Try a little logic in abortion talk
I spent more than 40 years in information technology. With computers, logic rules.
I apply logic to other areas of my life as well. Logic cuts through emotions and religion in dissecting problems.
Here’s my logical analysis of abortion.
For a starting point, I’ll use the anti-choice bumper sticker, “It’s a baby, not a choice.”
A blastocyst, which morning-after pills abort, is a fertilized egg. It’s smaller than a pinhead.It is not a baby. It’s not really conceived.
Technically, conception is when the blastocyst implants in the uterus — about five days later. Morning-after pills prevent implantation long before it would occur.
Many fertilized eggs spontaneously abort before then. No one mourns. No one marches.
Usually, no one knows it happened. But let that blastocyst be in a petri dish or threatened by the morning-after pill and suddenly, it’s not a dot of dividing cells.
It’s a baby, and we’re killing it. Really?
Of course not. How about when the blastocyst becomes an embryo? An embryo is the developing human from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception.
After eight weeks, an embryo is the size of a kidney bean. Is that a baby? Not even close. To me, it’s still a choice.
The embryo is redefined as a fetus about two months after conception. However, a fetus that cannot live outside the mother’s womb is not a baby, either.
And a fetus cannot feel pain until well past the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions occur.
I agree with the anti-choice people that human life begins when an egg is fertilized.
But the question we should ask is when does a fertilized egg become a human and entitled to human protections? I am Christian and believe that a blastocyst/embryo/fetus becomes human when it receives a soul.
But only God knows when that happens. Since God hasn’t answered that question for me, I apply logic. So, except for extreme birth defects or the mother’s physical health, I think abortions should not be performed after 18 weeks. It’s logical.
But what about women? In anti-abortion talk, people seem to forget that the blastocyst/embryo/fetus is inside a living woman. And the woman needing an abortion feels pain before 20 weeks — physical, mental and emotional pain.
Not all women become pregnant because of wanton sex. Many are married or in committed relationships.
But because of circumstances, often beyond their control, having a child is not feasible. A job loss or cancer, for example, may make having a baby frightening.
I’ve talked to women who’ve had abortions. One was a woman with grandkids. She and her husband couldn’t face starting over again.
Another was a woman with three children — all results of horrible pregnancies followed by 72-hour labors (Yes, bad doctor). She said she’d kill herself rather than do that again.
One was a 14-year-old girl. She just cried.
Should we force these women to have children? Anti-choice is based on emotional/religious reasons, not logic.
Logically, it makes no sense to me to ignore living women in favor of potential babies. However, as a Christian, I find this focus on the potential human over the living, breathing, thinking, feeling and hurting woman to be cruel.
Life begins at conception. But, until a fetus is viable, it’s not a baby.
We need to stop focusing on a potential human and have compassion for the human woman whose body contains the egg. It should be her choice.
After all, it’s only logical.
Suzanne Conaway of Kansas City is retired from information technology. To reach her, send email to oped@kcstar.com or write to Midwest Voices, c/o Editorial Page, The Kansas City Star, 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64108.
Suzanne Conaway
12 months agoKay, have you ever tried to cuddle a blastocyst. It’s dividing cells. It is NOT a baby. And, technically, conception happens when the blastocyst attaches to the uterine wall.
I looked all these terms up in the dictionary and medical books. Did you?
JR Beillenhouser
12 months agoSuzanne is Spock.
Unfortunately, there is alot in her writing that is illogical.
I’m in information technology as well. All it takes is one flaw in logic to make the entire algorithm illogical. Unfortunately, for you, that is acknowledging that human life begins at conception.
Suzanne Conaway
12 months agoAs I pointed out, ‘life’ is NOT a baby. Some even argue that the egg is life. But it’s not a baby either.
Babies begin as a fertilized egg, but it takes lots more time to actually make that egg a real child.
Do you consider an acorn an oak tree?
JR Beillenhouser
12 months agoIn the old days, a preemie born at 30 weeks would have difficulty surviving. Now preemies can possibly survive at 23 weeks. As medical science continues to develop, we will see this number shrink.
