Abortion before the nervous system forms?

[testify777]

First off, I am 200% pro-life. An atheist friend (who used to be pro-life) has decided that abortion is only murder if it happens before the nervous system forms. does anyone have any ideas how I can convince him otherwise? Thanks!

 

[norswede]

First off, I am 200% pro-life. An atheist friend (who used to be pro-life) has decided that abortion is only murder if it happens before the nervous system forms. does anyone have any ideas how I can convince him otherwise? Thanks!
View attachment 120740

The fact that the baby feels pain, thinks and breathes is only part of the issue. This is the only issue in question for atheists but for Christians there is a much bigger question to ask. Do we have a right to deny a soul its ONLY chance to live? We have ONE chance to live and NO ONE has the right to take that chance from us. That is why murder is such a serious offence to God. I think any Christian should think about that before supporting abortion at ANY point after conception.

 

[imind]

how is this a current affair? no offense meant to the OP, but this might be better suited somewhere else...

 

[manchambo]

The fact that the baby feels pain, thinks and breathes is only part of the issue. This is the only issue in question for atheists but for Christians there is a much bigger question to ask. Do we have a right to deny a soul its ONLY chance to live? We have ONE chance to live and NO ONE has the right to take that chance from us. That is why murder is such a serious offence to God. I think any Christian should think about that before supporting abortion at ANY point after conception.

I wonder how you know (i) that the soul manifests before the nervous system develops, and (ii) that, if it does, and if there is an abortion, that is the soul's only chance at life?

 

[ebia]

First off, I am 200% pro-life.

What does that mean - that for every conception that happens you want twins to be born?

An atheist friend (who used to be pro-life) has decided that abortion is only murder if it happens before the nervous system forms. does anyone have any ideas how I can convince him otherwise? Thanks!

You probably cannot by argument.

From an entirely mechanistic perspective there is nothing distinctively human about the developing embrio before that stage.

The only way one might be persuaded without having a religious stance on the issue would be from a perspective of love - eg exposure to the existance of his own developing child before that point might make him rethink the thing in terms of love rather than rationality.

 

[Steven84]

Biochemically and Genetically the baby is complete. It is simply in an early stage of development.

Here is the big question: "What is the un-born?" And if we are not 100% certain that it is not a human being then we should not kill it. We don't blow a building up when we are doing a demolition unless we are 100% certain people are not still walking around in the building. The same ought to go for the womb also...."hardship doesn't justify homicide!"

 

[ebia]

Biochemically and Genetically the baby is complete. It is simply in an early stage of development.

Here is the big question: "What is the un-born?" And if we are not 100% certain that it is not a human being then we should not kill it. We don't blow a building up when we are doing a demolition unless we are 100% certain people are not still walking around in the building. The same ought to go for the womb also...."hardship doesn't justify homicide!"

I doubt that will convince him unless he isn't 100% sure.

 

[norswede]

I wonder how you know (i) that the soul manifests before the nervous system develops, and (ii) that, if it does, and if there is an abortion, that is the soul's only chance at life?

I don't KNOW that any of us have a soul. I have FAITH that we do. And I don't KNOW that we only have one chance at life. The Bible tells me that we do therefore I believe it. As a Christian I assume you believe these things too, or do I assume too much? Is it alright to kill anyone because you aren't sure that they have a spirit or will or will not live again? There is no evidence that unborn babies DON"T have a soul and more reason to believe that they do than that they don't. God said that he knew us and was with us when we were in the womb and that he was OUR GOD when we were in the womb. God knows and fellowships with our souls not our earthly bodies. He said that he's the God of the LIVING, not the dead. The logic you used is the very same kind of logic that convinces people that mass extermination of groups of people is ok. These people don't have souls and aren't real people. Dehumanization has gone on many times before. The dehumanization of the 21st century will be remembered as that of the unborn, the elderly and the disabled. I have a strong feeling that we will look back on this all one day with a lot of sadness and regret for the millions of lives lost in this current holocaust

 

[ebia]

I don't KNOW that any of us have a soul. I have FAITH that we do.

