I think the topic of abortion is kind of fascinating. From my perspective, I understand why the religious are anti-abortion and the areligious are pro-abortion. But the motives almost seem counterintuitive.
Abortion isn’t something that can be logically reasoned out because there is a component that is added to the mix that can’t really be tested or proven and that is a soul. This soul, according to many religions, is your spiritual “body” and merges or is created with the physical body. Then, after the physical body is spent, the soul continues on, eternal, in some form or another.
So you’d think when looking at aborting a pregnancy, there should be two arguments. For the religious, it’s when exactly does the body gain a soul and therefore becomes human? For the areligious, it’s more straightforward- when is a unique human created and deserving of protection?
For the areligious, scientifically, conception is when you have a unique developing human. That human develops for typically nine months in a protective encasement, before it emerges and then continues development under external protection till it reaches maturity in a little over a decade. This maturing continues for about another ten years till it reaches peak maturity.
For the religious, the soul is what gives us knowledge, wisdom and a conscience. This soul is what separates humans from animals. So there’s an interesting question as to when would a soul enter the body? I personally don’t think an intelligent soul would enter a developing body that wasn’t ready for it, much like I wouldn’t hop in a car still being assembled in a factory.
So this brings it back to why I think abortion is so fascinating. The religious are the ones saying that there should be zero abortion and life begins at conception. Whereas the areligious are advocating that humans aren’t human until they leave the protective enclosure and take their first breaths. It almost seems backwards and makes me think, huh?
You would think that the religious would argue that the body is just a vessel until the soul enters the body and therefore till that moment, it’s just another unenlightened organism. Therefore aborting the unwanted pregnancy would be okay? This is obviously simplistic and facetious at this moment. Meanwhile, for the areligious, how could they argue that a developing human at any stage is not a human and is therefore ok to terminate?
It doesn’t make sense.
It’s a strange way to look at it, but that’s what makes listening to the arguments kind of fascinating.
For me, I do believe in a soul. I have no proof. But that doesn’t change the belief. I also think it’s unlikely as previously stated for a soul to enter a body before the body could handle the soul. Yet, I would never advocate for any girl to abort a pregnancy, but at the same time, I think that making laws explicitly making conception the time that humans get full protection is a bit precarious.
For instance, one of the people I have listened to is vehemently pro-life from conception on. His wife and him had difficulty getting pregnant for years, then one day he announced they were having twins, boy and girl. Maybe they got pregnant from fertility drugs alone, but it’s also very possible they used IVF treatments. Fraternal twins are common outcomes of both IVF and fertility treatments… and they had fraternal twins.
IVF is where medical personnel take many eggs from the female and fertilize them. They then culture embryos and select the most “viable” for implantation. That leaves a lot of embryos that the workers deem as less viable.
So are all those discarded embryos murders?
It’s a fair question and one I don’t know the answer to. But it’s one everyone should ask themselves. I know many people personally who have gone through IVF hoping to carry their own child and I don’t think they want to be thought of as accessory’s to murders.
Then there are IUDs. Most of them release hormones that prevent the ovaries from releasing eggs. However, the copper IUD is more mysterious. I’ve read articles where the author claims the IUD works by preventing implantation. I’ve read many more that claim the exact process is not fully understood. And still more articles that outright say that no eggs are released and therefore no fertilization occurs.
The argument that the copper IUD prevents implantation sounds most plausible to me because of the sheer number of people we personally have talked with who got pregnant on the copper IUD. It may be anecdotal, but the stories are overwhelming. Either way, their isn’t unanimous agreement about how it actually works. And there’s a chance that a fertilized egg is passing through the uterus because of the IUD and dying shortly after. So are all those fertilized eggs that pass through due to the IUD considered murders?
What about a miscarriage? If a woman miscarries, would the police need to investigate to make sure that the woman didn’t do something that caused the miscarriage? And if she did, even unknowingly, what then?