Are those preemies viable or are they viable only when they leave the hospital?
Additionally, we will get to the point when a baby will be able to be created in a test tube and never implanted in a woman. When is the magic date that that child will be viable?
Is a baby that is born really viable? Can we conclude that, as several ethicists in England just surmissed, babies are not viable either because of the care that they require and can in good conscience be euthanized is desired?
Logic as it applies to IT is pretty black and white. “To me, it’s still a choice” isn’t logical. You haven’t really addressed alot of issues, because you are infusing alot of opinions and emotions into your writing. (“She said she’d kill herself rather than do that again.”, “She just cried.”)
The facts are these. Conception creates a unique genetic code possessing attributes which are shared by all humans. Humans cannot give birth to things that are not human. Humans require years until they can care for themselves. I’d make any logical arguments off of these statements and leave the conjecture out of it, if you really intend to be logical.
JR Beillenhouser
12 months agoI don’t consider an acorn an oak tree, but I do consider an acorn and a tree as different stages in the life of an oak. Just like a fetus or an embryo or a teenager, or elderly person are all different stages of a human.
Suzanne Conaway
12 months agoThe ‘just cried’ is not my emotion. I was reporting her words.
Yes, there will probably be test tube babies someday. But right now, a woman has to carry the child.
An acorn may be a stage of a tree, but I don’t begrudge the squirrel who eats the potential tree.
Likewise, I don’t begrudge a woman making the decision at an early stage of pregnancy the right to terminate the pregnancy. She’s not a ‘potential’ person. She’s a person in her own right and should be allowed to make her own decisions.
However, I do believe the cutoff point should be before the fetus can feel pain.
Robert Copher
12 months agoNice job Suzanne. I predict a low reader response. lol Most of it will be calling you the “Debil”
Asking them to cuddle a blastocyst. lol perfect.
And I perticularly like your distinction between life and baby.
Well done.
It will fall on many deaf ears as one responder so proudly declared. But you can’t talk to those unwilling to listen as most self-righteous people are.
Matt McKinley
12 months agoLet me post some logical conclusions drawn by the Journal of Medical Ethics:
… The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.
… Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.
… The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.
Suzanne Conaway
12 months agoMatt,
WOW! You’ve really researched this! Good work!
Unfortunately, most people can’t get past their religious training to differentiate between a ‘potentential’ person and a real person.
Jon Whitten
12 months ago“But only God knows when that happens. Since God hasn’t answered that question for me, I apply logic.”
Your first sentence is true. The fact is nobody know when life begins. Accordingly, may people believe that since we do not know, isn’t it prudent to err in the favor of life? Heck, we give that courtesy to potentially heinous, guilty killers when the judge charges the jury to find for the defendant if there is even a shadow of a doubt in a capital case. If we give that benefit to potential killers why wouldn’t we do that when it comes to potentially innocent life?
The reason is that many do not believe life has inherent value based on being created by a higher power. Indeed, if there is no “creator”, then the only value life has is economic. Then the fun really begins because if life is purely an economic proposition, unwanted babies, disabled and elderly are ALL dispensable because they are economically draining and abortion is just the beginning.
The other sentence is that you apply logic…but it is “your” logic. This isn’t math and accordingly, “your” logic (as is mine)is peppered with your opinion…and then, based on the definition of logic, is no longer logical.
Matt McKinley
12 months agoMs. Conaway, make no mistake, I have nothing but regret for my participation in the abortion I was involved with.
Never again.
Matt McKinley
12 months agoThe comments from the JME were discussing the “abortion” of post birth Down Syndrome babies.
Truly sickening.
Robert Copher
12 months agoNo one, I don’t think, has ever claimed that abortion doesn’t end life. There is life in the sperm, life in the egg, life in the acorn, and in my hypothesis which I have expounded on, life in all of space and time and that all information is living/conscious information.
The point of contention is, when is it human, and capable of human traits. A fetus will never be capable of reflective consciousness in fetus form. Therefore not human. Not a person. And is not any more special to GOD than all of the rest of life.
