Ended up posting this someplace today.

[xenologer]

This is my obligatory reminder to the internet that I am an angry feminist madwoman who believes that the person who has the final legitimate say on whether a pregnancy continues is the person who is pregnant.

Being pro-life is a position I understand completely. It's a personal choice for many women that they would never get an abortion and can't understand how anybody else could. These women should not ever be forced to get abortions, which is why pro-choicers (and I think that doing a lot of activism for Planned Parenthood, I can speak with some authority on what pro-choicers tend to argue for) disapprove of compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. A woman whose personal convictions are strongly against abortion should never be forced to get one, because that is what informed consent is all about. That is what bodily autonomy is all about.

When it verges over into anti-choice territory, though, things start getting dodgy. When we start arguing that a pregnant woman is not morally mature enough to be trusted with the decision of whether to stay pregnant? Dodgy.

Furthermore, as far as the whole "life begins at conception" thing, that's not a scientific or medically-founded point. How do I know this?

Obstetricians define a pregnancy as starting at implantation (which is the point when the zygote sticks to the inside wall of the uterus). They do this because this is the point at which the woman's body acknowledges that it is pregnant and that it needs to start adjusting.

This isn't a political stance on their part so that they can help Planned Parenthood get women their whore pills. This is a medical judgement based on when a woman's body begins to behave "pregnant." The pregnancy doesn't start at fertilization, because in many cases the zygote will fail to implant and the woman won't even know that the egg she's flushing with this period was fertilized. Spiritual life as you define it begins at fertilization, but the pregnancy doesn't start until implantation.

I suspect that the medical argument isn't your primary point, though, so I'll address the theological angle.

I am always sort of puzzled by the whole allegedly-Biblical view that life begins at conception. I've been giving it some thought based on what I remember from the Bible study I did in college and looked some stuff up and wanted to bring what I pulled together.

RE: Life beginning at conception. Yes, I realize that it is Catholic dogma that this is the case. The Catholic Church also only admitted about forty years ago that the Earth revolves around the sun. Are we really going to use them as a science authority? I mean, I guess you can. I won't be. But this isn't even a scriptural or Biblically-founded point they are making. That stuff is NOT in the Bible.

So what's actually in the Bible? When does a human acquire a soul? Well, let's ask when Adam was alive. When God breathed life into him.

Genesis 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

This is why, for a very long time historically, a woman's fetus was not considered an autonomous human being until it took its first breath. It's only when science gave us a view into what actually happens in the uterus that Christian churches had to start figuring out when this thing became a human with a soul.

At no point does any secular governing body have any call making law based on who has a soul and who doesn't. I certainly hope that in this thread we can agree on that much. However, for those Biblical literalists who care more about getting on Santa's Nice List than they do about what godless obstetricians say, I refer you back to Genesis. A fetus is a baby when it takes its first breath. Even Adam wasn't human before that.

Surprise surprise, Bible-thumping anti-choicers need to lern2Bible before pulling out their half-understood regurgitated dogma. Unless you're a Roman Catholic, your own Iron Age obstetrics manual (harr harr) points out that breath is life. Even the word "spirit" in Hebrew means "breath."

“There is a spirit [Hebrew, ruach, breath] in man: and the inspiration [breathing in] of the Almighty gives them understanding. ... The spirit [Hebrew, ruach, breath] of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty has given me life.” -Job 32:8 and 33:4.

So seriously, to the "life at conception cuz YHWH said so" regurgitating fundies: go get some formal Bible education and then come back and tell me what it says.

It's probably obvious that the Biblical view doesn't actually hold any water with me. I prefer to use obstetrics texts that were written after the advent of modern medicine. However, I know there are a lot of people who do care about what the Bible says about what we are, who we are, and how we should live. I also know that many such people haven't had opportunity to actually sit down and do formal study of this book that rules their lives, and have to simply believe what church authorities and their parents tell them is true.

So yeah. If you want to decide how to live based on what the Bible says, I'm gonna think you're a little nuts, but at least find out what's in the book before you start making decisions and constricting the decisions of others and make sure that it's really telling you what you've been TOLD it tells you.

