WHY do you believe...? ... by Bob Nelson

Red Rules apply:

We stay strictly on topic: "the source of our beliefs". (Obviously the conversation partner would participate in decisions.)

We remain polite. No snark, insult, rudeness of any sort... is allowed.

The question of whether or not abortion is "morally acceptable" is no more meaningful than asking if cheating on a test is morally acceptable or gossiping is morally acceptable. Some people act as if it is, but it's not. 

My religion, the Catholic Church, has teachings about the absolute sanctity of life, which includes opposing abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, and other actions described as anti-life. From that perspective, abortion is immoral. Others, including some Catholics , don't agree. 

We don't have a universal morality that applies to abortion, thus it cannot be said that it is either moral or immoral. 

I do think though that the claim that life has always existed and that conception is not the beginning of life is badly disingenuous. The conception at question is the beginning of a new human being. What that is worth in terms of morality is what the disagreement is about, but it is the beginning of A life. 

I understand that you do not want to partner in the "Why?" experiment that I am proposing?

badfish...

I received an email for a post that no longer appears here. I assume you deleted it. That's a pity. While I would have like a staunch pro-lifer... it might be worthwhile to examine our different degrees of pro-choice...

I see that no one but me and someone who deleted their comment responded.

Just out of curioisity, what in the world does this mean ?

I think the conversation should consist in drilling down into one person's belief, as deeply as possible, and then the same with the other person. Or, if you prefer, we could try to do both in parallel, although I think that would be harder to manage.

I see that no one...

Yes. Disappointing.

...  what in the world does this mean ?

Is my language really that hermetic? 

I meant that our "beliefs" are usually buried under multiple layers of rationalization. IMNAAHO, all of our opinions are "gut feelings". Irrational.

Then...

Some people strain their opinions through a filter of facts. These people either reject or repress opinions that do not coincide with factual reality.

Other people adopt their gut-feelings directly. (George Bush famously said that he wasn't interested in "expert opinion"; he preferred his gut-feelings.)

If my analysis of our internal process for establishing our opinions is correct, then when we examine "why" we may find successive strata... or nothing at all. I think that would be an interesting exercise.

Life does not "begin". Life "began" three or four billion years ago, and has continued without interruption ever since. A woman is alive. Her body creates eggs which are alive. A man is alive. His body creates sperm which is alive. A sperm and an egg combine to create a zygote, which is alive. There is no moment when life "begins", because life is constantly present.

So since definitions are so important here, let me be clear about my definitions. The term alive is a toughy. It implies "being". Yet bacteria and viruses are alive, but there is no "being" and my beliefs have everything to do with being. 

I guess my science background is what I base my beliefs on. I know when the neurological system is whole enough to go from alive to "being". I know that happens around the 16th week. I am totally fine with abortions up to that point, and I would even argue that I am in favor of past that date, for the mother's life or for severe birth defect. Other than that, I have a problem ethically with abortion., certainly, not past the 21 week, which is the "threshold of viability" (which means that babies have been born and have lived with support). 

I do realize that there are a lot of beliefs like that the "soul" enters upon birth. But since I am not sure about a soul, I rely on science and my humanity. 

Is this new entity unique at conception ? There is content that separates this being , or thing if you prefer, from all others, is there not? The result of conception is the one and only 'that' that has ever existed or ever will exist, no?  Is it a 'being' ? From a scientific perspective it may not be, but from a religious perspective maybe it is. 

Is morality derived from science better , or worse, than morality derived from religion ? Who can say ? 

Over the course of 4 + decades the United States has developed an informal consensus, or compromise, about abortion. It should not be done in the third trimester. That is now the combined wisdom and it is the best we can do. 

Morality has nothing to do with it, because there are more than one set of criteria concerning morality. 

From a scientific perspective it may not be, but from a religious perspective maybe it is. 

Yes. I think it's important to keep in mind which frame of reference is being used. I think both need to be examined, but not confounded. 

Frankly, I think the "moment of acquisition of a soul" is a tougher topic than "moment of personhood" because it's easier to lay out facts concerning the latter. The Bible says nothing (explicit) about acquiring a soul... and the notion was understood very differently back then. 

I don't know much about Catholic dogma, but I think that Church pronouncements carry the same weight as the Bible. Has the Church made any ex cathedra declaration on exactly when the soul is acquired? 

