Faith In Hiding - Are There Secular Reasons To Ban Abortion?

[Lil Red]

From the Humanist magazine: [url="http://thehumanist.org/humanist/ThomasClark.html"]http://thehumanist.org/humanist/ThomasClark.html[/url]

But the question remains whether there are other interests besides the life of the mother that might outweigh the continued existence of the embryo, for instance, her health and her desire not to raise an unwanted child. In the case of stem cells, the interests at stake are the potential medical benefits to millions that might come from research that requires the destruction of embryos. Pro-life forces generally discount such interests, while the pro-choice, pro-research forces believe they count more than the embryo's survival.

-----

Read the whole article and let me know what you think

[Lil Red]

another snippet:

The consensus giving precedence to later stages of human life exists because ordinary human psychology generates different levels of concern for different stages. We are generally more protective and concerned about an entity that clearly has sentience and self-pertaining interests than something that clearly has neither. The capacity for such concern is a basic human endowment: we are hard-wired to be protective of beings that manifest sentience and self-interest, especially those close to us and those of our species.

Since this shared predisposition is on a par with other instincts related to self and species preservation, it doesn't need external validation from a religious or philosophical worldview. Few suppose we have to justify, on any additional metaphysical basis, our natural impulse to be protective of newborns, children, and adults. Rather, our default concern for their welfare is among the secular, nonreligiously grounded benchmarks of what's moral. It sets an objective ethical standard for behavior, such that when someone's welfare is unjustly compromised, for instance by an unprovoked attack or murder, it provokes near universal condemnation. This ethical norm is a function of our shared, secular human psychology, not a contested metaphysics or worldview.

[Sirklawd]

im so so so angry after reading that.

how can people live with such a contradictory worldview.

and the way he holds up enlightenment beliefs as if they've been universal truths since the dawn of time and will forever be the standard and are far above anything any religion or philosophy could proove...how dare he.

I have more to say, but its all trying to come out at once, along with the contents of my stomach. I'll be back if i can calm down.

[Lil Red]

i'd like your thoughts on it

[Anomaly]

Good luck on getting a thoughtful and dispassionate discussion on this article!
I've only time to read the first two sections, but I recognize a fundamental flaw in the writer's logic. Mr. Clark makes this bold and sweeping statement: "In a pluralistic society such as the United States, only secular claims are allowed, or should be allowed, as direct justifications for laws and policies." This totally ignores his own opening reference to the Declaration of Indpendence which "asserts our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The D of I clearly establishes these rights are endowed by man's Creator, God, not due to 'secular reasoning'.
I didn't feel inclined to read much further, though I liked some of the points he raised that there are 'secular' reasons regarding disallowing abortion, especially issues regarding valuing or ascribing personage from a secular/philosophical perspective. I think he tends to dumb down the logic of religious arguments, but so do most religious persons so I don't hold that against him.

[Sirklawd]

Aite, I'm a little calmed down now. The first thing I want to touch upon is Mr. Clark's demand that all debate on the issue of abortion by played on the secular field. No religion/philosphy/worldview allowed. The simple fact though is that Mr. Clark's secular humanist beliefs are a worldview of their own. Also, notice is utter dependance on enlightenment ideals. This is a pervasive problem that is nearly saturating society. Most predominantly in this article is his belief that science is the be-all/end-all, that science is god. He states numorous times that nothing can be brought to the arguement unless it is found true under the umbrella of psychology.

He then quickly leaves the realm of science and speaks of rights and liberty...

He raises the question of whether or not the rights of the human in the womb become secondary to the rights of other people. He brings up cases of women's health issues during pregnancy (laughably citing the psychological trauma of childbirth as a healthconcern), and using killing fetus' for embrionic steam cell research in order to save the lives of born, sick people. His answer is, ofcourse, that "yes" these issues come before the rights of an unborn child.

