Hi Frolicking Dinosaurs.
I think you made a great post but I think you've made the mistake of assuming that people's views on abortion are entirely down to their religious beliefs. I have friends who are atheists and yet opposed to abortion; my husband is an agnostic and his angle is that it should be up to the woman to decide; my own point of view is Christian (Protestant) but I feel as I do out of moral issues, not out of religious ones. (That probably sounds really weird!)
Religious upbringing and anti-abortion views are correlated, but it is not necessarily true that there is a causal relationship. Religious influnce throughout life (not necessarily religious views) and views on abortion are definitely related though.
Let's try to run it by you this way. If you believe in the right to life of every human being, that has to include the rights of the unborn to their lives.
Genetically there's NO difference between the DNA of a fetus and a baby.
The flaw in that logic is that its only true if you define "human being" as a sequence of purines. Most people agree that we are greater than complex sequences of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytocine.
Being human is far, far more than having a sequence of DNA. This can be proven by the fact that a corpse has identical DNA to a living human being, yet one is alive, and one is meat.
The corpse does NOT have the same right to life as the living human being. Therefore, this definition CANNOt be used in conjunction with the argument that all human beings have an equal right to life.
But if seems clear that to be a "human being" is
greater than having a specific sequence to the double-helix.
Now the differing opinions are not when
potential humanity exists (even gametes are
potential human beings). It is when
true humanity exists.
This becomes a Faith-based argument
in all cases because what makes us "human beings" is an unprovable argument. Just like the argument of when life begins. Even more important to the debate is when does
human life begin.
We have laws against infanticide and that's not based on religious beliefs.
True. The bible actually supports infantacide in exodus.
The only difference between abortion and infanticide is timing.
Every other way they're the same thing.
Again that is only true if you have a different, literal defininition of Human being, but that definition does NOT allow for all human beings to have an equal right to life.
I only say this because if both side realized how their argumetns are totally faith-based, a greater understanding of the issue can be reached. The status quo of teh debate is that one side is "right" while the other is "wrong".
But it is definitely a subjective truth.
Logically, both sides can be argued, but neither can be argued
perfectly. The subjective definition of
what makes us human is the point of contention. When does HUMANITY begin. Not "life".
Life is constant throughout the process. A gamete is
definitely alive. And it is
definitely an integral part of the human life-cycle.
The argument that it doesn't become
human until it's DNA is correct (chomosomes linked up) means that those afflicted with Downs Syndrome or Williams Syndrome or any other one of the disorders based on having drastically abnormal DNA (incorrect # of chromosomes) no longer QUALIFY as human and thus,
lose their "right to life" by this argument.
At the same time, as described above, the "human DNA = human life" argument fails when corpses and other things that have the same exact DNA come into play.
The DNA-based definition of humanity fails as a logical exercise because it forces equivocation when it is applied into argument sabout right to life.
You can define humanity as a sequence of DNA, but you cannot use that definition as a logical argument in a right to life debate.
You need to redefine humanity as something related what is commonly called the "soul" for a right to life debate to exist.
The "person/self" of the being is the integral factor in the debate.
This is why the scientifically defined aspect of viabiltiy is a key factor in the logical debate.
"Self" can be scientifically deterimined to be when the fetus becomes CAPABLE of being autonomous for it's life-functions. It consumes it's own food, it regulates it's own transfer of oxygen/carbon dioxide etc.
It doesn not necessarily need to be
efficient at these life functions (need a respirator/feeding tube etc) it just needs to be capable of the tranfers biologically.
This definition of "human being" does not suffer the same flaws as the DNA argument because equivocation is not necessary in order to exclude clear non-humans (such as corpses which are no longer capable of being autonomous for life functions).
But of course this logical argument is totally inneffective for abortions prior to viability.