Perrie,

I don't understand your use of "being". A bacterium "is". 

What occurs at the 16th week? 

Being is awareness and not just being alive. Bacteria and viruses are not aware, but they are alive.  

At around the 16th week, the connections between the peripheral nervous system and the are complete and the brain has developed all the parts that is needed for full life (what a lot of people think when they seem fetuses move prior to that is life, but it is just reflexive). Still bones and muscles are growing... but the connections needed for awareness are there. 

similac

A paramecium is aware. It reacts to its environment. 

The zygote is "complete" in that it carries a full load of DNA. 

Self-awareness occurs a few months after birth. 

Setting a particular point in gestation as THE moment seems to me completely arbitrary. 

A paramecium is aware. It reacts to its environment. 

No. It responds to stimuli. That is not awareness. 

Self-awareness occurs a few months  after  birth.

Self awareness starts from the moment of birth and is a process. It is not as much proactive as it is reactive. When a baby cries, they know they will get soothed. Twins will look for the other sib and hold their hand moments after birth. So they are aware. 

Here is an interesting article on development of this:

psychology.emory

Following this description, all higher animals are aware, aren't they? 

Following this description, all higher animals are aware, aren't they? 

Of course they are. But the discussion is about how we come to our personal beliefs about abortion of humans...  

the discussion is about how we come to our personal beliefs about abortion of humans...  

Yes. So your criteria are double: human and aware. 

That suggests that it's OK to turn off C3PO.

Why do you choose "aware" as the key moment, rather than any other? I see why that moment is particular, but there are other equally particular moments all through gestation.

I am totally fine with turning off C3PO. Although he seems alive, he does not perceive shutting off as death, since he can be turned back on. If you talk about "Blade Runner", replicants were human and alive, and essentially man made human slaves. I am not OK with turning them off (actually killing them). They were totally self aware and understood their own mortality. 

Actually, I don't chose the moment of awareness as the moment I have an issue with abortion. I chose the moment of pain. I do not want to inflict pain on thing human, if I can avoid it. 

I do not want to inflict pain on thing human, if I can avoid it. 

Why limit this to humans? Are you not justifying a posteriori an opinion that is in fact a gut-feeling? (We all do it!) 

I am totally fine with turning off C3PO. Although he seems alive, he does not perceive shutting off as death, since he can be turned back on.

What if he doesn't want to be shut down? 

I have read all the responses on this article, and while they are all intelligent, I wouldn't call them enlightening or informative. At least not about the morality of abortion. 

I keep thinking of a famous debate about abortion in which Carl Sagan, one of the best minds of the 20th century, took part. In the end, Sagan comes down in favor of abortion being acceptable until the 3rd trimester, not because it is a clear cut conclusion, but because it is the best we can do if we want to given honest consideration to all sincere viewpoints. In other words, find the closest thing to common ground we can. 

Talk about "awareness", "pain" , "selfhood", "soul" ,"viability", - all these terms are relative to one degree or another, and when relative attributes are used as tipping points there can be no conclusion satisfactory to everyone. 

The Supreme Court chose to decide the legality of abortion not by considering the rights of the unborn, but by considering the rights of the woman carrying the unborn inside her. It was decided as a privacy issue, with the constitutional right of all people to control their own body being the conclusive factor. If the Court had to decide on the basis of "pain" or "awareness" or "soul" , they would still be debating from 40 years ago. 

All of what you say is true, John. But irrelevant. We are not trying to find a "best compromise", but rather to understand each other's beliefs. 

Oh, I wasn't aware it was a purely intellectual exercise. Okay. 

I'm not sure what a "purely intellectual exercise" is. 

If you mean that our conversation will not result in a change in US law... You're probably right... 

What happened, bf?

Did you decide that the subject doesn't interest you, after all?

I appreciate the manner in which this article is presented. Discussions about abortion are already difficult enough; getting to the root of the matter helps bypass some emotion and convoluting.

Why do I believe?

Because:

I was raised to believe that abortion is wrong. I have come to my own conclusions that do not exactly coincide with that tradition. 

As part of my upbringing, the religious creed followed by family, friends and community were also generally anti-abortion. A great example of why I no longer follow that particular belief system goes beyond the conversation here; though doctrine concerning things like abortion have played a role in the dynamics of my relationship with Christian tradition. In particular, as so appropriately exemplified by online discussion many times, not everyone is capable or willing to talk rationally about this highly charged issue. The emotional level which most evangelical Christians discuss abortion is just short of a screech, and I could no longer deal with that sorta drama.

