Ohio's Issue #1 and Abortion Politics: Are we learning anything?

[Ken]

I gave you an answer: Cogito, ergo sum to quote René Descartes. "I think, therefore I am." When exactly a clump of cells becomes a separate self-aware individual with thoughts and emotions I cannot say. I don't think any of us can. The religions of the world are certainly not of one mind on that question. Neither historically has been the Mennonite church.

But everyone agrees that when a baby is born it has its own identity that is separate from the mother's. Are you saying that up until the time the clump of cells becomes a separate self-aware individual with thoughts and emotions there is no difference between the embryo and the mother? It's just part of the mother, like her hand or foot or teeth?

That can't be true because that embryo came into being by the sperm of the father fertilizing the egg of the mother and that sperm was never a part of the mother.

One wonders also why “cogito ergo sum” and Rene Descartes of all people should be the standard by which the humanity of a being is determined.

The average male produces over 500 billion sperm cells in his live and sheds at least a billion of them per month. All of those are living human organisms. They are alive and have human DNA. The more relevant question in my mind is when does an embryo become a human individual with a soul? Theology and scripture does not give us very satisfactory answers to that question. I provided one based answer on my own thinking about the topic. You (and everyone else) is more than welcome to come up with your own.

I do think that previous Mennonite and Baptist positions on that subject (that I cited above) were far more humble and thoughtful than the more absolutist pro-life positions of today. I simply don't think the theology on this subject lends itself to black and white criminal law or criminalization of what is a very complex and nuanced topic. I think we were far more thoughtful and humble about this subject back then. And I think that sort of approach will gain more success long term than hard-line criminalization which is only generating overwhelming backlash.

Since the repeal of Roe, every single place in this country where the subject has come up for public vote, the public has voted to preserve abortion rights. Even in crimson red states like Kansas and Kentucky. So no, I don't think the modern pro-life movement is learning anything. Or to put it another way, they are learning the hard way that we don't live in a theocracy.

[Nomad]

I gave you an answer: Cogito, ergo sum to quote René Descartes. "I think, therefore I am." When exactly a clump of cells becomes a separate self-aware individual with thoughts and emotions I cannot say. I don't think any of us can. The religions of the world are certainly not of one mind on that question. Neither historically has been the Mennonite church.

But everyone agrees that when a baby is born it has its own identity that is separate from the mother's. Are you saying that up until the time the clump of cells becomes a separate self-aware individual with thoughts and emotions there is no difference between the embryo and the mother? It's just part of the mother, like her hand or foot or teeth?

That can't be true because that embryo came into being by the sperm of the father fertilizing the egg of the mother and that sperm was never a part of the mother.

I think you are asking the wrong question. The question isn't when the fetus becomes a separate organism from the mother. The fetus is always a separate organism from the mother. The more relevant question is when does the fetus become a human individual with a soul. That is the question I am trying to answer.

Assume Catholicism is correct and the soul enters the embryo at the moment of conception. Let's do a little math exercise.

To make the math simple, let's assume we have 100 fertilized embryos. How many of them will make it to birth? That is a question of some scientific debate, but the consensus seems to be that between 40% and 60% will not make it to birth. Some estimates put the number as high as 70%. A large portion of them simply do not implant and develop into blastocysts. And another large percentage are miscarried early in pregnancy. To make the math simple, let's pick the mid-range of 50%. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/

So we start with 100 fertilized embryos of which approximately 50 of them naturally survive until birth.

If we assume they all survive until adulthood or maturity, what percentage of those 50 will be saved and go to heaven? Of course no one knows the answer to that question. But if we very generously consider that all the people in the world who self-identify as Christian are going to heaven (which is a very generous assumption) that gives us a number of about 30%. According to Pew, approximately 30% of the world's population identifies as Christian: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/20 ... nity-exec/

So out of our 100 fertilized embryos we get the following:

100 fertilized embryos
---------------------------
50 fertilized embryos naturally perish before birth, the vast majority by failing to implant or miscarriage very early in pregnancy
35 survive to adulthood but are not Christian and so not bound for heaven (70% of 50)
15 survive to adulthood and are Christian and so bound for heaven (30% of 50)

This means according to our rough estimates, out of every 100 fertilized embryos, 65% are bound for heaven (50 embryos and 15 individual humans). That further means that the population of heaven will be:

77% embryos that have never breathed a breath, had a human thought, or felt a human emotion (50/65 = 77%)
23% Christians who have led a Christian life and have been saved. (15/65 = 23%)

And those percentages only result if you make the most generous assumption that every person who identifies in any way as Christian is saved.

Is that consistent with your understanding of Christianity and heaven? That at least 77% or more than 3/4ths of the population of heaven will be fertilized embryos that have not yet developed brains or a central nervous system or ever thought an actual thought? It isn't mine. Do I know all the answers? Of course not. No one does. But I do not find the Catholic position convincing theologically, or as a basis for public policy and criminal law.

Some things I dont think science can answer. I would say if you can't come to a conclusion on when a soul begins then probably the safest option is don't ever attempt to kill said clump of fertilized cells. I have some serious misgivings with technology like IVF and Crispr. But thats probably a different debate. Regardless no human is man-made.