He reaches this conclusion by the singular thought that "if it isnt born, its not human". He states that what is seen in an ultrasound is not a human, but something that resembles the human form. He also states that all stages of human life within the womb are mere the "potential" of human life and says there is no difference between a fertilized egg implanted and growing in the womb (read: human) that is aborted, and an unfertilized egg that is expelled during menstration.

These conclusions are absolutely ludicrous, to say the least.

Moreso, they fly directly in the face of all facts found in his almighty science (and common sense in man since the dawn of time.)

He also touches on alot of other things that reek of modern secularism. His claim that it is psychologically proven that humans are naturally disposed to care for humans that are obviously sentient and conscious, and able to communicate their own desires is so unbelievebly cold and wrong. My mom, who is a nurse for the elderly and mentally handicapped, would probably kick him in the teeth. This statement clearly shows his true colors on how he feels about the physically/mentally handicapped, as well as presupposes how people in those states must feel (if they can properly interact with the real world, they cant possibly know love/caring/etc).

He also states that suffering is worse than death. A mother's suffering of giving birth or raising the child is worse than the death of her unborn offspring - as long as the offspring doesnt suffer. Yes suffering is bad, but this man (and many other like him in society) have lost one of the most obvious and fundamental truths we are privy to as humans - that life is precious. That to exist is an amazing oportunity. It's something we are totally dependant on but have no influence on it occurring. There's also the truth of the redemptive quality of suffering, enduring pain for the greater good. Suffering in this way is just about the ultimate form of selflessness, but to a naturalist/secularist/humanist it is just a waste of time.

Theres so much more I could have written. Nearly every sentence is wrong or presupposes something about the world which is wrong. sigh. but the one thing i did want to say was that we cant play to their rules. We cant also make the domain of science the only realm for a debate. We know that science is not the full truth. Yes, it is good to play teh science game when we are trying to point out their own contradictions (how many different ways does science have say that a fetus is human before they will realize it?), but we must take the arguement to all those places they dont want to go, soul, equality and purpose of man, God, sin, truth..

Edited August 10, 2007 by Sirklawd

[God the Father]

There are secular reasons to ban abortion, and I know exactly what they are. However I feel this thread is for debate over the posted article. I just thought I'd answer the question posed in the topic title.

[iheartjp2]

[size=4]Well, for one, there's all of the men and women (yes, men are included) that endure the pain and hardship of post-abortion trauma, which does exist, by the way. That should definitely be reason enough to at least make the obtaining of an abortion harder than it already is. Not only are psychological healthrisks horrible, the physical health risks for the women are even more monstrous. Women doubled over in pain, walking out of abortion clinics, passing arms and/or legs weeks later, or worse, getting infections from rotting flesh of their children inside of them, that's just sick. Besides any of that, it's just barbaristic. For a woman to have a human life inside of her, and for her to be the only thing that that life has to depend on, it would be absolutely inhumane for her to go and have that innocent child killed simply because she didn't want it. You should expect that kind of them from Gengis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Zadong, but from the leading national power on Earth, why are liberals so willing to live beneath their own dignity?

Embryonic stemcell research, besides being unethical, has had it's success flatlined at a big fat ZERO since day one. There are NO documented or scientifically observed cures or treatments that have been rendered by embryonic stemcell research, however, there are 78 for adult, amniotic fluid, and embilical cord stemcell research. There are people who are actually walking, not taking insuline, or cancer-free because of this stemcell research. Where are the discoveries, the cures that the whole anti-life, pro-embryonic-stemcell-research crowd promised? Why do you think that they want Americans to pay for it with their taxes? There are a bunch of Hollywood zillionaire left-wing conspiracy liberals who endorse this and wag their finger at the prolife movement for standing up for life, well why don't they put their money where their mouth is and pony up the dough themselves? If it's so promising as they claim it is, they would be rushing to put bushels of cash into this so the American public wouldn't be doing it, but they're not. WHY? Because they're SMART, maybe not when it comes to their lifestyle choices or their philosophy, but when it comes to business, they're right on the money. They talk the talk because they're left-wingers, but there's not one in their right mind that would give a dime to the scientists who perform this monstrocity because they know that it hasn't produced fruit and is therefore useless. All of the research, the evidence, and the science is there, some people just don't wnat to wake up and smell the java brewing.