A large reason why I believe about abortion the way I do is directly and unashamedly shaped by the fact that my wife Arlene and I are unable to conceive our own biological children. We have come a long ways in 30 years of marriage; I can say that the stress from not being able to have kids of our own was by far one of the largest challenges we've ever faced. Being able to foster and help out lots kids helps a lot with that though, and then adopting two wonderful blessings ...well, we feel totally full of blessings and great karma!

Now though I think I have found a place I am comfortable with. I do believe that there are specific instances that the single wisest choice, would be to end another being's suffering; and that choice is best made by the one carrying the baby and her doctor. I cannot in good conscience make anyones choice for them in this matter, as it will never be my choice.

I do not believe in abortion though. In my gut, I abhor it even. I see it as a symptom of just how disconnected we are from each other as individuals, families, communities and societies. It is further a symptom, evidence even, of our disconnection from all of nature, and a loss of the sense of belonging and purpose, and self, that used to be shared intimately with each other. I see abortion the same way that the most ancient of belief systems, Animism, and many ancient peoples, would have. I see abortion as a direct attack on the vital principles of Nature; and, as being antithetical to the creative power of life. I also know that there are those who feel the same way, and yet have had to make the excruciating decision to abort a life. They then, have had to live with that for the rest of their lives. I am no judge, but I also feel true. 

If that makes any sense.

:^|

If that makes any sense.

It makes a great deal. 

I have come to believe that the abortion debate is not about the ZEF. It's about us, the adults. Our beliefs are visceral reactions to our personal experiences. We don't all have as intense an experience as you, but we have all known "cases". 

Our impulse to protect our young is gene-deep. The sight of a newborn melts our brains: "Awww... S/he is so-o-o-o cute!!" 

IMNAAHO, we would do well to recognize that it is our attitude towards the ZEF that counts, not the ZEF itself. 

Our impulse to protect our young is gene-deep. The sight of a newborn melts our brains: "Awww... S/he is so-o-o-o cute!!"

OK, not to sound horrible, but that is not me. In fact, I am not ashamed (now) to say that I had no attachment to my daughters for about 3 months. I just found myself duty bound. Now maybe my feelings would have been different, if I had gone through what Larry and his lovely wife had gone through, but I didn't. Furthermore, when it was time to take my alpha fetoprotein, Matt and I decided to not abort if the test came back low and the child would be born with Downs, since I know that they have a wonderful quality of life now, but to abort if it came back high (neural tube defect), as I know I wouldn't want to be born to live my life in a wheelchair or worse.  All our decisions were based on an information and not emotion. 

But that does not negate what Larry said. I see a logic to it, too. What I have a problem with is aborting what could already live outside of the mother's womb. 

Well said. Not everyone forms those attachments that early. Neither humans nor lower animals. It's brave to admit it.

Perrie, 

I don't think your story is really any different. You were making your decision on the basis of "what is best for the ZEF/baby". 

IF we, as a society, had good care for pregnant women... and IF we, as a society, had good care for orphans... tben I would see abortion differently. But we do not. The future of an unwanted child is bleak. I can understand a woman refusing to do that. 

My beliefs are simple. It's immoral to murder a baby shortly before it's birth a priori, while it is inconsequential to terminate a pregnancy moments after (or before) conception. The only rational argument is where is the dividing line in between?

It's immoral to murder a baby shortly before it's birth... 

As the article's title asks, "WHY do you believe this?" 

You're asking why I think murder is wrong? I absorbed morality growing up, from family, friends, and society in general.

You're asking why I think murder is wrong?

No. I'm asking why you consider that killing a ZEF is murder. 

It's not a ZEF. It's a human child. I direct your attention to my actual statement:

"It's immoral to murder a baby shortly before it's birth..."

Emphasis added.

It's not a ZEF. It's a human child.

That is misuse of language. Misuse of the word "child". I could also say that it is a globbledock... except that words have meanings. A "child" is 

a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

Not "before birth".

Before birth, a human goes through three stages: zygote, embryo, fetus. ZEF. 