This verse:
Psalm 139:13-16 ~ For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
-Seems to indicate that God sees your life as life even before it's born by His foreknowledge.

[RZehr]

My own particular thoughts are that an individual gains self-identity when it becomes self-aware and capable of it own thoughts and emotions. Cogito, ergo sum if you will.

Are you saying that once a person is no longer self aware, they are no longer human? And so we might as well kill them? Are they the same as someone in a vegetative state in terms of personhood, humanity, and the moral case for disposal?

[Ken]

My own particular thoughts are that an individual gains self-identity when it becomes self-aware and capable of it own thoughts and emotions. Cogito, ergo sum if you will.

Are you saying that once a person is no longer self aware, they are no longer human? And so we might as well kill them? Are they the same as someone in a vegetative state in terms of personhood, humanity, and the moral case for disposal?

That is a separate question of when someone dies.

Is someone who is brain dead and being kept alive artificially with a respirator still alive? When does death occur? When all brain activity stops, or when the heart stops beating?

I don't have the answers to those questions either. None of us do. I do think that death is a natural part of life and so I don't necessarily support keeping people artificially alive in a vegetative state beyond any hope of recovery. And would not want my family to do so. I also don't support things like cryo-freezing to preserve someone indefinitely. But I think that is properly a choice for individuals and their families and faith, and not something for the law to mandate. Just like abortion.

[Ken]

Some things I dont think science can answer. I would say if you can't come to a conclusion on when a soul begins then probably the safest option is don't ever attempt to kill said clump of fertilized cells. I have some serious misgivings with technology like IVF and Crispr. But thats probably a different debate. Regardless no human is man-made.

That is essentially the past position of both the Mennonite and Baptist churches. That since we don't know all the answers we should err on the side of life and support a culture of life. And that the Christian way is to approach the subject through loving persuasion and by working to make abortion unnecessary. And not through wielding the immense power of the state to criminalize women and their families.

It is a position I personally agree with. When Christianity wields the power of the state to punish it loses its moral authority.

[GaryK]

I gave you an answer: Cogito, ergo sum to quote René Descartes. "I think, therefore I am." When exactly a clump of cells becomes a separate self-aware individual with thoughts and emotions I cannot say. I don't think any of us can. The religions of the world are certainly not of one mind on that question. Neither historically has been the Mennonite church.

But everyone agrees that when a baby is born it has its own identity that is separate from the mother's. Are you saying that up until the time the clump of cells becomes a separate self-aware individual with thoughts and emotions there is no difference between the embryo and the mother? It's just part of the mother, like her hand or foot or teeth?

That can't be true because that embryo came into being by the sperm of the father fertilizing the egg of the mother and that sperm was never a part of the mother.

I think you are asking the wrong question. The question isn't when the fetus becomes a separate organism from the mother. The fetus is always a separate organism from the mother. The more relevant question is when does the fetus become a human individual with a soul. That is the question I am trying to answer.

If the fetus is always a separate organism from the mother and it is so because that's the way God designed for humanity to continue, then by all means it should be THE first questions Christians should have settled in their minds. If God's design gives a distinct and separate DNA structure to the fetus at the moment of conception, I think we can be assured that God views that life as an individual human being. The Psalmist says as much in Psalm 139... Note the usage of the words my, I and me. He even says that God recorded his life in His book while in an unformed state.

Psalms 139:15-16 NKJV 15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.

Why is the question "when does the fetus become a human individual with a soul" more relevant than the question "when does human life begin"? The only reason I can think of that Christians want to make it the more relevant question is to give enough ambiguity to the issue that aborting a human life may be okay up to a certain point. That, to me, is the wrong premise to begin from.

[GaryK]

Assume Catholicism is correct and the soul enters the embryo at the moment of conception. Let's do a little math exercise.

To make the math simple, let's assume we have 100 fertilized embryos. How many of them will make it to birth? That is a question of some scientific debate, but the consensus seems to be that between 40% and 60% will not make it to birth. Some estimates put the number as high as 70%. A large portion of them simply do not implant and develop into blastocysts. And another large percentage are miscarried early in pregnancy. To make the math simple, let's pick the mid-range of 50%. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/

So we start with 100 fertilized embryos of which approximately 50 of them naturally survive until birth.

If we assume they all survive until adulthood or maturity, what percentage of those 50 will be saved and go to heaven? Of course no one knows the answer to that question. But if we very generously consider that all the people in the world who self-identify as Christian are going to heaven (which is a very generous assumption) that gives us a number of about 30%. According to Pew, approximately 30% of the world's population identifies as Christian: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/20 ... nity-exec/

So out of our 100 fertilized embryos we get the following:

100 fertilized embryos
---------------------------
50 fertilized embryos naturally perish before birth, the vast majority by failing to implant or miscarriage very early in pregnancy
35 survive to adulthood but are not Christian and so not bound for heaven (70% of 50)
15 survive to adulthood and are Christian and so bound for heaven (30% of 50)

This means according to our rough estimates, out of every 100 fertilized embryos, 65% are bound for heaven (50 embryos and 15 individual humans). That further means that the population of heaven will be:

77% embryos that have never breathed a breath, had a human thought, or felt a human emotion (50/65 = 77%)
23% Christians who have led a Christian life and have been saved. (15/65 = 23%)

And those percentages only result if you make the most generous assumption that every person who identifies in any way as Christian is saved.

