Greetings, Garland. I do hope you will not
knock us all down! Gwahahahaha.
First, regarding Zeality, give it time. He’s like cheese: it takes a while to wrap your mind around why anyone would ever have thought to eat chunky, discolored milk (not that Z is chunky or discolored, by any means).
Anywho, I am curious as to if your stance is a political or personal one. That is, would you vote to outlaw abortion except in those circumstances you have listed?
Your economic notes are ones that I've never actually heard from a pro-choicer. When defining themselves, both sides tend to resort to a question of rights and morals, not costs and benefit analyses. Regardless, to sum up a reaction to it: even if the world is doomed from overpopulation, that does not justify killing an individual, but likewise, the world being able to support another individual does not justify the creation of that person. General economic considerations are ill-placed in this discussion.
As for your comments directed to Lord J esq, he has already said that he is likely to not be around much, particularly for new discussions, so it is unlike that he'll see, let alone respond, to you. However, if I might be so bold, I suspect he'd object to your supposition that a fetus is a substantially separate entity from the woman. This is, in part, a matter of "personhood" and when it begins. He decided not to address that issue when last we talked on the matter, and has since left, so I can't speak on how he might have defined it. For my own part, I like to use the term to use to mean an individual possessing the complete rights of a human (as relevant here, those would be the rights of life and self-determination). When personhood begins is a topic much debated. Again, for myself, I would say that there is insufficient evidence on this topic to make a firm stance anywhere (a stance which J disagrees with, to note).
However, since you are religious, perhaps I might be allowed to use the term "ensoulment," as it allows for slightly different arguments. Ensoulment would be the point at which the immortal soul enters the mortal flesh. The bible does not specify on what day this occurs, although there is good reason to assume that it is not at conception. The reason for this is simple: the majority of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, which themselves occur by far in the most part in the first trimester. This is a necessary side-effect of the process in which cells in general divide and in specific how gametes combine. Ensoulment during this period is problematic as it necessitates that we assume God arranged things so that the majority of souls entering into flesh would never be born. This then brings up the question of why God would create an inefficient universe. Furthermore, there is evidence in the Christian tradition to imply that ensoulment begins at birth. Baptism is supposed to represent a second birth, the passing of the old life and a starting of a new life. Birth, not conception, is the key analogy regarding the state and new life of a soul.
Note, I am not saying that ensoulment doesn't begin at conception, but merely that there are reasons to assume that ensoulment doesn't begin at conception, and that evidence to the contrary is lacking.
Since even on theological grounds this matter is unclear, the axiom "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity," erring on the charitable side is the best course of action. Which is to say, to be loving. By vigorously opposing abortion, one creates an atmosphere of intolerance and hate (even if one is not these things oneself), which is contradictory to the great commission.
Even if you always maintain that abortion is wrong, it is still a necessity that you are fully charitable to those who support it and who partake in it. Wrong or not, people undergoing it still need social support and kindness. You would better direct your effort of opposing abortion by aiming at the source, not the manifestation. That is, instead of picketing abortion clinics (not saying you have, just an example), volunteer for planned parenthood, so as to help ensure that only those people who want children (and thus will not want an abortion) will get pregnancy. Volunteer with community watch programs to reduce the occurrences of rape. Volunteer with health organizations to ensure that those who do want to be pregnant get proper nutrition so as to avoid defects. Better to work to ensure that all women who get pregnant want to be pregnant, than to tell some that are that they have to stay that way.
@RD, both the central and peripheral nervous systems begin with the neural plate, which develops around prenatal day 19. That is just the beginning of the PNS, to note: I haven't been able to find out when it starts functioning. However, I would object to the statement "no brain, no pain." We shouldn't confuse the ability to be cognizant of pain with the ability to experience pain.
As for your other question, one needn’t hold that a cluster of cells is of greater “ethical concern” than a woman, just of equal concern. Many people hold that the right to life is supreme (except when life is being deprived for want of basic necessities, then the right of property is held as supreme), thus many people are willing to allow for the right of self-determination of the woman to be infringed in order to allow for the right of life. Often this same devil’s deal is involved in pro-lifers allowing for abortion in the case of the woman’s health. Of course, this does still require assuming that a cluster of cells is of equal to a woman, which seems misogynistic in itself.
@Faust, to play the devil's advocate, there is already the base assumption in society that bodily autonomy can be properly infringed upon when that autonomy threatens the individual. That is, if someone's trying to kill themselves, generally society feels it has the right to inject that it knows best and, in turn, feels it has the right to stop the individual. If that is permissible, then that seemingly creates a precedent for society also saying that in other cases an individual's bodily autonomy can be infringed upon. Why, then, not in this case? Or would you say that neither case is acceptable?
@ Saj, while I know you didn’t ask this of me, I suspect that a reason that many pro-lifers are willing to give an allowance for rape is that there is an underlying sense of legality that motivates the position. There is the supposition that if a woman is pregnant, then it is her own fault. They apply the phrase “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime” to the situation. There may be the sticking out of tongues, the putting of thumbs in ears, and the repeated use of the word “nyeh” or “neener” that accompanies this. Rape, however, is a recognized violation of this paradigm. Abortion, then, is acceptable because being pregnant is not the fault of the woman. She has not willingly done the crime, and thus it is perceived that she should be freed from the time.
One obvious problem with such a position is that pregnancy is then cast as a sort of punishment. Unfortunately, I suspect that even when pro-lifers are aware of this, they are alright with such a conception. Of course, under such a model, “life” really has nothing to do with if abortion is acceptable or not: abortion becomes an acquittal, and the pro-lifers have given no pardon to the crime of sex.
