If you do come up with a good secular argument against abortion, I definitely want to hear it.

 

Hi Gwen,

 

As a Christian, I protested regularly at a place where they preform abortions in my area. The vast majority of my fellow protesters were also Christian. However, there was this one guy, I'll call him Yoda, who was a agnostic. He was there not to appease a religious conviction, as I was. Yoda didn't believe in a "soul" or anything of the like, instead, his objection was based on the simple biological fact that he was (as all of us were) once a fetus. He used to tell me that the reason he was there was because it could have been him being carried into that building to be put to death.

 

Now, as an atheist and still (I like to think) a compassionate person, I know that abortion is the destruction of a genetically distinct, very young and defenceless human being. My reason now tells me that it is sometimes necessary to destroy life to save life. But when there is relativity little danger in continuing a pregnancy to term, I think that getting an abortion in pan amount to murder.

 

Hate me if you must, but this is my opinion, and as a former fetus, I do not believe I could rationally chose any other.

 

Erick

[Misterspock1]

Here's another little interesting current tidbit on the whole abortion/birth control issue: Birth Control to be Redefined as Abortion

 

Nice. This is just another example of how overly conservative and how overly CHRISTIAN our society really is. This hasn't passed, has it?

 

Pragmatically, I suppose maybe this is a necessary step to help us surpass China in population.

[Misterspock1]

My reason now tells me that it is sometimes necessary to destroy life to save life.

 

When you say life, you seem to just mean someone's physical existence, their warm, breathing body. To me, life is so much more than just another heart beating. Life is about hopes and dreams, successes and failures, love and sadness, and so much more. Just because someone is still physically living doesn't mean they are alive. Please do not think that I am trying to imply that you do not care for life. I think that you do, but it is just in that very black-and-white thinking that is so destructive (and incorrect).

 

Just because you kept someone's heart beating doesn't mean their life is any better than - or even the same as - it was before. So many young mothers-to-be may not be physically in jeopardy, but bringing a baby to term out of wedlock, especially in our society, is still such a huge taboo and while the woman (or girl) may not be a corpse, her life could in many ways be destroyed (have you read The Scarlet Letter?). So I suppose it basically comes down to should I destroy the life of the baby to save the life of the mother, or destroy the life of the mother to save the life of the baby? To me, I would much rather be shot in the head and physically die rather than be physically alive but socially and emotionally dead (as I think most people would), and therefore I tend to go the abortion route. Though like I said in my previous post, I don't think the decision is mine to make.

[Guest erick]

When you say life, you seem to just mean someone's physical existence, their warm, breathing body. To me, life is so much more than just another heart beating. Life is about hopes and dreams, successes and failures, love and sadness, and so much more. Just because someone is still physically living doesn't mean they are alive. Please do not think that I am trying to imply that you do not care for life. I think that you do, but it is just in that very black-and-white thinking that is so destructive (and incorrect).

 

Ah, my friend, but this is where we get onto a slippery slope. Basically what you're saying is that some people are not quite "people" enough to deserve rights. You could carry this logic a long way. You could use it to justify slavery, genocide, and euthanasia of the elderly. I think that when it comes to judging who is a person and who is not, we should let our understanding gained through science be our guide. If they have a distinct genetic code, then they are a separate entity from anyone else, and certainly not part of their mother's body (although they may depend on it). And if they have cellular growth, then they are alive. And I'm sure any mother could tell you that all new born babies come complete with their own unique personalities.

 

At one time in our lives we were all just a fetus, yet to have any hopes, dreams, successes, failures, or any experiences at all. But, if someone were to destroy us at that tender and vulnerable point in our lives, we would never get the chance. Personally, I'm glad I was given my chance, and I intend to give that chance to my future children. However if my wife's life were in clear and present danger from continuing a pregnancy, and there was no other way... I wouldn't hesitate to chose her life over that of our preborn child. It would break my heart and hers, and we would mourn the loss, but I would still protect the one who is most likely to survive. Using abortion as a form of birth control is disgustingly barbaric to me.

 

But that's just my two cents on the subject.

 

Erick