I engaged in an abortion debate recently. Below are excerpts from how I answered the questions, which should describe my current position (which may change).
The challenge: "Modern science has proven that life begins at conception."
My reply: Has modern science proven that at conception there is a subjective ability to perceive feelings, beliefs, and desires unique to a person experiencing qualia that are only available to that person's consciousness thus indicating sentience? That's what it takes. In order to have moral status, an individual must have an interest in its own wellbeing. Sentience is a prerequisite for having an interest in avoiding pain, and personhood is a prerequisite for having an interest in the continuation of one's own existence. Therefore, if sentience does not begin at conception, then neither does personhood. Where is the proof that sentience begins at conception? Please note I said "ability to perceive" not just when circumstances give rise to actual subjective experience, as if sentience comes and goes with waking and sleeping, nor does this apply to comatose patients in whom it cannot be determined with certainty what level of subjectivity they may be able to experience internally.
The poster then said: "So by this reasoning, until a person has the ability to perceive, they have no value?"
My reply:
Here is how I would ask the question......So by this reasoning, until a clump of non-sentient cells develops the ability to perceive subjective conscious experiences giving rise to personhood, it has no value? In this case I would answer that the value of such genetic material is determined by the woman in whose womb such cells might be allowed to develop from non-sentience into that which supports conscious personhood. I would have no authority to determine the value of such cells, nor to pronounce the exact moment when such genetic material becomes invested with personhood.
"So tell me, if it's okay to kill the embryo immediately after conception, using the timeline outlined below, can you tell me when the embryo becomes a "person" in your book, and when it deserves the right to live?"
My reply: Human tissue can be distinguished from human personhood. Simply using terms like sanctity and innocence does not magically turn living human tissue into a living human person. I am convinced there is no sentient personhood prior to the embryo attaching to the uterine wall. After that, my best guess is that a fetus becomes a person when all necessary structures are in place to allow the fetus sensory perception and to conceptualize itself as being apart from the space around it. One source says this typically happens around 21 weeks, while another reports recent research showing a fetus can feel pain at 18-20 weeks. There is also the issue of viability. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, but almost no pregnancies are viable before the 20th week. Again, 20 seems to be the magic number according to science. However, if I were a female, I would probably set my personal cut-off date for an abortion at 16 weeks, well within limits for possible pain and viability.
Most would view Catholicism as being the most outspoken against abortion, but not even Catholic tradition technically states that a human person necessarily begins at fertilization but rather that life needs to be respected from fertilization. This notion of respect is a philosophical manipulation to divert attention from the real issues of conception and personhood and induce religious guilt. In its 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion, the Vaticans Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that respect for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. Why? Because they say so, thats why: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. So, its a sin not because there is any certainty in the matter of personhood and ensoulment but because of uncertainty which the clergy proceeds to hold over everyones head as a tool of sexual and reproductive control. Despite all this pious religious talk, the Vatican acknowledged it does not know when the fetus becomes a person. There is a footnote which states: This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. The bottom line is, God alone knows when killing living human tissue becomes killing a living human person. Therefore, rather than simply bowing to the dictates of religious leaders just because they sit in a bishops chair, I agree with the Supreme Court when they decided Roe v. Wade and said: When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of mans knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
"So since both science and religion agree that no one knows when cells become a person, why not error on the side of caution? Also, I don't know why you're throwing Catholic dogma up in my face when I'm not Catholic."
My reply: I quoted the Vatican because when anti-choice people invoke words like caution as you did to sway opinion, it is the exact same risk/uncertainty argument Roman Catholics use. That is a slippery slope which leads to diluting the sovereignty of individual conscience. It confuses allegiance to God with allegiance to external religious authority. It is a mistake for the Church to treat gray areas as if they were black and white. That is why Christianity is fast becoming an untenable religion for modern educated Westerners. Making sweeping, generalized decrees in matters of mystery may have worked well in pre-enlightenment, pre-modern society, but its not a realistic worldview which has moved beyond roman imperial patronage, medieval feudal states, and the divine right of colonialist kings. Forcing absolutism in the midst of gray areas and uncertainty is what puts revealed religion in the impossible position of having to defend propositional truths that cannot be empirically defended. Thats why conservative Christianity thrives only when it can suppress free inquiry and silence its detractors. This is exemplified by statements such as, there is no debate on that count and one must ignore ALL evidence to the contrary to contend otherwise. This is the true face of the anti-choice position. It simply denies the reality of the gray areas and refuses to be questioned. Combining negative words like (caution and risk) with positive words like (innocence and sanctity) does not answer the question of when personhood arises. That may work to distract somebody who mistakes an emotional reaction for absolute truth, but Im no longer one of those people. Such tactics during debate only serve to point out the embarrassing position Christianity constantly puts itself in when it attempts to deny the uncertainty factor by building a safety hedge around faith and morals. The commandment not to murder is a humane and reasonable law. However, once you start building hedges around the law and turning the hedge itself into an absolute truth, you have lost credibility. Your caution factor has now become the truth rather than just a hedge around truth. The caution factor must now be upheld as an absolute truth for its own sake. No wonder thinking people end up decoverting from Christianity rather than staying and dealing with the demands of an all-or-nothing religion that falls back on sentimentality, emotionalism and eventually isolationism when hard facts are not available to win a moral argument. By realistically accepting gray areas rather than denying them, by upholding individual sovereignty of conscience, and by not building truths on mere caution alone, my ethics and morality do not come crashing down when new information forces change. I simply adapt my morals and ethics accordingly. Now, if you can provide substantial insight into when cells become a person, I will be glad to narrow my opinion and join your cause. In the meantime, creating an atmosphere of cautionary anxiety, fear and doubt around the gray areas of reproduction is not enough to cause me to interfere with a womans choice to procure an abortion.
Now ReadingForOrders, if you actually read through my answers above you should pretty much know where I stand. Until you can provide substantial insight into when cells become a person, it doesn't matter whether abortion is for birth control, population control or socioeconomic considerations. Other than for banning obviously barbaric late-term abortions where sentience is unmistakable, abortion should be legal and safe. Neither you, me or the Pope can draw dogmatic lines for others just to eliminate the uncomfortable gray areas of personal choice and responsibility.
As I replyed previously in the same abortion debate: I'm sorry but relying on the Bible to deduce "first breath" as the beginning of personhood is just as faulty as taking the Pope's word on personhood at conception. That's the realm of supernatural revelation which cannot be proven. However, if a fetus has developed all necessary structures of sensory perception to conceptualize itself as being apart from the space around it and is viable outside the womb, then I feel it meets all philosophical and scientific criteria for personhood. No need for book, bishop or crystal ball.