We seem to be loosing sight of what a "soul" is. If one has a personality, if one is concious of self and is a human person one has a soul because that is what the word means - one's personhood. If you can ask "do I have a soul" then you have pretty much proved you have one! A soul in Jewish thinking is not an external plug-in, but one's whole personhood. It's not a "thing", its a concept and a status.

 

[manchambo]

I don't KNOW that any of us have a soul. I have FAITH that we do. And I don't KNOW that we only have one chance at life. The Bible tells me that we do therefore I believe it. As a Christian I assume you believe these things too, or do I assume too much? Is it alright to kill anyone because you aren't sure that they have a spirit or will or will not live again? There is no evidence that unborn babies DON"T have a soul and more reason to believe that they do than that they don't. God said that he knew us and was with us when we were in the womb and that he was OUR GOD when we were in the womb. God knows and fellowships with our souls not our earthly bodies. He said that he's the God of the LIVING, not the dead. The logic you used is the very same kind of logic that convinces people that mass extermination of groups of people is ok. These people don't have souls and aren't real people. Dehumanization has gone on many times before. The dehumanization of the 21st century will be remembered as that of the unborn, the elderly and the disabled. I have a strong feeling that we will look back on this all one day with a lot of sadness and regret for the millions of lives lost in this current holocaust

I don't know where the Bible says that the soul manifests in the body by a certain point, and that the soul then has only that one shot at life. Can you point the verses out for me?

 

[norswede]

I don't know where the Bible says that the soul manifests in the body by a certain point, and that the soul then has only that one shot at life. Can you point the verses out for me?

I am not an expert in remembering the exact number of each verse I read though I can tell you that the verses I was referring to about God being our God when we were in the womb, knowing us from when we were in the womb, and being the God of the Living, not of the dead are all found in the book of Psalms. God was talking to David and telling him that he knew him when he was in his mother's womb and was his God even then. He also told him that he had chosen him at that point as well. As for having one shot at life, are you saying you believe in reincarnation?

 

[norswede]

We seem to be loosing sight of what a "soul" is. If one has a personality, if one is concious of self and is a human person one has a soul because that is what the word means - one's personhood. If you can ask "do I have a soul" then you have pretty much proved you have one! A soul in Jewish thinking is not an external plug-in, but one's whole personhood. It's not a "thing", its a concept and a status.

Then what part of us lives on after death? That part is what I am referring to as the soul.

 

[Steven84]

With that being said...there is a measure of faith that we take in all things and I think the Christian worldview is the most coherent/sensible and intelligent worldview that q person can invest their faith in.

Considering the self-evident proofs of God such as creation and Creator...it ultimately takes more FAITH to be an atheist and deny God's existense

 

[norswede]

With that being said...there is a measure of faith that we take in all things and I think the Christian worldview is the most coherent/sensible and intelligent worldview that q person can invest their faith in.

Considering the self-evident proofs of God such as creation and Creator...it ultimately takes more FAITH to be an atheist and deny God's existense

The reason why only a very small percentage of human beings are true atheists is because I believe we are all born with a knowledge of God in our hearts. Not all of us come to know the true God, but we all have a need for spirituality and many people spend their lives searching for the peace only the one true God can give them. Atheists are in many cases those who are raised Christian and are angry and resentful of the rules and effort they believe is required of them in order to please God. They claim not to believe in God and spend far more time and effort attempting to disprove God's existence and bully Christians than it would take to fall on their knees, throw away their pride and allow God to carry the weight of their fear, anger and resentment. If Atheists didn't believe in God, then they would just shake their heads and roll their eyes at us and not waste their time and energy debating something that is clearly myth to them. You don't see people getting into deep debates over whether Santa Claus or the easter bunny are real. That's because these mythical beings don't have the power to stir fear and anger in us. The Almighty God always has and always will have the power to cause deep emotions in all of us whether they are feelings of Love, Peace, Fear, Anger or Hatred.