Comments

[knitminder]

I remember an often-quoted piece of Abrahamic (which is so much more concise, although perhaps less specific, than Judeo-Christian-Muslim) scripture from Jeremiah. The anti-choice camp uses it out of context to refer to every human being. It was actually only referring to Jeremiah. Let's be generous and say that that scripture applies to humanity. What, then, of miscarriage? Is a woman who does not even know she is pregnant criminal because God took the life of that embryo whom He knew and set apart?

Although I really dislike using a resource I don't believe in as evidence against a moral position, I have to remember that scientific appeals (e.g., baby != fetus) hold no weight. You have to use their own book against them. Besides, you're right, the current thought on the importance of a fetus is a modern invention: from the Biblical view of life at first breath to the more modern sense of quickening (and, consequently, women "pleading the belly" to delay execution). Science has made fetal viability possible earlier and earlier into pregnancy, which is part of what I think has encouraged this "zygote is a baby better than its sinner mother!" nonsense.

[silveradept]

All this and more. Women are the people that pregnancy affects, women are the people that should be able to make decisions about pregnancy, and the would would probably be a better place if the people swinging books around actually knew what was in there.

[charlycrash.livejournal.com]

Ignoring all the biblical stuff: life doesn't "begin" because life isn't a state that really means very much objectively. "Life" in a biological sense only really means the ability to replicate with heredity or that which possesses it, and it's hard to work out how to apply that concept to reproduction. Surely if we were, "life" would technically begin at puberty.

As with many things people seem unable to grasp the concept that because our little primate brains like to view things in a certain way, or necessarily have to because of our limited ability to conceive of things, that there might still be an objective disparity between how we view it vs. what's actually happening. No great surprise I suppose, given what's actually happening, if we're talking about biology, is usually such utter chaos or continuity as to be inconceivable if we didn't slap arbitrary and discontinuous classifications over the top.

Or in other words: stating the obvious, it isn't a scientific question as much as a purely moral or philosophical one. Up to what point could it be said that it remains ethical to kill a certain clump of matter variously and discontinuously defined as a fertilised ovum/zygote/foetus/baby/adult? That's really the only question.

Note: I am a thoroughly pro-choice feminist.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

That being said, no, life doesn't only have the meaning you give it, and that's not the meaning people are attaching to it in this context. Hell, it doesn't even have only that meaning in a medical or scientific sense - female senior citizens are quite thoroughly alive, by any number of medical and scientific definitions of the term.

It drives me crazy when people assume that, because a particular scientific definition of a term is X, anyone using the common language use or a culturally supported use is being stupid or dumb or completely irrational. There are oodles and oodles of problems with the Pro-Life position - but they aren't actually using some un-sound definition of life - and treating it like a definitional issue isn't going to get you anything.

That being said, yes, it's a moral/philosophical question - neither side denies that - but, to a certain extent (a large one, in fact), several arguments on the pro-choice side of the debate depend on scientific evidence that fetal cells are not sufficiently developed to count as people in their own right.

Re: Note: I am a thoroughly pro-choice feminist.

[charlycrash.livejournal.com]

Perhaps, but I still think it's an artificial imposition we place upon it. Even if it's based on medical evidence that, say, at 12 weeks the nervous system is significantly developed to feel pain (pulled entirely out of the air - I know nothing about embryology), the development of an embryo is a continuous process that we're imposing a discontinuity onto. In that instance, we're choosing an almost arbitrary point at which to draw the line. In reality, the nervous system is constantly and smoothly developing (afaik). An embryo can't not feel pain one minute and then suddenly feel it the next.

There are several ways we could define "life" in terms of embryology, and that itself is the point - we're choosing how to define it on the grounds of what's most consonant with a preordained moral guideline, not being handed something by reality.

Ultimately, I think when "life" begins is irrelevant - the only salient factor is making some sort of moral judgement on when killing a whatever-it's-been-defined-as causes more harm than not killing it, and I don't think the definition of "life" is nearly as relevant there as quantifying human suffering of whatever kind.

