Reducing abortions

[Bootstrap]

In simpler language: when did this person first start to live?

This person = a distinct individual, genetically distinct from his or her parents.

[Ken]

We are really talking about three separate things here.

The first question is when does “life” begin. The answer from science is that life is a continual cycle. At no point does non-living matter become living. Rather it is a continual cycle where living cells sometimes divide or replicate through mitosis and meiosis, and sometimes fuse through fertilization.

The second question is when does a genetically unique individual human form? The answer is obviously at the point of fertilization. But that is actually a different question from when does “life” begin.

The third question is when does a fertilized egg or zygote become a self-aware person with a soul? The answer to that question is most certainly not answerable by science. If you believe that God breathes a living soul into each human zygote at the exact moment of conception then the entire IVF industry is extremely problematic because there are then there are hundreds of thousands of not millions of souls created by science every year, many of which are just stored frozen in test tubes for years until they are often discarded. Not to mention the fact that between 20 and 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). Would God have created a process in which up to half of all human souls are extinguished before birth?

The problem as I see it is that because the answer to the third question above is not really satisfactorily answerable using scripture, people turn to science for an answer. But science isn’t answering the same question at all. Science is answering a different question about biochemistry and genetics rather than metaphysics.

There are some questions that just aren’t knowable. They are simply matters of faith. The nature of heaven is one of them. The mystery of life is another. Modern biology can’t answer the question of when a human egg becomes a self-aware person with a soul any more than modern astronomy can answer the question of the nature of heaven by building more powerful telescopes.

I realize that you are all certain that the answers to both questions 2 and 3 above are the same. Which is fine. But that is ultimately a question of faith, not science. And in my opinion neither science nor scripture provide as clear of an answer as you think.

[HondurasKeiser]

We are really talking about three separate things here.

The first question is when does “life” begin. The answer from science is that life is a continual cycle. At no point does non-living matter become living. Rather it is a continual cycle where living cells sometimes divide or replicate through mitosis and meiosis, and sometimes fuse through fertilization.

The second question is when does a genetically unique individual human form? The answer is obviously at the point of fertilization. But that is actually a different question from when does “life” begin.

The third question is when does a fertilized egg or zygote become a self-aware person with a soul? The answer to that question is most certainly not answerable by science. If you believe that God breathes a living soul into each human zygote at the exact moment of conception then the entire IVF industry is extremely problematic because there are then there are hundreds of thousands of not millions of souls created by science every year, many of which are just stored frozen in test tubes for years until they are often discarded. Not to mention the fact that between 20 and 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). Would God have created a process in which up to half of all human souls are extinguished before birth?

The problem as I see it is that because the answer to the third question above is not really satisfactorily answerable using scripture, people turn to science for an answer. But science isn’t answering the same question at all. Science is answering a different question about biochemistry and genetics rather tor han metaphysics.

There are some questions that just aren’t knowable. They are simply matters of faith. The nature of heaven is one of them. The mystery of life is another. Modern biology can’t answer the question of when a human egg becomes a self-aware person with a soul any more than modern astronomy can answer the question of the nature of heaven by building more powerful telescopes.

I realize that you are all certain that the answers to both questions 2 and 3 above are the same. Which is fine. But that is ultimately a question of faith, not science. And in my opinion neither science nor scripture provide as clear of an answer as you think.

When a person gains a soul however isn't really the debate we're having. The real question still and always has been: Given that "obviously at the point of fertilization...a genetically unique individual human form[s]" "What does a just society owe the indisputably human life that indisputably begins at conception?" "Whose Justice, Which Rationality" gets to decide?

[Ken]

When a person gains a soul however isn't really the debate we're having. The real question still and always has been: Given that "obviously at the point of fertilization...a genetically unique individual human form[s]" "What does a just society owe the indisputably human life that indisputably begins at conception?" "Whose Justice, Which Rationality" gets to decide?

But that isn’t actually the debate or discussion around abortion in this country and it never has been. No law or discussion ever starts with the premise that all life is equally precious from the moment of conception onwards. The law and anti-abortion activists are continually making other distinctions. Late-term abortions are more regulated and cited with more horror by the pro-life movement than the discarding of fertilized embryos by the IVF industry. If all life was equal from the moment of conception, that distinction would not exist. And IVF clinics would be treated with the same horror that we treat other examples of industrial-scale mass murder like Pol Pot or Stalin. Which we clearly do not do. Some laws talk about “fetal heartbeat”. Some talk about trimesters. The new Texas law specifies 6 weeks. Older women have higher rates of miscarriage than younger women. Should we regulate the age at which couples have unprotected sex in order to minimize the number of miscarriages? Are women who are at high risk of miscarriage on troubled ground morally if they seek to get pregnant and wind up with a miscarriage that results in the loss of a life?