Bullshit. My sister's twins were born 15 weeks premature. They were children before the operation. Poking a head out of the birth canal does not fundamentally change the nature of the child.

They were children before the operation.

No. They were fetuses before, and babies after. That is not an opinion; it is the English language. 

I agree that the twins did not change much...  except for that little thing called "breathing"... but our perception of them changed a great deal. They were totally dependant on the mother before birth, and totally dependant on someone after... 

Only a monster would accept the unnecessary murder of a fully developed child based on a dictionary definition or arbitrary date.

Only a monster would accept the unnecessary murder of a fully developed child based on a dictionary definition or arbitrary date.

What "fully developed child"? A "fully developed child" can find food and water, at least in the fridge and at a faucet. A "fully developed child" can survive for quite a while without adult assistance. How long would those newborns have lived without an adult's care?

No. Fully developed does not refer to the ability to forage. That's ridiculous. Fully developed refers to mature organs and the ability to survive without mechanical assistance. 

Fully developed does not refer to the ability to forage. That's ridiculous. Fully developed refers to mature organs and the ability to survive without mechanical assistance. 

"Fully developed" does not have an entry in the Miriam-Webster. And you do not get to impose your definition. 

Do you want to converse -- exchange ideas -- or do you want to shout?

I certainly DO get to define my own terms. You support abortion of children until they are old enough to find their own food? You've argued yourself into absurdity.

I certainly DO get to define my own terms.

Not here.

End of conversation.

Source?

(And would you please not take up so much room for such a simple post? A copy/paste would suffice. Thank you.)

Never mind. I found the Miriam-Webster definition you are citing. You ignored the "simple definition" (which is what I used) in favor of the "full definition"... and then you ignored five of the six entries there, retaining only one. That is intellectual cheating.

My 38-year old son is my child... but no one would ever imagine a 38-year-old when they hear the word "child". No one would ever think of a fetus when they hear the word, either... unless the modifier "unborn" is used.

I am not interested in semantics. I do not appreciate "monster".

If you want to converse calmly, fine. Otherwise... I'm done with you.

Merriam Webster. 

I had no control over the spacing. It was likely an artifact of the mobile site I used.

Make up your mind. I pasted the relevant portion. You wanted less space. You've lost this argument and you can't gracefully retreat. 

Which definition undoes the one I quoted?

I am not interested in semantics. I do not appreciate "monster".

If you want to converse calmly, fine. Otherwise... I'm done with you.

Where does human life begin?  At the point where it can survive on its own through natural (not electro/mechanical) means.  In short for humans, by natural nurturing and feeding methods, not by some advancement of science.

And for the record, we have almost eight-billion people on this rock with a large chunk of them scratching just to survive.  When many people talk of "humanity and morality", they rarely associate it with the living.  Those words seem to be reserved for the yet to be born for some reason.  It is my opinion that sort of thinking is very backwards.

Hello, Fly! It has been a long time...

Where does human life begin?

This isn't the topic -- the topic is "why" do you believe as you do -- but if it is helpful to make a detour... 

I attempted to answer this approach directly, in the article:

Life does not "begin". Life "began" three or four billion years ago, and has continued without interruption ever since. A woman is alive. Her body creates eggs which are alive. A man is alive. His body creates sperm which is alive. A sperm and an egg combine to create a zygote, which is alive. There is no moment when life "begins", because life is constantly present.

You made a precision, "human life", so I suppose the answer would be "three or four million years ago" when genus homo appeared in Africa... In any case, there is no "moment of appearance of life" between two generations of humans. There is a continuity of life.

If you meant "when does a new individual appear"... then I think the answer is "progressively over a period of about twenty-five years". Our society and our law recognize that progression in many ways... but not in abortion... and I believe that is an error. Over-simplification.

At the point where it can survive on its own through natural (not electro/mechanical) means.

That's an interesting formulation, because it is so clearly designed -- the "not electro/mechanical" portion -- to yield a particular moment in gestation. But at the same time... WHY not include electro/mechanical? What is the reasoning?

And why "on its own"? A newborn human "on its own" would die within a few days at most. It is utterly dependent on assistance. That bit of phrase would seem to push the answer out to "several years after birth".

INHO, most (all?) people react to abortion viscerally. That's logical, because we have a gene-deep impulse to protect and nurture our young.