 

[ebia]

Then what part of us lives on after death? That part is what I am referring to as the soul.

When the resurrection comes we will be physically beings with a new body in which our personality and personhood can exist.

 

[norswede]

When the resurrection comes we will be physically beings with a new body in which our personality and personhood can exist.

So are you saying our spirit is not seperate from our bodies and we just cease to exist after we die until the resurrection?

 

[ebia]

So are you saying our spirit is not seperate from our bodies and we just cease to exist after we die until the resurrection?

Our identity somehow resides with Christ between the two, but - like scripture - we should be careful not to say more about the details of that than we know.

 

[norswede]

Norswede,

To say that "the only issue in question for atheists" is whether "the baby feels pain, thinks and breathes" is to lampoon an entire demographic that considers abortion to be the toughest decision a woman may ever have to make in her lifetime. Aside from the primary consideration of an embryo suffering physical pain, which it cannot until the fetal stage, every human being is capable of understanding, intuitively, the anguish brought on by the prospect of aborting, or having to abort, a fetus. For any parent contemplating an abortion, atheist or otherwise, there is a potential that is being terminated, one that is intimately and genetically linked to the mother and father. If that language sounds cold, it frankly doesn't matter because the emotions are not.

That said, many of us support a woman's right to choose because we don't view abortion as murder, that is, a strictly wanton and illegal extinguishing of a human life, which is a position you seem to take, a priori. Even still, this part of the debate is worthy of raging on and we may eventually converge on a well defined, nuanced consensus.

I accept that, in the your view, the soul is present at the moment of conception and that you, as a Christian, could not abort your own pregnancy, no matter how abject the external conditions for rearing the child may be (your own situation might be well and good, but you can imagine what I mean). Do you see, however, that you won't extend similar tolerance to others whose hearts and minds may be on the side of life but are, perhaps under far harsher circumstances than yours, faced with the difficult decision of aborting their pregnancies for what they consider to be the greater good?

You write that "we have ONE chance to live and NO ONE has the right to take that chance from us." Well said, and I agree with the phrasing, but I don't presently feel that that right must be extended to the first cell division of a zygote. I'm not being facetious when I say "presently." My mind may change, but, in that context, can you see that you're advocating taking away another woman's right to determine what she does to her own body? And why make the lofty claim that "murder is such a serious offense to God?" Murder is a serious offense to everybody.

-Tom

Then what would you say is a valid excuse to abort? Where does it begin and where does it end? 1) Danger to the life of the mother
2) Danger to the life of the child
3) Birth defects
4) Rape
5) Embarassment to the mother (Gets pregnant and doesn't want anyone to know)
6) Loss of figure (Doesn't want to gain weight)

Which of these are valid excuses? And at what point of pregnancy is it ok abort? Here in Canada you can abort even in the 3rd trimester when the baby is fully developed. Take a look at your children if you have them or imagine that you do, picture the day they were born and ask yourself if you would have been ok with your wife having the pregnancy terminated the day before your child was born. Your baby would have looked the same, and felt the same feelings both physically and emotionally. The only difference would have been that it was still fully trusting and dependent on the mother who was supposed to love it enough to put it's life above her own. Now imagine that some sadistic monster killed your baby a few minutes after it was born. Would that be ok? I hate to be so graphic, but the reality of abortion is extremely graphic and people should truly consider all the information before supporting it.

 

[norswede]

Norswede,

Your last sentence rings the truest so I'll respond in reverse order. As you say, the reality of abortion is graphic, and it is precisely for that reason that even atheists don't take it as lightly as, again, just a matter of the baby's central nervous system. That was the basis for my first post on this thread, so please keep that in mind.

Also, let me commend you on replying, this time, without appealing to the concept of a soul as a persuasive point in the debate because I think both sides have a long list of legitimate arguments without dipping their hands into scripture, which tends to derail the conversation for non-religionists.

I happen to agree, in principle, with just about everything you wrote in your reply to my post, except for your use of two terms: "excuse," as in what is a valid "excuse" for abortion, and "support," as in we should consider all information before "supporting" abortion.