I am willing to admit that I am more troubled by late-term discretionary abortions of viable fetuses than I am by IUDs which some consider to be an abortifacient. Or the IVF industry. So where do we draw the line? I genuinely do not have the answer. Which is why I think it is a question that is ill-suited for the criminal justice system and more appropriately a question for women, their partners, and their doctors. I am comfortable with a legal regime that becomes increasingly restrictive as one moves from the first to the second and third trimesters. That is how it is in most of Europe. Unlike say Canada which largely has no such regulation. But I also don’t think that such laws are the critical factor in abortion rates anyway. Canada has much less restrictive abortion laws than even the most liberal US state and still has a much lower abortion rate. So obviously other factors are at play. Canada has a much more robust safety net for young women compared to the US. Maybe that is the key factor in reducing unnecessary abortions. And even if it isn’t, I still think it is the right thing to do. Especially if you believe that every child is precious and shouldn’t have their future pre-determined due to the poverty or failures of their parents.

[Bootstrap]

We are really talking about three separate things here.

The first question is when does “life” begin. The answer from science is that life is a continual cycle. At no point does non-living matter become living. Rather it is a continual cycle where living cells sometimes divide or replicate through mitosis and meiosis, and sometimes fuse through fertilization.

I think that's a different question than what we are discussing here. I think most of us are asking "when does a life begin?" If you want to ask the very general question "when does life begin", you have to figure out when God first created life. The process has continued ever since. And the "continuous cycle" point of view does not give any particular justification to forbid killing someone after birth, in their teenage years, or at any other time.

So I prefer to ask, "when does a life begin?"

The second question is when does a genetically unique individual human form? The answer is obviously at the point of fertilization. But that is actually a different question from when does “life” begin.

Agreed. I think that's the same question as "when does a human life begin".

The third question is when does a fertilized egg or zygote become a self-aware person with a soul? The answer to that question is most certainly not answerable by science. If you believe that God breathes a living soul into each human zygote at the exact moment of conception then the entire IVF industry is extremely problematic because there are then there are hundreds of thousands of not millions of souls created by science every year, many of which are just stored frozen in test tubes for years until they are often discarded. Not to mention the fact that between 20 and 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). Would God have created a process in which up to half of all human souls are extinguished before birth?

The problem as I see it is that because the answer to the third question above is not really satisfactorily answerable using scripture, people turn to science for an answer. But science isn’t answering the same question at all. Science is answering a different question about biochemistry and genetics rather than metaphysics.

I agree that neither science nor Scripture tell us when an individual first becomes "a self-aware person with a soul". But I also think that's the wrong question. After all, imagine a world where we can only protect the lives of people who can prove something we do not know how to prove.

I also agree that Scripture does not say "life begins at conception". But Scripture does place a strong value on protecting life, and it mentions God's love and concern for those not yet born. I admit that I use conception as a well-defined threshold that can be used for greater clarity, even though Scripture does not tell me, for example, whether to distinguish a fertilized egg that has not yet been implanted from one that has. By the time we can tell that a woman is pregnant, though, we have a great deal of clarity.

I don't know what percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage, but I trust God to know what he is doing. I don't trust human beings in the same way. Similarly, 100% of births ultimately result in death. I trust God to know when each of us should die. I do not take this as justification for killing people.

[ken_sylvania]

Zygotes are alive, and are a distinct form of life that is different than either the mother or the father. Science tells us that. It is a distinct, new organism.

I suppose one can engage in a reductio ad absurdum where eventually one claims distinct human life doesn't exist and we are all just one giant "blob" of cells. But in that case, discussing things like murder is also pointless - if I shoot you, it's no different than clipping my fingernails.

You can make any argument that you want. I'm simply pointing out that defining conception as the moment that "life begins" is simply unscientific. The sperm and egg that fuse at the moment of conception are also living organisms and every bit as alive as the resulting zygote. Which is why science describes life as a continual cycle rather than a linear path with a beginning and an end.

Despite George Weigel's claims to the contrary, science doesn't actually define conception or any other moment in the human life cycle as the point at which "life begins." You can believe that sperm and egg are non-living (or non-human). And that at the exact moment when the 23 chromosomes of the sperm and egg are combined to form a zygote with 23 pairs of chromosomes is when life "begins," and is also the moment when the soul enters the body and it becomes a human individual. But that isn't a question of science, that is a question of faith. George Weigel recognizes that scripture provides an unsatisfactory answer (or no answer) to the question of when human life begins and the soul enters the body. So he turns instead to science to to find answers. Unfortunately science doesn't actually provide the answer that he thinks it does.

And no, this isn't some plot by science or public schools to undermine abortion politics or faith. Biology simply doesn't reach into issues of faith and this is ultimately not a question of science, but a question of faith.

One of the definitions of "life" is "the existence of an individual human being or animal." When we think of life and death in terms of human existence that is typically the definition we are using. And it is very clearly the definition that George Weigel was using.

[Ken]

We are really talking about three separate things here.

The first question is when does “life” begin. The answer from science is that life is a continual cycle. At no point does non-living matter become living. Rather it is a continual cycle where living cells sometimes divide or replicate through mitosis and meiosis, and sometimes fuse through fertilization.

I think that's a different question than what we are discussing here. I think most of us are asking "when does a life begin?" If you want to ask the very general question "when does life begin", you have to figure out when God first created life. The process has continued ever since. And the "continuous cycle" point of view does not give any particular justification to forbid killing someone after birth, in their teenage years, or at any other time.