Then, because we are "thinking creatures", we retro-fit our visceral reaction with a "rational" argument. In fact, most people use this same process in formulating most of their opinions on all topics. Very few opinions are formed from analysis of data.

That's why this article is "Why...?" Why does each of us arrive at our own rationalization?

I don't like abortion, but as a man, I don't think I have any right to have any say as to what other women do with their bodies.  I have a wife and two daughters, and I refuse to allow them to be made second class citizens by others that think they should be able to tell them what they can or cannot do with their bodies.  Thus the rights of the living trump those of the unborn.

As to the why I toss in to the mix "Electro/mechanical assistance".... simply because every bit of biology on this rock has to "earn" the right to survive as it always has.  All of our technological advancement is one reversed polarized solar mass ejection from being made useless.  As such, survival of the fittest, not those adapted to finance are nature's chosen ones.

As to the why I toss in to the mix "Electro/mechanical assistance".... simply because every bit of biology on this rock has to "earn" the right to survive as it always has.

I hear two very different notions here. One concerns the individual, the other the species. The individual human cannot survive on its own for several years after birth. A newborn cannot "earn the right to survive". It survives because adults care for it.

"Survival of the fittest" applies to the species. And it is a fascinating paradox the the apex hunter on this planet has the most helpless newborns. Why is human development so long, and why does so much of it occur after birth? What is the evolutionary advantage? Dunno... But there is an obvious advantage (for the species) in having a powerful "protect and nurture" instinct, to accompany that very slow development...

I don't like abortion, but...

Interestingly, you explain why you overcome your dislike of abortion -- defense of the human rights of the women who are dear to you -- but you do not explain why you do not like abortion... 

This is very common in the abortion conversation. It is very difficult to get people to dig into "why"... although I don't think it is all that obscure. We have a very powerful instinct to protect and nurture. Gene-deep. The "Aw-w-w... Isn't S/he cute!!" phenomenon. So the question becomes, "When does that instinct engage?"

Why don't I like abortion...... As an engineer, I would guess I have an inherent dislike of waste.  The human body did something during mitosis that developed into something other than a fully functioning fetus.... or became detrimental to the mother (more waste).....or the pregnancy was unwanted (another form of waste).  So we have a waste of time, a waste of tissue, and lots of wasted energy related to the emotional side of the equation.

To turn the question back to you.... Why do you....LIKE.... abortion?  I like it from the fact that there is a safe and legal way to eliminate the aforementioned form of waste from becoming a bigger waste if the woman were forced to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy, or worse, forcing her to carry it to where she may be facing death.

My opinion of abortion is pretty much the same as yours. It necessarily represents a failure. Either of medical science to ensure a healthy fetus... or of the parents' planning for the future. Or perhaps of radically changed circumstances after conception. In any case, an abortion is sad. 

As you say, though... Carrying on to term may be much worse. 

I don't think there is a wrong or right answer because I don’t believe these questions can be answered or that they necessarily should be as a hypothetical.  We won’t know what something means to us until we’re face to face with it and forced to make a choice.  It’s easy to ask is it morally this or morally that but the answer is different for each person.  We can take sides but we don’t truly know what we believe until it’s in front of us and we’re asked to make a choice.   So if I have to answer I would say the answer is whatever you can live with.

This topic will never be resolved because of outside influences such as religion, gender rights or economics to name a few and they can’t be separated from the person because that’s part of who they are but they can evolve as the outside influences change.

An example is Roe vs Wade.  In 1972 Roe filed a lawsuit claiming that criminalizing abortion violated her constitutional rights.  33 years later in 2005 she petitioned the courts to overturn her case.  Its complex the changes this woman went through in her life bringing her to a point in which she reversed her position and thinking on abortion.  Being a lesbian then deciding she was no longer a lesbian and being influenced to convert to Catholicism.  Why, what changed?  “Outside influences”. 

I don't think there is a wrong or right answer because I don’t believe these questions can be answered or that they necessarily should be as a hypothetical.

I agree that there is no single right or wrong answer, applicable to all cases. I'm not sure about individual cases. 

I do think, though, that the hypothetical can be a useful tool for understanding the particular. 

This topic will never be resolved because of outside influences such as religion, gender rights or economics to name a few... 

We are constantly impacted by outside influences, on all topics. We live in the world, after all! IMHO, the important thing is to be aware of those influences so as to allow them the importance they deserve... and no more.