The Morality of Abortion!

[Ragoczy]

Curiously, I had a discussion on this topic with my thirteen-year old daughter recently. On the long car rides to and from her classes, I like to torment her by making her talk about substantive issues instead of just listening to music.

The fundamental controversy of abortion is: When does a human life begin?

When does it change from a merging of sperm and egg, from a blob of cells, from a "fetus" ... to a human being, with all of the rights associated with such?

Sadly, that question can't be answered today, because we have no real definition of what constitutes human life. There's no machine that we can point at a pregnant woman and watch the "human" light turn on.

This is not an issue of hypothetical car rides, about consent and withdrawing consent -- it's either about killing a human being or not; all dependent on what defines a human life and when that begins.

It's not about individual, personal morality -- those things that we decide for ourselves are right or wrong -- because there is no such thing when another person is involved. We don't get to decide what's moral or not when it impacts others -- if we did, then murder would be legal if the murderer didn't feel it was wrong.

If an abortion is performed before the fetus has achieved whatever it is that defines a human life, then it's the moral equivalent of clipping your toenails; after that indefinable point and it's murder ... worse, murder of a child.

There are extreme, ridiculous positions on both sides.

I don't believe that sperm and egg conjoined define humanness -- that makes little or no sense. There's no ... substance to three or four, or three- or four-hundred, cells, with no definition or recognizable form, to hold the concept of a human being. To believe that requires a belief in a human soul, which can't be proven to exist.

Worse, though, is the belief that abortion on-demand in, say, the third trimester isn't murder. That's sick and depraved -- to deny humanity and rights to an infant who, if birthed instead of butchered, would survive independent of the mother is unconscionable. What magic happens with the cutting of the umbilical that turns it into human from non-? A twisted rationalization.

Out of the conversation with my daughter, I posed a question, which I now pose to you:

Today, this very minute, you have the power to settle legality or illegality of abortion once and for all. You pick. Then no more argument, no more debate, no more discussion -- your decision stands as the law.

Then, twenty-years from today, we've advanced technology to the point where we can define "humanness", that unique quality that makes a human being different. We build a machine that can detect this and can, once and for all, determine when human life begins. Press the button and the light turns green for human.

If you made abortion illegal and twenty years from now that light turns green only when the cord is cut, well, you have to apologize to all those millions of women who had to endure some discomfort and inconvenience for nine months of their lives.

If you made abortion legal and the light turns green when sperm meets egg ... what on earth can you say to millions of dead children?

Our entire legal system in the US is based on a very simple premise: It's better for the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent. If an accused murderer gets the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't a child?

[damyanti]

some discomfort and inconvenience

Is that what you think pregnancy is? What about those women who find pregnancy disgusting and that making abortion illegal is a violation akin to rape?

[Ragoczy]

Is that what you think pregnancy is? What about those women who find pregnancy disgusting and that making abortion illegal is a violation akin to rape?

Take the other outcome and what about all those children who, I'm sure, would consider death to be a bit more of a "violation"? Well, if they'd had a chance to form the opinion, of course.

If, instead of taking one phrase out of context, you addressed the entire scenario you laid out, you'd see that I was comparing finding out that your (as the decider) decision had a) forced women to go through the pregnancies unnecessarily; or b) killed a bunch of kids.

The point is: which are you more comfortable with bearing the potential responsibility for?

If you're 100% certain when human life begins, good for you. I sure wish you could prove it.