The entire debate is laughable. They have virtually nothing on their side, but their vocal cords, and they tax them and max them out just yelling and being obnoxious without a shred of reason.[/size]

[journeyman]

off-topic


premise:
economics is a secular justification - with no moral overtones - which takes the question of "mother's life," "child's life," "lives saved as a result of research" out of the question entirely
"public" includes mandated coverage via employer provided health insurance and/or publicly paid for medical assistance and/or "donated" medical care by medical facility without expectation of payment or reimbursement


as long as there is public funding for health care; and public funding for abortion; one secular argument is that the cost of a single procedure is a better use of the public treasure than 18 years of medical care

(I haven't read the article - and this runs contrary to the question asked)

and I'm astonished at how easy it is to state such a cold-hearted argument


please resume on-topic discussion

[journeyman]

slightly more on topic response:

(if there was a secular "pro-life" argument in that article, I missed it)




it is in society's interest to encourage bringing all embryos to birth

a. even if society must pay the medical expenses of birth, clothing, housing, feeding and education; at the end of the process, society has a new member
b. this member will either find employment, and generate tax revenues for society; or require public assistance, which will necessitate employment of another or others . . . which will generate tax revenues for society which (presuming a workable economy of scale between working embryos vs. assisted embryos) will allow society to sustain its existence



I'm more than a little weak on the medical side of this - but I believe I have read that abortions can result in potential blockage of the reproductive organs, preventing future pregnancy when the mother "chooses" to have a "wanted" pregnancy
if true, a secular argument in favor of banning abortions is to preserve the woman's right to choose, when she is disposed to make a pro-life choice

[Winchester]

It's inefficient.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='God the Father' post='1355368' date='Aug 10 2007, 03:11 PM']There are secular reasons to ban abortion, and I know exactly what they are. However I feel this thread is for debate over the posted article. I just thought I'd answer the question posed in the topic title.[/quote]
thanks for not hijacking this thread, perhaps you could start a new thread?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1358657' date='Aug 14 2007, 08:59 AM']It's inefficient.[/quote]
explain, please

[Winchester]

WARNING: EVIL ARGUMENT

Killing children before they are born is a waste. Prior to birth, we cannot really evaluate the desirability of the person. It makes more sense to wait a few years after birth to evaluate the person's worth to the state. I believe Aristotle thought much the same on the subject.


Of course, from a non-emotional, purely scientific view, it's a question of which humans have the right to not be killed. It's bad science to say that human life does not begin at conception. I've tried several times to get pro-abortion rights folks to admit this, but they usually hide behind bad science because they haven't progressed beyond our backward idea that human life is sacred.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1358681' date='Aug 14 2007, 10:34 AM']It's bad science to say that human life does not begin at conception. I've tried several times to get pro-abortion rights folks to admit this, but they usually hide behind bad science because they haven't progressed beyond our backward idea that human life is sacred.[/quote]

does this even make sense? is it sarcasm? lol. translator plz.

anyway. alot of people are missing the point here. When this author challenges us to come up with secular reasons to ban abortion we should not appease his demands, but stand our ground. My post was really really really long, but the main message I was trying to say was that "Secularism" is just another world view. When compared to Catholicism, it is an incomplete and wrong filled with "believers" who contradict their own beliefs in their everyday lives.

How can he demand us to conform to the natural sciences when he doesnt conform to the natural sciences. He speaks of things like liberty and worth and choice without giving appropriate philosophical or theogical basis' for those things. And then he turns around and says we cant argue him philosophically. Or worse, says that all OUR thigns we think are "right" are based off of pyschological determinism.

To put it bluntly, screw that. lol. The moment science is used to make philosophical statements it stops being science and starts becoming philosophy. When we debate with secularists we should bring everything we have to the table faith, philosophy, theology, history and science. We know what is right and, more importantly, we know why its right.