After thinking about it, I've broken my own rule. By stating absolutely that personhood does not exist at conception I have tried to apply certainty in the realm of mystery. I was being just as absolutist by stating something doesn't exist at conception as the hard-core pro-lifers by stating that it does. I have no real knowledge about when sentience, consciousness and/or personhood arises. I'm not sure whether the word innocence can be applied to human cells and fetal tissue, but it is nonetheless harmless, and harmless life should not be destroyed unless it could turn out to be dangerous to the mother. Perhaps it is a noble thing to err on the side of caution. The problem is that during the first few weeks of pregnancy there is not enough evidence to convincing secular society that a person exists just because religious leaders say so. That's why I think it is a mistake to try and suddenly place a blanket ban on all abortion at any stage rather than gradually pushing it back while solving socioeconomic problems at the same time. Pro-lifers look like they are forcing an issue of faith onto secular society. That diminishes the message of love and peace and concern for life, and makes Christianity look like a scary threat to personal freedoms in matters of conscience that lie in the realm of honest secular uncertainty.
I actually really appreciate the tone and attitude you took in this post. Thank you.
I will only address a few things that I believe I can answer for you:
I have no real knowledge about when sentience, consciousness and/or personhood arises.
This is an area that many seem to make an error within.
Personhood does not necessarily mean a human being has a personality developed or beginning to develop.
I call a zygote a person... or refer to it as having having personhood... not because of a developed or developing personality... but because it is by definition a living human being and has taken a slot as a human person.
Personhood is viewed in Christianity as innate to the state of being a human-being.
I'm not sure whether the word innocence can be applied to human cells and fetal tissue, but it is nonetheless harmless, and harmless life should not be destroyed unless it could turn out to be dangerous to the mother. Perhaps it is a noble thing to err on the side of caution.
I truly wish more pro-choicers would take this view of erring on the side of caution.
Obama is a prime example of the opposite of this.
He believes no one can know and that the issue is not under his authority... but he refuses adamantly ro err on the side of caution and insists at staying far far to the extreme of the spectrum in spite of his claimed uncertainty.
The problem is that during the first few weeks of pregnancy there is not enough evidence to convincing secular society that a person exists just because religious leaders say so.
I hope I solved the isse of what we use the term person to mean in this context.
That's why I think it is a mistake to try and suddenly place a blanket ban on all abortion at any stage rather than gradually pushing it back while solving socioeconomic problems at the same time.
I actually agree with a step by step approach. I laid out an 8 step plan a ling timew ago to eliminate all abortions except in the case of direct threat to the mothers life.
Abortion can no more be eliminated than slavery could in the British empire. Wilberforce did not try and ban slavery entirely all at once... instead he slowly cut away the armour encasing the institution of slavery until he cut off its supply and then stabbed it in the jugular.
Pro-lifers look like they are forcing an issue of faith onto secular society. That diminishes the message of love and peace and concern for life, and makes Christianity look like a scary threat to personal freedoms in matters of conscience that lie in the realm of honest secular uncertainty.
We are told to protect the weak and hate what is evil. We view this as murder and it is our duty to oppose it as we opposed slavery, or even expositio and abortion in the Roman era.