Re: Note: I am a thoroughly pro-choice feminist.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's a moral judgement - as, I suspect, does everyone involved in the discussion on a national level. But the state of the embryo/fetus/etc isn't irrelevant to the moral arguments centered on whether or not the fetus counts as a person, particularly in a legal context.

Now, if your argument is that it's strictly an issue of the mother's personal sovereignty, than it doesn't matter - but you still need to understand and be ready to deal with arguments from people to whom it does matter.

This all being said, I think the issue here isn't an arbitrary definition of life in terms of what the process is, so much as attempts by the right to adjust the legal standard by which we recognize life, in order to deny women reproductive freedoms.

[elorie.livejournal.com]

Another traditional marker among a lot of societies is "quickening"...ie, when movement can be felt by the mother, at around month five. It's notably more difficult to abort using the kinds of herbal concoctions that would have been available after that...but before, it was traditionally nobody else's damn business and women did in fact use such abortifacients. Abortion was not illegal until the 19th century, although the witch hunts of previous centuries did a lot to cut into both the knowledge base and the willingness of cunning women and midwives to offer that kind of assistance. The point of all that is, abortion is not an invention of the modern era...but the *controversy* surrounding it is.

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

*applause* Well said!

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

I know I've said it before, but it bears repeating:

You kick ass. I'm grateful that I agree with you on almost everything 'cause I'd hate to argue with you when you're on a roll.

[archmage-brian.livejournal.com]

Something that I was actually thinking about earlier today, not even realizing you'd made this entry:

Many Christian denominations believe (or at least vaguely assert) that innocent souls are auto-saved, especially if they have led righteous lives. The classic example that was brought up when I was taking Confirmation classes was that of Pacific islanders or some such isolated people who would never have the opportunity in their entire lives to hear of Jesus. Surely a just God would not condemn people who had no chance to accept him since they had never heard the Good News, right? Same for babies and whatnot, though some sects insist that only Baptized babies can reach paradise--but most of those are not today's feel-good-know-nothing American Protestantism.

Shouldn't medical professionals performing abortions be the most awesome thing in the world, per their own beliefs? If you don't follow, consider that

1) If abortionists are "murderers," they will surely get their just desserts in Hell, so there's no real need to give them a bunch of crap while they're still alive, and
2) They are giving children (e.g., human souls) one-way tickets to paradise without ever having to suffer the harshness of this pale existence.

So while none of them should be performing abortions themselves, and it makes some sense that they might mourn for lost potential lives, they should be solidly placated by the idea that said nurses and surgeons are sending would-be children off to an existence where they will never know pain, neglect, regret, or loss.

Isn't Christianity wonderful?

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

I guess if you extend narrow aspects of Christian philosophy to ridiculous hyperbolic comedy versions, yes. In the real world, Christian culture and religion allows for societal sanction against murderers. It doesn't, strictly interpreted, allow for human vengeance, but it doesn't at all prevent stopping murderers, or preventing them from murdering. In fact, one could argue that stopping murderers is a tremendous good deed, because you are preventing them from committing a sin.

Also, witnessing and attempting to promote "righteousness" is a large part of many protestant denominations.

Honestly, there are huge problems with ACTUAL fundamentalist Christian sects which believe horrible/crazy things right now - making cartoon versions of them to knock down is unnecessary and counterproductive ;-)

[matrexius.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure where the straw man is here. If getting to Heaven is the ultimate goal and best possible thing that can happen to a person, then they should be encouraging abortions, since that baby will not only achieve the best possible life goal, but they will also be spared the opportunity to reject Jesus and end up in Hell. Maybe we could have a small handful of doctors who do a kabillion abortions, ensuring that said kabillion babies make it to Heaven, and only they themselves suffering the consequences (although, depending on which sect of Christianity we're talking about, they can still get to Heaven if they accept Jesus right before they die...).

