by Juno Walker

http://scienceblog..._abortion.php#more

On the drive home from work tonight I was behind a pickup truck that had a rather large white sign with red letters that read: "ABORTION KILLS CHILDREN" taped to the inside of his back window. In addition, he had a bumper sticker with a picture of a smiling infant and a Bible verse, Jeremiah 1:5. For those who don't know, this verse reads in part: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." I've seen this before; and one of my colleagues cited this verse as the main reason she attends anti-abortion rallies each year in Washington, D.C. But on bumper stickers — and the mouths of fundamentalists — only this first clause of the sentence is ever cited.

On the face of it, it would seem that the Christian — in her mind — has a relatively strong justification for her position of opposing abortion. However, it's been pointed out by others that, not only is God talking specifically to Jeremiah, but the context refers to Jeremiah's calling as a prophet. The context of the verse has nothing to do with abortion. But I don't want to dwell excessively on this particular fact; most agnostics and even liberal Christians can see that this is a stretch. I'd like to talk more about the philosophical and scientific aspects of abortion.

There is much ambiguity and dispute between various Christian sects regarding the "soul." The first problem is that Christians have no idea what a 'soul' is. What is it made of? How is it attached? What are its mechanisms? As someone who was raised in a fundamentalist church, I would say that the consensus — if it could be said that there is one — is that the soul is immortal but not eternal. That is, the soul is created at conception, and will live forever — either in Heaven or Hell — but it's not eternal, which would imply that it has neither beginning nor end. In most Christian thought, God (or the Trinity) is the only eternal one. In other words, the human soul isn't eternally existing like God, but is created at the moment of conception; but it will also survive the death of the physical body — to spend forever in either Heaven or Hell.

That said, let's consider some practical implications. If — as is implied in Jeremiah chapter 1, verse 5 — God somehow knew us before we were born, what could that possibly mean? How could he know us? We only come to know us gradually throughout childhood, eventually developing a coherent, consistent sense of self. In what sense does God know us? Presumably only half of us is formed — i.e., our genetic blueprint. But what about the 'nurture' side of us? That hasn't been formed yet. That results from our life experiences; and obviously we haven't had any life experiences before we were born.

Of course, if — as many, if not most, theologians believe — God is outside of space and time, and presumably sees 'time' as one big frozen block; i.e., He sees past, present and future as one, then God might know us in the sense of knowing our entire lives — past, present and future. In that sense, God would truly know us before we were born. That's really the only way the Christian could make sense of it. If I'm wrong, then by all means let me know.

Yet this notion, it seems to me, would present all sorts of thorny ethical problems for the believer. The most obvious one — and one theologians have debated for centuries, and still are debating — is the concept of predestination: if God knows the future, then he already knows who will end up in Heaven and who in Hell. Indeed, proponents of this theory even cite the Jeremiah verse in question. And some New Testament verses provide strong support for it as well — see Matthew 22:14 and Ephesians 1:3-5.

But how would a non-believer make sense of the soul? Well, first of all, the non-believer probably doesn't believe in souls. The non-believer probably believes that the soul — or mind — is ultimately the brain, a physical organ. Exactly how the mind is the brain is still up for debate, but the consensus among philosophers and scientists is that material processes give rise to the subjective experience that most people would associate with the 'soul.' But here we need to distinguish between the Christian's 'belief' in an immaterial, categorically different soul, and the atheist's 'belief' that the mind is the brain.

The Christian bases her belief primarily on scripture — i.e., what she believes is a direct revelation of God, the Creator of Souls — and her personal intuition. non-believers possess that same intuition — which they believe is a product of our evolutionary heritage — but also come to their conclusion that souls don't exist based on evidence from the sciences — primarily neuroscience. Anyone who has taken the time to read books by neuroscientists such as Antonio Damasio, Michael Gazziniga, or V.S. Ramachandran — or even summary articles in popular media venues such as Scientific American and Science Daily — is quickly presented with some difficult and puzzling questions about the nature of the self and consciousness.

Phenomena such as split-brain experiments, anterograde amnesia, bizarre results of various types of brain damage, or even mental illnesses such as schizophrenia all seem to present an intractable problem for the believer in souls, namely, if the soul is separate and independent from the body (and has 'free will'), then why can't the soul overcome these difficulties?