So ther is no moral high ground here. If you eat, you have killed and can not claim abortion to be any more cruel than any other ending of life.
We give “courtesy” as you describe it to terrible criminals because the are human. They are people. And even pro-abortion people are not about cruelty to other humans.
To claim that every blastocyst/fetus will grow into a human is as much “playing God” as you criticize pro-abortionist to be. You have no guarantees. And to ignore the rights of the human mother in favor of your GOD edict, is IMO simply self serving at a very human level.
Suzanne Conaway
12 months agoRobert Copher,
Well, your posting of “The point of contention is, when is it human, and capable of human traits. A fetus will never be capable of reflective consciousness in fetus form. Therefore not human.” says in one sentence what I took 630 words to say.
Really good point. I cannot understand giving as much importance to a dot of dividing cells as to a real human being (post-birth).
I sometimes feel (and, yes to all who doubt my logic, I’ll admit it’s just a personal feeling) that the anti-abortionists want to punish the woman for having sex. “See if nine months of throwing up and getting fat will change your evil, fornicating ways.”
I especially feel this way when I read posts from people who assume (Limbaugh-like) that if a woman is having sex, she must be a wanton slut.
Suzanne Conaway
12 months agoMatt, I agree with you about post-birth Down Syndrome babies. But, since they’re post-birth, that’s not abortion — it’s murder.
George Hunsucker
Northland
12 months agook, let’s agree to 20 weeks and then no more killing… are all you pro-abortion people ready to sign=up for that??????
Suzanne Conaway
12 months agoGeorge, Medical science says that the fetus cannot fell pain until 20 weeks. I backed it up in my article (and in my mind) to 18 weeks make sure that there is no pain to the fetus.
Obviously, I would be ready to sign up to that. However, I think Robert Copher’s statement ““The point of contention is, when is it human, and capable of human traits. A fetus will never be capable of reflective consciousness in fetus form. Therefore not human.” says it all. The point of contention should not be when does ‘life’ begin. It should be ‘when does the fetus become human”.
Since I don’t like pain or causing pain, (except to these damn fruitflies that keep committing hari kari in my wineglass), I use pain as my point of humanity.
Robert Copher
12 months ago20 weeks works for me. I must admit I am not familiar with current laws and what point abortions are not allowed. I assumed that “late term”, being illegal, took into consideration the points that we have discussed and set it somewhere in that 20 week area. And I’m not sure late term abortions are illegal everywhere. But yes I think they should be. The decision to abort should not be drug out into the final stages of pregnancy.
George - Thank you. That is a big concession for you, I can imagine, but much appreciated.
Suzanne - I think we are on the same page and quote my comments or claim them as your own any time you think it will help explain our position.
Good night
JR Beillenhouser
12 months ago“The point of contention is, when is it human, and capable of human traits. A fetus will never be capable of reflective consciousness in fetus form. Therefore not human.”
So being a human is contingent upon “reflective consciousness”. Therefore, Alzheimer’s patients are not human, nor are certain levels of retardation, or autistic children, or millions of other people in this country alone. Who gets to decide what “reflective consciousness” is? Who gets to decide?
Your so called “logic” has many holes in it.
Many civilizations have defined what it is to be human and have done away with those not in the definition. I bet you can name a few of them. They were nothing but evil.
It’s funny Suzanne how you so embraced Matt’s Medical Ethics statements before you knew what they applied to.
Robert Copher
12 months ago“Who gets to decide what “reflective consciousness” is”
Your obviously in a discussion you don’t understand and will make any comment based on you emotional need for attention. I think thats called trolling.
All of the examples you gave have reflective consciousness. The awareness of self. Even some lower primates have reflective consciousness. We are not that much more evolved than our closest primate relative and to set that as a criteria is not setting the bar very high.
So no-one gets to “decide”.
When your comments show that you might understand what is being discussed, I’ll respond. Otherwise you’re just trolling.
Jon Whitten
12 months agoMr. Copher writes, “…And is not any more special to GOD than all of the rest of life.”…and then in the next sentence says, “So there is no moral high ground here.”
