So… week 4-ish then? Not conception.
Is there a presumption there that the Bible should be the basis of law? Which theological scholars agree is a combination of revisionist history and outright fabrication purely intended to support religious dogma? I am reminded of the lines from Monty Python’s “Holy Grail”:
My own take on this, and what I have personally come to terms with is you need to let go of your tactic of trying to invalidate fetal personhood. The more one looks into it, and if given the chance actually experiences it, the more they will be convinced that the fetus is a person.
So I do think you need 1: to concede that point, if for nothing else the to bring the debate onto the same level.
The issue then becomes should the woman have the right to chose, or framed in a different way, was not that life entrusted to her (by God)? and does not that make it her decision, and her responsibility?
Arguably yes, it would seem to need blood, I don’t know when that happens, however perhaps support by maternal blood supply is enough, so the need for and supply of oxygen is also a argument, does the developing (well whatever stage it is in) get maternal oxygen before it has it’s own blood? IDK, but these are biblical counter examples to breath is needed for life.
I was solely countering the argument that life starts at first breath was biblical way to deny fetal personhood. I suggest you take up this reasoning with Little Nemo who seemed to suggest using biblical arguments.
But the only reason you think that it is innocent human life, is that your religion has told you that there is a soul.
There is no reasonable evidence for a soul. You asserting it is a religious notion. Why should the government pay heed to your religious notion?
Consider, what if my religion said there is an evil spirit that will kill my children unless I savagely beat them. Do you think that the law should respect that belief? Because it is to save innocent human life, after all.
And again, calling a mindless fetus “innocent human life” is based on a religious teaching you’ve decided is true.
The assumption of correctness of a law should be based on the secular reality we live in. Until someone provides evidence for a soul, and evidence that the creator of the universe wants us to protect ensoulled fetuses, the law should be based on what we see.
Besides, doesn’t “original sin” contradict the notion of “innocent” human life anyway?
At the moment of conception, that is a sinner.
Re: and I would think that the very fact of its elusiveness to any kind of objective resolution provides the obvious answer for how it should be treated in law: it shouldn’t
Yes, but do you see that ‘not treating it’ in law is in fact not a neutral position? It is taking a stance on whether the embryo (I’m going to use ‘embryo’ here because I want to make clear I don’t draw distinctions based on stage of development) is a person. In the negative, specifically. ‘Leave it up to the individual’ only makes sense if you don’t think that what they are killing is a human person. Or if you think the needs of the human person involved are less important than the bodily autonomy of the mother. That’s fine, many people don’t. I disagree (both of those are moral axioms, unprovable one way or the other, which I don’t share). And I think if you were genuinely unsure whether the embryo was a person or not, you’d err on the side of granting it legal protection, at least in most circumstances (e.g. barring other complications like medical emergency).
Re: I live in Canada where there are no abortion laws at all (though you would be hard-pressed to find any physician willing to perform a late-term abortion without medical justification). I haven’t seen any signs yet of the end of civilization.
Unless you think the existence of a significant number of abortions is in itself a serious moral problem.
And actually, societies have tolerated murder in certain limited circumstances in the past, without seeing the downfall of civilization. Duelling, for example. Greco-Roman infanticide. Blood feuds. Killing members of the outgroup on raids. You might argue they were unhealthy societies, and I’d agree, but they certainly were functioning civilisations.
Re: At the moment of conception, that is a sinner.
‘Innocent’ in the relevant sense, meaning, ‘not doing harm’, or ‘not having done harm’. We broadly recognize that sometimes it’s necessary to kill in self defence, in war, in revolution or in judicial enactment of the death penalty (depending on your opinions about the death penalty). The unborn child generally doesn’t fit into any of those categories. (If the mother’s life or health are threatened, you can plausibly invoke the right of self-defence).
Maybe the next few red-state abortion laws will mandate the sonic probe squirt some holy water up there and perform a baptism before the abortion.
No, absolutely not. The law not taking a position is by definition neutral. It allows the individual patient and the physician to make the decision. You object to that only because you dogmatically oppose the decision that they might come to. If the law does take a position, it supersedes all other positions and unilaterally imposes its decree, which may not only be contrary to individual beliefs, but may actually be contrary to sound medical guidance.
Bzzzzzp! Thanks for playing but no. When the fetus has blood, says nothing about breath. So I can have it delicately removed as soon as it has blood pumping in its body, and it is on its own then. It can handle its own atoning.
Fewer per capita than the US. It would appear that Canada comes out ahead morally both in the number of children slaughtered and in the amount of freedom granted to its citizens in this case. GO TEAM!
Well this is really coherent.
So… No blood transfusions, then?
“The blood is the life!” - Dracula
Way off topic, and again it was to counter the claim by Little Nemo that you can Biblical deny fetal personhood due to the fetus not taking a breath (though they do breath fluid - so another form of fetal breath). But since you stated it, you are accountable for your blood, but that does not mean you are wrong for using it to help others (this is why that Jesus character comes so in handy in interpreting this book).
Breath is life and is shared, that is one way the Holy Spirit is given from one to another (other way my laying on hands) - by breath, blood is also shared, Jesus dieing on the cross, the wine becoming his blood to drink.
Trying to clean up the wording of your post. The biblical issue is not breath, but life. Life is in the breath and life is in the blood, so you can’t deny someone’s personhood due to the no breath=no life argument alone.
And it fits very nicely into the known facts, breath, one of the most crucial and critical needs of a person, is transported through the blood, which gives and sustains life.
The quality of life, is sometimes called ‘spirit’, that flows from God into us through breath, then is in our blood. That as we know is also transported to the fetus via the ‘life’ in the woman’s blood.
But that makes the woman ‘god’ of this fetus, as she is supplying life, again IMHO she gets to decide what type of god to be to this fetus therfor pro choice.
You have also introduced another interesting concept, one that at one time I supported, to leave the fetus intact, remove it alive, and let it fend for itself, if it makes it fine, if not then fine. I also supported assigning a name and if it does not make it a burial. Basically acknowledging it as a member of the human family.
“Is there a way to effectively attack the idea of fetal personhood?”
I’ve been following this thread and think that these attacks are going to be largely ineffective. I apologize to Hector for co-opting one of his statements, but the case remains we have this “Revealed Truth”, which is a subset of “Absolute Truth”. The mistake made is that this revealed truth has nothing to do with abortion, or the idea of fetal personhood. This truth is that any and all sex outside the holy bounds of matrimony is EVIL, and punishable by death under the first covenant, per sei.
My point is that if y’all want an effective attack, you’ll need to attack this more fundamental principle. Once you convince someone that the sexual behavior of animals is a great example of how humans should behave, you’ll find very little resistance to your case for abortion.
You are absolutely correct about the soul being a supernatural concept. If it’s gong to be used as an argument, then people need to be prepared to show the existence of a soul.
Personally, in terms of abortion, I think the guiding principle should be viability. When can the child survive outside the womb and grow to maturity? For the sake of argument, let’s say 6 months. Then let that be the guideline. Abortion allowed up to the end of the sixth month, not allowed afterwards unless it is to save the life of the mother.-
I think that gets terribly complicated. Is your cutoff the earliest possible time any fetus has lived? Is it viability barring any medical intervention? Viability with all possible medical intervention, regardless of cost? And what of, say, anencephaly?
ETA: Sorry, not bagging on your position. It’s just…complicated. Imagine.
.