Will the abortion debate mature?

[DavidGYoung]

What are your thoughts on the following suggestions?

The anti-abortion camp will significantly improve their chances of being listened to by the other side if they remove all religious components from their arguments.

The pro-abortion camp will significantly improve their chances of being listened to by the other side if they remove the 'You must not express an opinion if you are a man' component from their arguments.

Both sides will make more of a positive impression if they stop comparing the other side to the Nazis.

[Fenris]

The anti-abortion camp will significantly improve their chances of being listened to by the other side if they remove all religious components from their arguments.

I don't know what religious component is being introduced. Isn't it simply a matter of saying "life begins at conception"?

Both sides will make more of a positive impression if they stop comparing the other side to the Nazis.

Yeah this is never going away. It's also a soft form of Holocaust denial, but nobody cares about that. Do they?

[DavidGYoung]

By religious components I mean placards with Bible quotes, any reference to God in debates, holding up icons in protests and so on. The abortion debate takes place in the secular context of politics and the anti-abortion side won't make much headway if they come across as theocrats.

[ProDeo]

As far as I know there isn't any reference in the Scriptures about abortion. I could be wrong.

[Athanasius]

As far as I know there isn't any reference in the Scriptures about abortion. I could be wrong.

The same Scripture they throw at me. David; being fearfully and wonderfully made, etc.

[DavidGYoung]

Bible verses never need to be in context in order to find their way onto a placard.

[Sojourner]

As far as I know there isn't any reference in the Scriptures about abortion. I could be wrong.

I know of no Scripture that specifically prohibits abortion, but there is a passage in Exodus worth considering:

If men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband demands and as the court allows. 23But if a serious injury results, then you must require a life for a life— 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, and stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22-25)

Two things worth noting: 1). God sees what is in the womb as a child, not an unimportant fetus. 2). If that child dies as a result of the altercation described, recompense is due, up to and including "a life for a life." That baby, even in the womb, is viewed by God as a human being deserving of the full rights accorded a human being, and to justice under the law.

After some reflection, in the foregoing context, I suppose there is a prohibition against abortion in Scripture: "Thou shalt not kill."

[Oscar_Kipling]

What are your thoughts on the following suggestions?

The anti-abortion camp will significantly improve their chances of being listened to by the other side if they remove all religious components from their arguments.

The pro-abortion camp will significantly improve their chances of being listened to by the other side if they remove the 'You must not express an opinion if you are a man' component from their arguments.

Both sides will make more of a positive impression if they stop comparing the other side to the Nazis.

I don't think the religious aspect is in any danger of being removed from the discourse because it is so dang important to so many people, and because invoking God is like the highest ground you can take in some circles. Outside of that though I do think a significant amount of work has gone into making secular pro-life arguments, so i'm not sure that there is a pressing need to get rid of the religious rationale because why not use both?


I'm not sure how greatly the 'You must not express an opinion if you are a man' (in so far as it exists as stated)  is negatively affecting the acceptance of the pro choice side of things, That is to say is there really a significant population of Pro-Life men that hold that stance merely because it is the only opinion that they feel they are allowed to have? So, i'm not sure how much pressure there is to put in significant work to eliminate it. I think the "it's not men's choice to make for women" is a similar, but more central idea, and is closely related to the "It's not anyone's else's place to make that choice for the affected individual(s)" and I don't see those going anywhere as they are kind of essential to the argument as a whole.

Anyway interesting questions, what do you think?

[Fenris]

I know of no Scripture that specifically prohibits abortion, but there is a passage in Exodus worth considering:

If men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband demands and as the court allows.

snip

Two things worth noting: 1). God sees what is in the womb as a child, not an unimportant fetus. 2). If that child dies as a result of the altercation described, recompense is due, up to and including "a life for a life."

I think the implication is that the baby is born preemie and dies. This is the bronze age after all. No NICU or modern medicine. Otherwise why punish the assailant?

That's certainly how Jews understand it.

The fatality in the next verse is understood to be the mother.