It would seem he claims a tremendous moral high ground since he knows and speaks for God as to what is special about life.
Suzanne Conaway
11 months, 4 weeks agoIn all these posts, the emphasis has been on the fetus.
What about the woman??? It seems that no one cares one way or another about her.
JR, In an earlier post, I differentiated between pre-birth and post-birth. That covers your Alzheimer’s, etc. argument.
Brian Berry
11 months, 4 weeks agoMs. Conaway, alot of the problem is the hypocracy of the law concerning the fetus. It is legal for a woman to abort it but, another person can be charged in it’s death, as in case of a car wreck. If prochoice camp can eliminate the personhood of the fetus, your cause would be in better shape.
Suzanne Conaway
11 months, 4 weeks agoBrian, I agree with your thought about the car wrecks. Seems to me that the laws should take the age of the fetus into account when charging murder or manslaughter.
JR Beillenhouser
11 months, 4 weeks agoI have raised numerous relevant arguments that dispute your so called logic and you can’t refute them. Suzanne postulates that this argument is about logic, but her arguments are emotion based. Robert takes the trolling argument because he has nothing to back up his statements. Suzanne can’t really describe her logic then takes Robert’s argument as her own.
According to Robert, all patients that are demented, retarded, people in comas, etc, have an awareness of self. Perhaps you have never been in a hospital or nursing home. You talk up how you want the government out of your life, yet want them to decide what an awareness of self is.
My argument takes the logical conclusion that the government, given the ability to decide when life begins, also will decide when life ends when it fits their purpose. Your generation fought for and gave them that. Since baby-boomers are the proverbial mouse in the snake and are ending their usefulness (this has already been floated http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html) don’t be surprised when the tables are turned.
I place value on human life because it is human life, you require a value above and beyond that fact. This theory is called eugenics, you might want to look it up and see what countries adopted it’s theories. This slippery slope allows those in charge to take the next logical step and decide not only self awareness but value to society.
Suzanne Conaway
11 months, 4 weeks agoJR, you said “My argument takes the logical conclusion that the government, given the ability to decide when life begins, also will decide when life ends when it fits their purpose.” Seems the govt. already has decided to decide when life ends. Hence, assisted suicide is against the law, Terri Schavo (I can’t remember the spelling) was forced to live (or at least breathe) when 40% of her brain was gone.
Human life is valuable. But sometimes, it becomes a burden. So, as the United Method Church Book of Discipline says:
We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.
Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, family, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.
I’m Methodist and I agree with the UMC position on abortion. And I think it could sometimes apply to the end of life as well.
Jon Whitten
11 months, 4 weeks agoMs. Conaway, as to the argument about the beginning of life and abortion, the sides will never agree. One is based on the protection/value of all “potential human life”, one is based on convenience/preference of the known life (the woman).
However, Mr. Beillenhouser correctly points out that you wrote an article claiming you used logic to arrive at a conclusion when in truth you used opinion and try to claim it as logic….and that is a fact. Then to further drift from any semblance of logic, you quote Methodist dogma to somehow support your view…you are strange fruit.
Suzanne Conaway
11 months, 4 weeks agoMy logic, I’ll admit, ends at the stages of the fertilizxed egg. However, I still can’t see the logic of so-called Christians who seem to totally disregard the woman in favor of even a blastocyst. This is why I ended with opinion. But, sometimes it seems that they (the anti-choice folks) want to punish the woman for having sex.
I quoted Methodist dogma to show that not all Christians or all Christian churches are of a like mind about abortion. Besides, it referred to JR’s comments about govt. interference with life and death — not directly to my article.
Phil Cardarella
11 months, 3 weeks agoExcellent analysis.
Of course, the issue is briming with hypocrisy.
Catholic dogma did not historically treat abortion as the equivilant of murder. The decision to do so now has the consequences of creating the logical basis for the murder of doctors and other crimes. If you preach that abortion is the murder of children, then you are preaching that preemptively killing a doctor is justified and moral.