So I prefer to ask, "when does a life begin?"

The second question is when does a genetically unique individual human form? The answer is obviously at the point of fertilization. But that is actually a different question from when does “life” begin.

Agreed.

The third question is when does a fertilized egg or zygote become a self-aware person with a soul? The answer to that question is most certainly not answerable by science. If you believe that God breathes a living soul into each human zygote at the exact moment of conception then the entire IVF industry is extremely problematic because there are then there are hundreds of thousands of not millions of souls created by science every year, many of which are just stored frozen in test tubes for years until they are often discarded. Not to mention the fact that between 20 and 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). Would God have created a process in which up to half of all human souls are extinguished before birth?

The problem as I see it is that because the answer to the third question above is not really satisfactorily answerable using scripture, people turn to science for an answer. But science isn’t answering the same question at all. Science is answering a different question about biochemistry and genetics rather than metaphysics.

I agree that neither science nor Scripture tell us when an individual first becomes "a self-aware person with a soul". But I also think that's the wrong question. After all, imagine a world where we can only protect the lives of people who can prove something we do not know how to prove.

I also agree that Scripture does not say "life begins at conception". But Scripture does place a strong value on protecting life, and it mentions God's love and concern for those not yet born. I admit that I use conception as a well-defined threshold that can be used for greater clarity, even though Scripture does not tell me, for example, whether to distinguish a fertilized egg that has not yet been implanted from one that has. By the time we can tell that a woman is pregnant, though, we have a great deal of clarity.

I don't know what percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage, but I trust God to know what he is doing. I don't trust human beings in the same way. Similarly, 100% of births ultimately result in death. I trust God to know when each of us should die. I do not take this as justification for killing people.

I don’t actually disagree with anything you just wrote. I just don’t think these difficult and ambiguous questions are properly addressed by the criminal justice system which is a very blunt and cruel instrument that is almost always applied in ways that are egregiously discriminatory based on wealth, race, sex, and so forth. And that is exactly the same position that most Protestant denominations took up until around the 1980s when abortion began to be weaponized as a political issue by the conservative right. We can go around in endless circles on this topic. I’m not trying to convince anyone here. This whole thread started when I was accused by Josh of being “pro-abortion” which is most certainly not the case.

Trying to address moral issues through the criminal justice system is almost always a failure and results in egregiously discriminatory applications of the law. It hasn’t worked with the drug war. It doesn’t work in Muslim countries that punish things like blasphemy and apostasy with execution. And I don’t think it has ever worked with abortion either. The are those who react violently at the notion that the government can or should enforce public health mandates like mask mandates or social distancing or vaccine mandates. But are eager to wield the same cruel arm of the law against young women who find themselves in incredibly difficult life circumstances.

[Josh]

Black people used to be considered somehow not human lives in America in the past, with all kinds of “scientific” explanations why. It is exactly the same kind of erroneous reasoning as arguing that tiny babies are not “human life”.

Ken, what if I said that there is valid debate and many perspectives showing that black humans aren’t actually human, quoted the SBC on the topic, and then complained when you call me “pro-slavery”?

What about a statement like this? “The criminal justice system is the wrong thing to use against slave owners. The topics of personhood for slaves is very complex and there are valid views on both sides.” Would you agree that this got “weaponised” by “abolitionist activists”?

Or maybe we should just agree that all human life is sacred, and valid human life, and should be protected against being murdered?

[Ken]

Black people used to be considered somehow not human lives in America in the past, with all kinds of “scientific” explanations why. It is exactly the same kind of erroneous reasoning as arguing that tiny babies are not “human life”.

Ken, what if I said that there is valid debate and many perspectives showing that black humans aren’t actually human, quoted the SBC on the topic, and then complained when you call me “pro-slavery”?

What about a statement like this? “The criminal justice system is the wrong thing to use against slave owners. The topics of personhood for slaves is very complex and there are valid views on both sides.” Would you agree that this got “weaponised” by “abolitionist activists”?

Or maybe we should just agree that all human life is sacred, and valid human life, and should be protected against being murdered?

I think I explained where I am coming from.

When the right-to-life movement advocates for the same penalties for the IVF industry as it does for abortion then I will actually agree that they do believe that all life is equally sacred and valuable. Would you support, for example, an extension of the current Texas law to IVF such that anyone in the country can sue anyone for $10,000 who participates in an IVF procedure in Texas that results in “surplus” embryos that are either abandoned to the prison of a deep freeze or discarded? Should I be able to go around and sue any family that used IVF on the grounds that they killed a human life? Or alternatively, sue anyone who has a miscarriage due to their own negligence? If not, then you are not treating all life as equally sacred. The only difference is that I admit it upfront that in real life, the lines are ambiguous and difficult and not conducive to fair and just enforcement through the criminal justice system. While you do not.

[ohio jones]

Trying to address moral issues through the criminal justice system is almost always a failure and results in egregiously discriminatory applications of the law.

According to the current poll results, 73% of us agree that the criminal justice system is not the best way to reduce abortions. Why do you keep bringing that up?