Is that consistent with your understanding of Christianity and heaven? That at least 77% or more than 3/4ths of the population of heaven will be fertilized embryos that have not yet developed brains or a central nervous system or ever thought an actual thought? It isn't mine. Do I know all the answers? Of course not. No one does. But I do not find the Catholic position convincing theologically, or as a basis for public policy and criminal law.

I am perfectly content to let God sort out your mathematical equation, which, by the way, are all things that happen naturally. What I think no Christian should ever be content with, is finding it natural or okay to selectively end the life of an embryo or fetus or clump of cells or whatever they want to call it through abortion.

[Ken]

I am perfectly content to let God sort out your mathematical equation, which, by the way, are all things that happen naturally. What I think no Christian should ever be content with, is finding it natural or okay to selectively end the life of an embryo or fetus or clump of cells or whatever they want to call it through abortion.

Never?

There are actually a nearly endless number of circumstances in which the moral questions are far more ambiguous than you imply.

Ectopic pregnancies? About 1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies. Fetal survival rates are zero, they only risk the life of the mother if allowed to continue: https://www.marchofdimes.org/find-suppo ... -pregnancy

Pulmonary Hypertension. Women with that condition have a 50% chance of dying during pregnancy and taking the fetus with them

Cancer. I currently have a young female colleague (with young children) who is undergoing chemo and radiation treatment for cancer. Both chemo and radiation therapy are contra-indicated for early pregnancy. If she was in the early stages of pregnancy she would be faced with the Hobson's choice of risking her own death and leaving her family without a mother by ceasing cancer treatment, or risking the death of her fetus or severe birth defects if she continued the pregnancy.

Anencephaly. Babies do not survive with this condition. All that happens if you decide to let an anencephalic pregnancy proceed is increase the risk to the mother and postpone the inevitable death of the baby.

Not all abortions are simply to dispense with an unwanted pregnancy. And as we have found with recent experiences in states that have outlawed abortion, criminal law is very ill-equipped to deal with this sort of nuance. https://apnews.com/article/abortion-tex ... 3836393b86

Which is why I would argue that efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place, and efforts to make abortion less necessary are the more Christian approach. And that was actually the past positions of both the Mennonite and Baptist churches. I am not pro-abortion. I think we should be doing much more to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and eliminate the economic circumstances that make people like young unwed women feel that abortion is their only option to avoid a life of poverty. And I think the failure of the Republican pro-life movement to take this approach is why they are failing every single time abortion rights is on the ballot anywhere in the country. In other words, "no, we are not learning anything"

[Josh]

Nearly all abortions are done out of convenience and basically birth control. Stop muddying the waters with the 0.1% of edge cases.

[GaryK]

I am perfectly content to let God sort out your mathematical equation, which, by the way, are all things that happen naturally. What I think no Christian should ever be content with, is finding it natural or okay to selectively end the life of an embryo or fetus or clump of cells or whatever they want to call it through abortion.

Never?

There are actually a nearly endless number of circumstances in which the moral questions are far more ambiguous than you imply.

Ectopic pregnancies? About 1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies. Fetal survival rates are zero, they only risk the life of the mother if allowed to continue: https://www.marchofdimes.org/find-suppo ... -pregnancy

Pulmonary Hypertension. Women with that condition have a 50% chance of dying during pregnancy and taking the fetus with them

Cancer. I currently have a young female colleague (with young children) who is undergoing chemo and radiation treatment for cancer. Both chemo and radiation therapy are contra-indicated for early pregnancy. If she was in the early stages of pregnancy she would be faced with the Hobson's choice of risking her own death and leaving her family without a mother by ceasing cancer treatment, or risking the death of her fetus or severe birth defects if she continued the pregnancy.

Anencephaly. Babies do not survive with this condition. All that happens if you decide to let an anencephalic pregnancy proceed is increase the risk to the mother and postpone the inevitable death of the baby.

Not all abortions are simply to dispense with an unwanted pregnancy. And as we have found with recent experiences in states that have outlawed abortion, criminal law is very ill-equipped to deal with this sort of nuance. https://apnews.com/article/abortion-tex ... 3836393b86

Which is why I would argue that efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place, and efforts to make abortion less necessary are the more Christian approach. And that was actually the past positions of both the Mennonite and Baptist churches. I am not pro-abortion. I think we should be doing much more to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and eliminate the economic circumstances that make people like young unwed women feel that abortion is their only option to avoid a life of poverty. And I think the failure of the Republican pro-life movement to take this approach is why they are failing every single time abortion rights is on the ballot anywhere in the country. In other words, "no, we are not learning anything"

I believe Christians should not be okay with aborting a pregnancy where the baby is growing in the uterus like normal.

I recognize that some of the cases like cancer are difficult choices people have to make and I don't think it's in my place to judge such cases. If the types of cases you refer to above were the majority of abortions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.