Edit to add: Ellicott's (Christian) commentary observes the following:

A personal injury peculiar to women--a hurt producing miscarriage--is here considered. The miscarriage might cost the woman her life, in which case the man who caused it was to suffer death (Exodus 21:23); or it might have no further ill result than the loss of the child. In this latter case the penalty was to be a fine, assessed by the husband with the consent of the judge

and further

And yet no mischief follow--i.e., no further mischief--nothing beyond the loss of the child.

Similarly, the "Pulpit Commentary" (also Christian) observes-

Verse 22-25. - Assault producing miscarriage. Retaliation. Women in all countries are apt to interfere in the quarrels of men, and run the risk of suffering injuries which proceed from accident rather than design, one such injury being of a peculiar character, to which there is nothing correspondent among the injuries which may be done to man. This is abortion, or miscarriage. The Mosaic legislation sought to protect pregnant women from suffering this injury by providing, first, that if death resulted the offender should suffer death (ver. 23); and, secondly, that if there were no further ill-result than the miscarriage itself, still a fine should be paid, to be assessed by the husband of the injured woman with the consent of the judges (ver. 22).

After some reflection, in the foregoing context, I suppose there is a prohibition against abortion in Scripture: "Thou shalt not kill."

It says "do not murder" actually.

[DavidGYoung]

Warfare, capital punishment, meat eating, abortion...
If I had a zloty for every time I saw "Thou shalt not kill" on a protest sign, I could buy Wrocław.

Replacing "murder" with "kill" is surely the worst mistranslation in the Bible. "Young woman" turned into "virgin" is probably in second place.

[DavidGYoung]

Most participants in the abortion debate choose one of the five as the point where they say human life begins:

Conception,
Implantation,
First detectable foetal heartbeat,
Viability outside the womb,
Birth.

In theory, they reason from this position and end up with where they stand on the ethics and legality of abortion.

How fair is it to say that a large number of activists on both sides start with their position on abortion and work backwards from there to decide where they view the start of human life?

[RabbiKnife]

Most start at the opinion and then back up from there

Starting with biological science makes much better sense

[Oscar_Kipling]

Most participants in the abortion debate choose one of the five as the point where they say human life begins:

Conception,
Implantation,
First detectable foetal heartbeat,
Viability outside the womb,
Birth.

In theory, they reason from this position and end up with where they stand on the ethics and legality of abortion.

How fair is it to say that a large number of activists on both sides start with their position on abortion and work backwards from there to decide where they view the start of human life?

I think it's pretty fair to say that lots of people are starting with a conclusion regarding the ethics of abortion first, then they form arguments that confirm and/or justify what they already believe. I wouldn't say that this is an issue that is specific to or is uniquely characteristic of the abortion debate, it's kind of a habit with folks in general. To be fair, we all end up with tonnes of beliefs that we pick up during our development that couldn't have realistically come through analysis and deep academic and philosophical understanding of a subject because in all likelihood we were youths and these ideas were handed down via social/cultural authorities and the like. I'm not defending the idea of cultivating your beliefs through confirming your biases, just saying that the order of operations aren't always up to us and is part of the reason that we are so vulnerable to it.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Most start at the opinion and then back up from there

Starting with biological science makes much better sense

I definitely agree that starting with biological science puts a person in a good position to be able to explore these questions as objectively as is possible. Do you want to explain a little bit about the path that  you believe leads from biological science to your conclusions?

[DavidGYoung]

I would call into question the way the term 'biological science' is used here.

Scientific method could establish whether an entity's development is before or after any of the five points that people regard as the start of life. It would not, however, establish which one is the best to choose. Scientific consensus, on the other hand, may well come down firmly on one of those. Would you call both scientific method and scientific consensus in the realm of biology 'biological science'?

By way of analogy, chemistry can be used to determine whether a stretch of waterway is a river, an estuary or the sea. Scientific measurements obtain the salinity. If it is below level A, it is a river. If it is above level B, it is the sea. If it is between A and B, it is an estuary. Having said that, deciding what values to give A and B are by convention, not by the application of any form of scientific method.