abortion, and confusion of past and future
I was reading a discussion on Slashdot today, and it somehow degenerated into an abortion argument. I realized I've never tried to organize my thoughts on the subject, since the topic is generally avoided like the plague (and for good reason). But this is a blog and I don't care. So here goes.
What we have is the anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists. I won't call them "pro life" and "pro choice" because those terms are biased. What I think both sides can agree on is that embryos and fetuses are alive. Yeah, that's about the extent of their agreement. Anti-abortionists say that embryos are much more than just "alive", they are actually people. Personally I find that assertion ridiculous. We don't go from being a mass of cells to an adult instantaneously. An embryo slowly takes on more and more properties of what's commonly called a "person" - such as a personality, an identity, not to mention a brain, arms, legs and various organs.
Often anti-abortionists say that life begins at conception. Again, they change the definition of a word to suit their own purposes - "life". When people speak of their lives, they generally don't include the time they spent in the womb. Of course they don't, what would they say?
"How was your pre-birth childhood, was it a happy one?"
"Well, I was pretty much just floating around in the dark the whole time, occasionally kicking at the walls. I'd say it was uneventful."
"Hey, me too! You want to hang out later?"
Anti-abortionists use an alternate definition of "life": they throw in the "soul" at conception. Oddly, they only use this definition when talking about abortion, in all other conversations they use the standard definition. I won't hear any of this business about a "soul". There's a million reasons why the concept of a soul makes no sense (except as a tool to increase the church's tax-free income), but it can easily be summed up in a hilarious way by Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred". If it's possible for a soul to inhabit a fertilized egg, why not a sperm?
What we have is the anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists. I won't call them "pro life" and "pro choice" because those terms are biased. What I think both sides can agree on is that embryos and fetuses are alive. Yeah, that's about the extent of their agreement. Anti-abortionists say that embryos are much more than just "alive", they are actually people. Personally I find that assertion ridiculous. We don't go from being a mass of cells to an adult instantaneously. An embryo slowly takes on more and more properties of what's commonly called a "person" - such as a personality, an identity, not to mention a brain, arms, legs and various organs.
Often anti-abortionists say that life begins at conception. Again, they change the definition of a word to suit their own purposes - "life". When people speak of their lives, they generally don't include the time they spent in the womb. Of course they don't, what would they say?
"How was your pre-birth childhood, was it a happy one?"
"Well, I was pretty much just floating around in the dark the whole time, occasionally kicking at the walls. I'd say it was uneventful."
"Hey, me too! You want to hang out later?"
Anti-abortionists use an alternate definition of "life": they throw in the "soul" at conception. Oddly, they only use this definition when talking about abortion, in all other conversations they use the standard definition. I won't hear any of this business about a "soul". There's a million reasons why the concept of a soul makes no sense (except as a tool to increase the church's tax-free income), but it can easily be summed up in a hilarious way by Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred". If it's possible for a soul to inhabit a fertilized egg, why not a sperm?