Perhaps asking for philosophical consistency from organized religion is the problem here.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

::sigh::

If you want to point out flaws in religious reasoning, point out flaws in actual religious reasoning. It's worse than pointless to make a ridiculous fake argument based on a reductionist and frankly asinine misstatement of theology, and then say that religion is inconsistent because your strawman is a strawman.

There are HUGE, FUNDAMENTAL internal inconsistencies with fundamentalism. But this isn't one of them, has never been one of them, and pretending this is a legitimate argument instead of disingenuous mockery is dumb.

[matrexius.livejournal.com]

Reductio ad absurdums aren't disingenuous, or fake, or straw men. They are used to show that the logical conclusion of a line of reasoning entails an absurd conclusion and is false, and therefore, the line of reasoning itself must be crap. There is also such a thing as biting a bullet, where someone accepts that their reasoning entails a distasteful, bizarre, or otherwise unpleasant conclusion, but they accept it anyway because they'd have to reject significant parts of/their whole belief system otherwise.

Hope this helps.

And while we're on the subject, seeing as to how Conquistadores used to have Native American infants baptized to ensure that they would go straight to Heaven right before they smashed their heads open, I'm at a loss as to how this is 'fake' religious reasoning.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

You used the term strawman, and I try not to be a jerk about misuse of terms. I assumed you were using strawman in the less specific "internet" usage, rather than actually talking about it as an example of the strawman fallacy.

You're free to sneer at me all you want, but it's not going to make your argument work as a reductio ad absurdem. Reductio ad absurdem generally works best when the original proposition is a boolean statement involving always or never.

This isn't reductio ad absurdem, however - that would entail following the proposition to an absurd conclusion, not reducing the proposition to a false subset of itself, as was my issue with the original poster.

And while we're on the subject, seeing as to how Conquistadores used to have Native American infants baptized to ensure that they would go straight to Heaven right before they smashed their heads open, I'm at a loss as to how this is 'fake' religious reasoning.

Oh snap! You've certainly put me in my place, by pointing out that a religious group that hasn't existed in centuries did something bad that resembles what you're talking about! I certainly will stop thinking that you are failing to engage with current, real-world Christianity based on this amazing insight.

[archmage-brian.livejournal.com]

I did follow the proposition to its absurd conclusion.

People who believe that mortal life is a pale, empty existence compared to some imagined eternal bliss at the right hand of their Divine Patriarch should not be concerned with the deaths of human beings unless they are concerned that those human beings didn't make it to Ultimate Eternal Paradise, because they have quite literally "gone to a better place" and we should be overjoyed on their behalf. If grandma really has moved on to everlasting bliss, grief is the manifestation of selfish feelings that you wish she was still around baking you cookies. If Christian dogma is true, she has no real reason to give a fuck about you any more--all vestiges of her old life have been presumably swept away by everlasting divine orgasms or whatever it is Christians are supposed to get as their reward for passing their final exam.

Life is a trial, a cram session full of suffering and regret. Wouldn't sparing other human beings that suffering and guaranteeing their place in the Blissful Sky Orgy be overall good?

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes, you've got super-duper mega contempt for Christian dogma. That's awesome and all, but it's not actually the same as engaging with theology on its terms, which is what you were claiming to do (and what Virginia_Fell actually did in her post.

Not that I'm saying you have to engage with religion on its terms - saying "religion doesn't make sense, there is no god" is fine, and is generally where I live my personal life.

But if you're actually going to try and construct an argument based on the idea that "theological precepts make this false/inconsistent for Christians," it helps to, you know, actually deal with actual theological precepts (or even reasonable facsimiles thereof), rather than cartoon supervillainy vaguely based on less than a basic grasp of what any actual people believe.

Because, whether or not you think it has any sort of experimental validity (and just to be clear, I don't), sin, morality, grief, and how the religious conceive of the afterlife aren't that simple. As I said earlier, you're not following any actual propositions to their logical conclusions, you're rendering down your religious stereotypes until they're absurd, and then following those to their conclusions.

[matrexius.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

Well said.

I think it's really sad and frustrating, the degree to which Fundie churches claim to be "going back to the bible," when in actuality, they're just shaping themselves in reaction to fear and misdirected anger.