Non-believers believe that the Self (i.e., the mind/brain) develops over time through the genetically-determined growth of the brain as well as the brain's interaction with its physical and social environment. The Self is 'conscious'; that is, it is aware of itself, it has desires, it feels pleasure and pain, as well as all gradations in between these two poles. And this is where a non-believer's view of abortion comes in.

Since the non-believer believes that the Self is the brain, then the non-believer can provide a demarcation between Self and non-Self: the nervous system. Feelings of pleasure and pain presuppose a viable nervous system. Without a nervous system, not only are pleasure and pain not felt, but there is no Self to do the feeling. We could say that this is the baseline test for abortion — if you abort something that doesn't have a fully-developed nervous system, then you are not aborting a Self. You are not aborting a person.

I don't believe anyone out there is pro-abortion. Unless you're a psychopath, you value life over non-life, existence over non-existence. Obviously, women aren't getting pregnant merely with the intention of aborting a fetus. So the decision to abort is not a whimsical, capricious, or malicious decision (the potential immaturity and impetuousness of some teenagers notwithstanding). What is usually being weighed here is the strife of an unwanted pregnancy versus bringing a human being into the world. So we should have a method for weighing the needs and desires of the adult human versus the non-existent needs and desires of a potential adult human, assuming he even makes it to adulthood. (He's like the sea turtle hatchling scrambling to get to the ocean before the sea birds get him.)

And this is where I believe the non-believer stands on firmer ground than the believer. The non-believer can present empirical, non-emotional, experience-based evidence in support of a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy that is deemed to be inimical to her life's intentions and plans — and well-being. The non-believer can present the image of an actual person, with a history, with life experiences, with memories, with intimate and complex social relationships, and with a refined capacity for pleasure and pain, versus a non—Self with no memories, no life experiences — and indeed no capacity at all for pleasure and pain. The believer falls back on — what? — 'scripture,' on personal feelings, on intuition?

The truly gray area for the non-believer, in my opinion, is pregnancy terminations beyond this demarcation line. When does a fetus begin to feel pain? Does the nervous system have to be fully-developed? Partially? If so, which parts? Etc. But even if we could say that the nervous system is most likely registering pain, we can't really say for certain that the Self of the fetus is experiencing it — or that there really is a Self there to be experiencing it.

But given the track record of the life sciences, the non-believer can possess a more justified confidence that these things will be sorted out with the development of new technology and new research methods.

I am very pro-life. But i also feel the only way to end the abortion debate is through science. when my ex was pregnant with my son, we got the first ultrasound and say his heart beating at 6 weeks. I have always felt life began at conception, bc the only thing it can turn into is a human. You don't get pregnant and give birth to a rock or pillow. Its like making a cake, you have eggs and milks and flour. but once you have all those mixed together its a cake.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby I am very pro-life. But i also feel the only way to end the abortion debate is through science. when my ex was pregnant with my son, we got the first ultrasound and say his heart beating at 6 weeks. I have always felt life began at conception, bc the only thing it can turn into is a human. You don't get pregnant and give birth to a rock or pillow. Its like making a cake, you have eggs and milks and flour. but once you have all those mixed together its a cake.

abortion, in my thinking, is not about life or religion... it's about rights. you cannot and should be able to tell someone what to do with their biological functions. This is somones' body that these people are trying to order around. I also feel the same way about assisted suicide. It's your body and if you are facing a long, terminal fight, at least be able to exit with dignity. Now, offing yourself in the bathroom because you got fired or other some such, well, there are better solutions, seabiscuit.

Posted by Samurai abortion, in my thinking, is not about life or religion... it's about rights. you cannot and should be able to tell someone what to do with their biological functions. This is somones' body that these people are trying to order around. I also feel the same way about assisted suicide. It's your body and if you are facing a long, terminal fight, at least be able to exit with dignity. Now, offing yourself in the bathroom because you got fired or other some such, well, there are better solutions, seabiscuit.

But that depends on who gets rights. Does the child in the womb have no human rights? You look at from the view that it doesn't have any rights. Well, if I shoot a woman who is a month preggo, and she looses the baby, I'll be charged with murder. But, if I just kill the baby, and she asked me to, suddenly I just did a medical procedure. Hmmmmmmm.

Posted by jeepdave But that depends on who gets rights. Does the child in the womb have no human rights? You look at from the view that it doesn't have any rights. Well, if I shoot a woman who is a month preggo, and she looses the baby, I'll be charged with murder. But, if I just kill the baby, and she asked me to, suddenly I just did a medical procedure. Hmmmmmmm.

now you're reaching for shit.
aren't you the one that wants less government invading everyday life?

