Just came across this site: Feminists for Life. Wow. Who’d a thunk it.
Here’s an excerpt from one of many articles on the site (The Bitter Price of Choice):
Share ThisWe focused on her swelling belly, not the discrimination that had made her so desperate. We advised her, “Go have this operation and you will fit right in.”
What a choice we made for her. She climbs onto a clinic table and endures a violation deeper than rape–the nurse’s hand is wet with her tears– then is grateful to pay for it, grateful to be adapted to the social machine that rejected her when pregnant. And the machine grinds on, rejecting her pregnant sisters.
Comment by Madda — June 17, 2007 @ 12:56
Perhaps sometimes it is the best option.
After all, if ’she’ (the hypothetical person in question) is not willing to give away a child once it is born, yet is not capable of looking after it given the situation at the time then it is better for the unborn one that the abortion does take place.
I notice a great deal of ‘pro-life’ texts are primarily appealing to emotions, not to reason.
The only way they might appeal to reason is if one accepted that the undeveloped bundle of cells is actually fully human and aware already. For sake of argument I’ll refer to that as a soul- whether it’s metaphysical or otherwise. Now, I personally do not consider that there is any such a thing inherent in the body at least until the brain is fully developed (and then from a quality of life point of view I’d suggest that the body needs to be able to support the brain).
Note that I’m not in fact saying that those with any form of brain damage caused during this stage of development are not fully developed- I’m talking about the brain being fully developed for that being.
So, if it is not accepted that prior to the full development of the brain a ’soul’ (or consciousness) is present then it becomes much more a case of personal choice.
That’s my view at least.
S
Comment by Pistos — June 17, 2007 @ 18:37
I think you are right in identifying a major hinge of the issue being the humanity (or inhumanity) of all stages of the child, from freshly-fertilized ovum to freshly-spanked infant at delivery. The Catholic Church maintains that the child is a human being right at the point of fusion of sperm and egg.
So you at least agree that killing a human (even within the womb) is wrong?
Comment by Madda — June 17, 2007 @ 18:58
I am of the opinion that killing a human is wrong, yes. Hence I am also against the death penalty, although I do sometimes have to give that consideration. It also places me firmly against wars- although that’s not just the killing issue, that’s related to my opinion that 99% of the time violence will make someone desire to do the opposite of what you tell them, and thus cause more problems later than it solves.
Abortion, however…
I do not agree that it becomes human when the egg is fertilised. It’s still a far cry then. Given how far it is at that point from being what I would define as human I would suggest that it would be almost as flawed to suggest that menstruation is murder. Ludicrous, obviously, and taking the argument too far in some ways. However, my suggestion is that the point at which it is ‘human’ is the point at which the brain is developed and the body capable of sustaining it. I realise this leaves certain cases (such as those requiring life support for a time) as exceptions, but then one does not judge a general rule by its exceptions in anything not excessively mathematical.
On what grounds would you classify the single (fertilised) cell of the egg to be fully human, or even the two or four cells following? I forget the rest of the terminology here, I’m afraid, but it’s not relevant to this discussion anyway.
S
Comment by Pistos — June 17, 2007 @ 19:09
Jaykul raised the point just a few days ago in IRC that it doesn’t seem quite right to consider that something human (a human person) can grow from something that isn’t human (the allegedly inhuman two- or four-celled organism in the womb). At first blush, I’d be inclined to agree.
For me personally, my sole grounds for classifying the fertilised egg as fully human is the declaration of the Catholic Church that it is so. At the same time, I am willing to hear other opinions, viewpoints and arguments. So far, I’ve never heard anything other than mere conjecture regarding the inhumanity of the fertilised egg.
Comment by Madda — June 18, 2007 @ 14:40
I’m not sure what points Jaykul raised directly, but I would have to disagree with the parts you’ve stated there.
If something human cannot come from something that isn’t human then nothing human can exist, as in your example something human is coming from a combining of sperm and egg. Therefore I would consider that it gradually develops from the point where it’s entirely not human through being a proto-human to being a human (baby).
To consider another example, think of a cake. The ingredients aren’t the cake. Even when you mix the ingredients they’re not the cake, they’re just cake mix (and very tasty at that- but this part of the analogy doesn’t cross over very well). Then you shape them and put them in the oven. Still not cake. Gradually as they’re in the oven they change from not a cake through to almost a cake until finally they become a cake.
I think that’s a subtle enough analogy?
I am not sure that the Church itself saying so are good grounds for classifying the fertilised egg as human, as the Church itself is made up of plainly fallible people. Consider that (as I recall) around the time of Vat II there was an inquiry into contraception. While it was generally agreed that it was a good thing and the withdrawal method was just plain dumb- and I mean generally agreed by senior Church ministers, the official position stayed as it had been before. Why? Because the Pope overruled them. I am inclined to wonder if this was more of a personal prejudice than divine inspiration.
You say that you’ve only heard conjecture regarding the inhumanity of the infertilised egg, but then to be fair there’s only conjecture either way when you bring the metaphysical into it.
I have at least stated my reasons for my conjecture- the brain being the seat of the ‘person’- which I feel is at least as good a definition as any other.
S
Comment by Pistos — June 18, 2007 @ 15:12
I can follow your cake analogy (though it does not convince me that the few-celled organism is not human).
Whether or not people should accept the teaching of the Catholic Church is a WHOLE new topic which I think I’d like to keep out of this current discussion.
Suffice to say, some people accept Church teaching, and others do not, and others pick which teachings they like.
My understanding is that the Catholic Church has been against contraception from day one. Can you cite any references to the contrary? Perhaps I am just not picking up the gist of your second paragraph. Could you rephrase?
I can agree that we each have reasons for defining the humanity or inhumanity of various stages of the fetus which are not good enough for the other person.
For me, I believe ultimately that it is divine declaration, though the mouthpiece of the Church. I of course understand that you do not believe this.
Comment by Madda — June 18, 2007 @ 15:37
That’s fair enough, but hopefully it’ll at least give you a horrified pause for thought next time you lick the spoon while you’re making a cake. grins
As for the teachings of the Church, agreed- a topic for a different time (though we must discuss that sometime- I’m interested to see what your views are on it and why).
The contraception issue was, as I recall, a meeting of senior members of the Church to consider the matter around the time of Vat II, but I’d have to dig up some more information on that to give you precise details.
I’m not saying the definitions aren’t good enough- I just don’t think your cake is ready yet- see, it’s still gooey in the middle! grins
Divine declaration is fair enough, though I don’t think the Church makes a good mouthpiece- but as you stated, that’s a topic for a different time.