When you use these terms, you do a great disservice to your case by dehumanizing the other side. Would a thinking, feeling person really turn to being raped as an "excuse" to abort a baby? That is not called an excuse. That is called a reason.

Similarly, while there is no denying that keeping the medical practice of abortion legal is necessary to our position, it is not the impetus. We do not "support" abortion, we accept it as an unavoidable component of ensuring that the government does not have control over a woman's body. To perpetuate the idea that pro-choicers terminate their fetuses willy-nilly without "considering all the information" does nothing but draw a caricature of people who think differently than you do even though they are no less human.

On to your points:

You seem to conflate the two scenarios of a late term abortion and a sadist murdering a newborn baby as if they could both pop up out of a vacuum without prologue. Like anyone else, I would find both prospects devastating. But there is such a thing as a reasoned action and only one of those two has a chance at qualifying. You said, to repeat, that abortion is graphic. Unfortunately, poverty, disease and pain are graphic, too, and sometimes the most humane thing you can do for someone is to euthanize the person. If you were to make the decision after careful evaluation of all the data and, very likely, much internal struggle, that it is time to end a loved one's lifetime of suffering, no one would call you a "sadistic monster." And, if anyone did, would you see the absurd imputation there?

I can't, myself, conceive of a way in which my wife would carry a baby to nearly full term and then decide in the final hour to abort it. But, if that were to happen, I would know with absolute certainty that there would have had to be a reason that would have caused the context of the scenario to have changed completely.

Being pro-choice means having the option to weigh all the variables and make well-intentioned decisions about your own body within the context you happen to be in. If the need for an abortion is even a possibility, no decision, for or against, will be an easy one. Again, try not to discredit the amount of mental anguish that goes into any decision regarding a pro-choicer's abortion even if you have a difference of opinion.

Ending at the beginning, then, my line on your simplistic chart (if you were serious about it) would have to fall between "4) Rape" and "5) Embarrassment to the mother," but I think you've made it too easy.

Anyhow, I'm happy to give you my thoughts on your questions but I was hoping you would address some of the issues I brought up as well. Thanks for reading.

-Tom

The reason I listed the reasons as I did was to show you that there are many different reasons different women have for having an abortion and once you legalize abortion there is no middle ground and no going back. As it is in Canada, a woman can have an abortion at any time for any reason and no it's not always a painful decision for them to make. For some women, many of which are teenage girls, abortion is nothing more than a form of birth control. If it were regulated to only situations where the mother's life was in danger or the child was so horribly disfigured that it couldn't possibly survive long outside the womb then I suppose if it weren't for my belief in a soul that is present from conception and in the right of all to be given a chance to live, I might support it in those cases, but it would have to be in the first trimester. But you know as well as I do that once abortion is legalized, it has to be legalized in all cases because the argument for it is that it's the women's right to choose what to do with her body. Therefore it takes the attention off of any argument for the rights of the infant and gives all the rights to the mother.
I think the part that angers me the most about abortion is that there are millions of women out there who can't have children that are on waiting lists in most cases for years before they can adopt a baby. With the exception of the 2 cases I listed above, there is no unselfish reason not to allow the baby to be born and given to a loving family. But we live in such a selfish time where women would rather kill their own child than lose their figure or use a condom or admit to their friends and family that they made a mistake and got pregnant.

 

[ebia]

But you know as well as I do that once abortion is legalized, it has to be legalized in all cases because the argument for it is that it's the women's right to choose what to do with her body.

If ones decriminalisation is based on that principle alone, then yes. But that doesn't have to be the case. One can decriminalise abortion for certain instances and stay at that. An argument that tries to say "if you allow it at all you allow everything" is simply rubbish - most legislation deals with issues in which there are shades of gray and copes with that. We decriminalise killing in self defense, but nobody argues that therefore we must legalise murder.

People like to defend a ground that is clear cut and unambiguous - all or nothing - but rarely is that where the law tries to or needs to draw the line.