Posted by splumer When does a fetus begin to feel pain? Does the nervous system have to be fully-developed? Partially? If so, which parts? Etc. But even if we could say that the nervous system is most likely registering pain, we can't really say for certain that the Self of the fetus is experiencing it — or that there really is a Self there to be experiencing it.

Posted by jeepdave But that depends on who gets rights. Does the child in the womb have no human rights? You look at from the view that it doesn't have any rights.

A newborn demonstratively feels pain. Circumcision could well be defined as ritualistic mutilation, performed against the will of the infant.

Whatevs. "Life begins at conception" is ridiculous. While not technically "defined" as alive, can you argue why a sperm is not alive? There is a neat, little trick that happens when a sperm enters an egg, but there are lots of neat little things that happen in our bodies all the time. Fertilization and mitosis hold no special significance to me.

Life is a continuum... it has value, but not much at first. How can you seriously argue that a single cell of jelly, no more impressive than what comes out of your nose, has the same value as an infant?

Posted by Samurai now you're reaching for shit. aren't you the one that wants less government invading everyday life?

Yup, so why should tax money go to abortions?

Posted by MutantMandias Whatevs. "Life begins at conception" is ridiculous. While not technically "defined" as alive, can you argue why a sperm is not alive? There is a neat, little trick that happens when a sperm enters an egg, but there are lots of neat little things that happen in our bodies all the time. Fertilization and mitosis hold no special significance to me. Life is a continuum... it has value, but not much at first. How can you seriously argue that a single cell of jelly, no more impressive than what comes out of your nose, has the same value as an infant?

What happens when an egg gets fertilized by sperm? What are all the outcomes?

What happens when I blow my nose? Does a baby pop out? Will it ever be anything more than just germs?

When an egg is first fertilized its not much, sure, but within 6 weeks it will have a heartbeat. Doesn't a beating heart constitute as something being alive? As I said earlier with my cake analogy, when they are separate they are nothing, but once they are combined there is only one outcome. you can't put all the ingredients together for a cake and bake it and get a turkey. it will become a cake. Human life always has value in my opinion. That single cell jelly is the greatest thing to have ever happened to me.

Posted by jeepdave Yup, so why should tax money go to abortions?

Because its a medical procedure. If you think tax money should go to any medical procedures, that is.

Its like making a cake, you have eggs and milks and flour. but once you have all those mixed together its a cake.

But it's really not a cake until you've combined the ingredients properly, baked it successfully, and possibly frosted it. An interesting analogy. But in making a cake, you're not making one out of stuff that was already part of a cake. Life does not begin at conception. It is an unbroken chain that goes back hundreds of millions of years.

I don't really have much to add to the original post, except to ask, why at conception and not at some other point?

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby What happens when an egg gets fertilized by sperm? What are all the outcomes?

Just about anything can happen as a result, including lifeless jelly.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby What happens when I blow my nose? Does a baby pop out? Will it ever be anything more than just germs?

How dare you sir! Germs are alive and deserve your utmost respect.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby When an egg is first fertilized its not much, sure, but within 6 weeks it will have a heartbeat. Doesn't a beating heart constitute as something being alive?

I don't care if it is alive or not. You kill plenty of inconsequential living things every day.

Posted by MutantMandias Just about anything can happen as a result, including lifeless jelly. How dare you sir! Germs are alive and deserve your utmost respect. I don't care if it is alive or not. You kill plenty of inconsequential living things every day.

a child is never inconsequential. and germs are no where close to the same thing. these single cell organisms will never become human. that is simple science. if you mix human egg with human sperm it will not become anything other than human life. the only things that can come from it are baby or dead baby.

here is something interesting related to this.

Posted by splumer Because its a medical procedure. If you think tax money should go to any medical procedures, that is.

Ah, but is it. If your saving the life of the mother by aborting the baby, then by all means it is a medical procedure ( as selfish one, but one none the less ) but if your doing it simply because the mother is irresponsible slut who couldn't be bothered with birth control or a rubber, then IMO its murder plain and simple.

But, I don't feel tax money should be involved in any medical procedures honestly. We all know how I stand on that anyway. I know, no matter what, your not gonna stop abortion, even if its outlawed. But, I would rather the person getting the abortion HAVE to go into a back alley to get it.