And of course, Rape and incest. For me this is just no. No, I don’t think a girl should be retraumatized by being forced to birth her attacker’s child. I know that there’s got to be a line drawn even in these cases, and hopefully the pregnancy is found before a pregnancy is too far along. But… No.
Personally, I don’t think any of those people should feel judged.
If I were to define when life starts based on the idea of a soul, I would say conservatively at the heart beat. I think I could live with that.
However, at the same time, I would never advocate to anyone that they should get an abortion – Ever. But that’s the difference I would take. I think we should try to educate youth why abortion is not a great option. Show them that abortion is both difficult emotionally and physically. There’s an ocean of articles out there that show how hard abortion is on girls. I’ve drilled into both of my boys why abortion should not be an option in their minds. I’ve explained how it can effect girls and them negatively and just said, don’t go there. They don’t want to be responsible for that harm. Even going so far as to advocate two forms of birth control. And when my daughter gets old enough, I’ll tell her the same.
But just because I don’t advocate aborting a pregnancy, doesn’t mean I think conception should be the start of full rights in our society. But I could be wrong. Are we human because of our soul? Is our soul created when we are conceived? or does a preexisting soul merge with the body? Or it just genetics, cells and organs? If we ever get the answer to those questions, we’ll know the answer to abortion. Till then we have to muddle through and do our best and I believe that involves some compromise.
Regarding current events, should the Supreme Court have ruled the way it did on Roe v Wade originally? And should the court now reverse it? For me, I don’t like the way Roe V Wade was decided because I don’t think it’s a federal right explicitly or implicitly written into the constitution. I’m of the mind that if it’s not explicitly written into the constitution, it’s not a federal right. So if the people want it to be a federal right, it needs to be an amendment or remain a state right until that point. It’s just proper processes. However, I do like the way one part was worded, and I believe the language should be a part of any legislation spelling out abortion rights – that it should be safe, legal, and RARE. How rare would probably need to be defined while including the supporting anti-abortion education to go along with it hand-in-hand.
So the question remains, why do the religious then choose pro-life and the areligious choose pro-abortion? Unlike a soul, this CAN be reasoned out. Religious view the body as a divine gift, plus as was previously stated, it is pretty much unknowable as to when the spirit and body combine. Between the two, the only logical choice would be to err on the most conservative side – conception.
Without religion, the logical human thinks of their life as the most important, all other lives are secondary. If one’s own life is the most important thing, than anything that inconveniences one’s own life can be eliminated. That includes other’s lives, especially those that the individual feels no connection to. With a core belief that you are the most important being, and some claim that you can supplant self for society or the earth, but I believe looking at their actions that the self still remains the most important in all cases. With this self centered belief, it’s very easy to logic that some human death is not only reasonable, but necessary.
The self-centered belief system is how abortion is justified. A baby would inconvenience me and I don’t even know it, so we’re just going to say it’s not a life, where in reality its’ that the life is not yet important. But that’s a small step from euthanasia where the old and disabled are an inconvenience and are therefore considered expendable. Then euthanasia is a small step from eugenics, where those with less desirable genetic characteristics to one group is eliminated for the group’s convenience. And eugenics is a small step from genocide where a people is considered inconvenient and thus eliminated for the larger people’s convenience. It’s all elimination of other’s life for one’s own convenience.
My belief that abortion should be allowed till the heartbeat is really an opinion of the moment. It is an opinion that is based on personal belief and practicality in the world. I think in the world we currently live in, you have to compromise a little and use your words to try to win over those who believe differently. Legislating with too heavy of measures and with fire and brimstone messaging isn’t going to win over anyone. I think that to govern all, you need to speak in logical terms about how abortion harms the self and how children are a huge benefit to the self while making logical exceptions. Like the consideration that needs to be given to the above stated cases of IVF, IUDs, miscarriage, rape and incest. Unfortunately, it seems that most politician’s rhetoric these days is only at extremes.