Of course, I have always felt that the now-dominant wing of the GOP would gladly sacrifice toddlers on the Altar of Baal if it preserved the 15% capital gains tax rate. They use abortion as a wedge issue, not because they give a rodent’s rear about a fetus any more that a child that is born.
I am far more tolerant of argument about abortion from someone who has adopted a disable child than I am from someone who has voted to cut medicaid for kids.
Lucy Rogers
11 months, 3 weeks agoThe title here is truly ironic, as this article is completely lacking in logic. Oh, where to start… First, please consult a biology textbook and educate yourself on this subject. A blastocyst is not a “fertilized egg”. (Technically, after fertilization, the term “egg” no longer applies). A human being starts as a one-celled zygote, which divides, eventually forming a multicellular blastocyst. Second, please try talking to actual pro-lifers. It’s astonishing how many misconceptions you have about us. I’ll address a few further down.
Third, stop using the idiotic term “anti-choice”, unless you wish to continue looking foolish. We don’t oppose choice; we oppose the killing of innocent children. “Anti-choice” would be a more appropriate term for the pro-abortion side, as an aborted child never gets a choice.
Here are a few quotes I would like to address:
“And a fetus cannot feel pain until well past the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions occur.”
Using this “logic”, would it be morally acceptable for somebody to anesthetize you, and then kill you? If so, why not?
“But what about women? In anti-abortion talk, people seem to forget that the blastocyst/embryo/fetus is inside a living woman. And the woman needing an abortion feels pain before 20 weeks — physical, mental and emotional pain.”
…..You’ve never even bothered to talk to a pro-lifer, have you? Pro-lifers want to help both the mother and her child. We have started CPCs and organizations such as Birthright for this very purpose. You also conveniently ignore the fact that many women have been harmed by abortion, both physically and mentally. You might want to google “Silent No More” for some perspective on this.
“I agree with the anti-choice people that human life begins when an egg is fertilized.
But the question we should ask is when does a fertilized egg become a human and entitled to human protections?”
You just contradicted yourself here.
“Should we force these women to have children? Anti-choice is based on emotional/religious reasons, not logic.”
Pro-lifers are not trying to “force women to have children”. The only way to force a woman to have a child is to forcibly impregnate her. I have never seen a pro-lifer advocate this. When a woman is pregnant, she already has a child. I’m going to assume that by “anti-choice”, you mean “pro-abortion”. In that case, I completely agree that there is no logical basis for the pro-abortion position. As you have so beautifully demonstrated here. If you were attempting to use “anti-choice” to describe the pro-life movement, then you have succeeded in making yourself look doubly foolish. Yes, there are religious pro-lifers, but there are pro-lifers who are not Christian, or even religious. There are scientists and doctors who are pro-life. There are Democrats and independents who are pro-life.
Sarah Vogts
11 months, 3 weeks agoLogic is a great tool in any debate, but for Christians, the Bible needs to play a key role in forming a belief about whether abortion is right or wrong. I would like to throw in a little logic of my own here. Mrs. Conway, you say that that God has not answered the question of when a blastocyst/embryo/fetus receives a soul and therefore in your eyes becomes a human. With you saying that, I am not sure how you concluded that the soul must not be given until after 18 weeks, if God has not told you when that is. Take a look at Psalm 51:5 (NIV) – “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” I take this as evidence that a soul is given at the absolute latest by the point of conception, because David (the writer of the verse) could not have been sinful if he had not had a soul. This does not apply only to David, but to all humans and also unborn children. Also look at Jeremiah 1:5 (NIV) – “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as prophet to the nations.” Not only did God set Jeremiah apart to be His prophet before he was born, but he even knew him before he was conceived. For God to know him, Jeremiah would have needed to have a soul before he was even conceived. These verses show that the blastocyst/embryo/fetus is indeed a human before the point of conception or at least by the point of conception because it has a soul. So God may not have told us exactly when the blastocyst/embryo/fetus receives a soul and therefore becomes human, but He has made it clear that it has a soul before or by the point of conception. I think that these verses provide a logical argument as to why abortion, even before 18 weeks, is wrong.