Posted by jeepdave But, I don't feel tax money should be involved in any medical procedures honestly. We all know how I stand on that anyway. I know, no matter what, your not gonna stop abortion, even if its outlawed. But, I would rather the person getting the abortion HAVE to go into a back alley to get it.

The only way to make it illegal is through science, by determining the time when human life beings. i think heartbeat is the generally accepted view on when human life begins, i know most of america has made late term abortions (16-20 weeks) illegal. So we know that apparently at 16-20 weeks it is recognized by most states as a human and you can no longer abort. But when do we determine it is human life? at 6 weeks when there is a heart beat? or when the human zygote appears? my opinion, its the zygote.

I also believe making abortion illegal will not stop abortions. if making something illegal stopped it from happening, then there wouldn't be a war on drugs and i wouldn't had been speeding yesterday to go get my son.

I'll go with when your officially preg. Ya know, a couple days after who knows, but when you take the test, and your preggo, you are carrying a child to be. So I would consider that life.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby a child is never inconsequential.

Sure. But a bit of tissue that cannot live on its own is not a child.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby if you mix human egg with human sperm it will not become anything other than human life. the only things that can come from it are baby or dead baby.

No, that is not true. It can become a baby, a dead baby, some useless tissue that is ejected naturally from the mother, or anything in between.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby The only way to make it illegal is through science, by determining the time when human life beings. i think heartbeat is the generally accepted view on when human life begins

I do not accept that "life begins when there is a heartbeat" any more than I believe that life begins at birth. Nothing is black and white, least of all life.

Posted by jeepdave Ah, but is it. If your saving the life of the mother by aborting the baby, then by all means it is a medical procedure ( as selfish one, but one none the less ) but if your doing it simply because the mother is irresponsible slut who couldn't be bothered with birth control or a rubber, then IMO its murder plain and simple.

Aha! So it's more about punishing women who have the audacity to have sex!

The only way to make it illegal is through science, by determining the time when human life beings. i think heartbeat is the generally accepted view on when human life begins, i know most of america has made late term abortions (16-20 weeks) illegal. So we know that apparently at 16-20 weeks it is recognized by most states as a human and you can no longer abort. But when do we determine it is human life? at 6 weeks when there is a heart beat? or when the human zygote appears? my opinion, its the zygote.

A heartbeat might be a good measure, except that a beating heart doesn't make you human, and you can take a single heart cell and it will beat on its own. And with late-term abortions, less than a tenth of a percent of all abortions are late term, and of those, essentially none are for reasons other than purely medical.

What makes a person a person is an interesting question, and one that I don't think will be easily answered.

Some people just shouldn't breed. Also I really don't care about this subject too much because it seems that everyone just wants to chime into everyone else's private life. I feel if you have a problem with abortion don't get one, and if you have a problem with where your taxes go just think on the happy side and just assume your taxes went to my paycheck. For the record I don't think the government should spend tax money on abortion they should funnel it into my paycheck instead.

it's a case of the conservatives talking out both sides of their faces again. On on hand, they want to tell someone what they can do with their bodies. On the other hand, they want less government invasion of day to day life.
It's like this... people fuck. It's what we do. Fact of life. Now, if you outlaw abortion, who's going to pay for all those unwanted kids? Just let them starve? Or are you going to have social programs to pay for them? See you can't have the cake and eat it too.
i guess a life is precious when you're telling a WOMAN what to do with it, but when the kids pops out 9 months later... oh sorry, bitch, too fucking bad. And what happens then? The kid gets abandoned somewhere.

Posted by Samurai it's a case of the conservatives talking out both sides of their faces again. On on hand, they want to tell someone what they can do with their bodies. On the other hand, they want less government invasion of day to day life. It's like this... people fuck. It's what we do. Fact of life. Now, if you outlaw abortion, who's going to pay for all those unwanted kids? Just let them starve? Or are you going to have social programs to pay for them? See you can't have the cake and eat it too. i guess a life is precious when you're telling a WOMAN what to do with it, but when the kids pops out 9 months later... oh sorry, bitch, too fucking bad. And what happens then? The kid gets abandoned somewhere.

So, Republicans shouldn't support laws against murder?

Of course, they already oppose laws against fraud and various financial misdeeds, at least when committed by rich people or corporations, so they are somewhat consistent in that regard.

i think i agree with his point of view