Abortion and the "soul"

[agnosticatheist]

At what point does the human fetus acquire a soul?

Until brain activity starts, the human fetus is technically just a non-conscious, non-sentient life form.

The hypothetical soul is what supposedly makes us human and "makes us special from the rest of the animal world". I think it is fair to say that everything that is claimed to be a function of the soul (consciousness/awareness, emotions, moral reasoning) are not possible without the brain.

If the human fetus does indeed acquire a soul when brain activity starts, then why is it wrong to abort the fetus before brain activity starts? It's nothing special before the brain activity starts. Sure, it has its own unique DNA. It is a functioning organism. But, the same could be said of a housefly, crocodile, etc. If any such organisms were presenting a problem, I would guess theists would have no objection to them being terminated...

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 61 by dianaiad]

I had a few responses typed up, but I'm just not sure what your arguments actually are. Here's some of the angles:

1) What do you mean by the "specific individual"?

I mean; 'specific individual.' As in "this individual has this set of DNA instructions, and except for an identical twin, no other individual has that specific set of DNA instructions."

... why are DNA instructions important?

The personality isn't set (in this sense). Their thoughts, memories, likes & dislikes. Who they will be isn't determined.

Those things are not determined a birth, either, but I notice that killing a newborn isn't considered justifiable because those things aren't set yet.

Once again, you're looking at this the wrong way.
When someone says abortion is justified because they aren't yet developed in this, they mean there isn't yet a justification to object to it.

I consider consciousness and personality to be valuable.
I have seen no grounds for thinking there could be reason to object to an embryo being killed.

Here is an anecdote: a true story, as it happens, that I think completely explains both my attitude and my objections to the cynicism and sophistry involved in the position your post reflects.

This happened in 1838, at a place called Haun's Mill, immediately after Governor Boggs of Missourri issued his Extermination Order (hey, don't look at me, HE called it that) against the Mormons. The incident I'm going to tell you about happened at a little place called Haun's Mill.

A group of armed men attacked the small town and killed nineteen men and boys, shooting through the chinks of the blacksmith's shop where they were hiding. The women hid in the woods while the men drew the fire, not that this helped all the women...but again, that's beside the point.

One of the nineteen killed was a nine year old named Sardius Smith. He was dragged out from under the forge, where he had been hiding after he saw his father killed and a brother shot through the hip. The man who got him put a gun to his head and, quite literally, blew his brains out, saying that 'nits make lice, and if he'd have lived he'd have become a damned Mormon."

That was excuse enough.

I think exactly the same thing about those who figure that it's OK to abort fetuses because they aren't born yet, or breathe yet, or whatever developmental milestone it is that has been arbitrarily set in order to say 'well, this fetus hasn't got here yet, so we can kill it."

Nits make lice, after all.

The reality is, the REASON those fetuses are killed is so they will NOT be born and become adults, eventually.

Nits make lice.

If you want to call this a tautology...well, yes, I suppose it is. But the fallacy isn't on the part of those who point out that a fetus WILL become an adult unless it dies first. It's on the part of those who use 'but they aren't adults yet, so it's permissible to kill them"

Or as you put it 'there is no objection to killing them."

Well, there are a few objections, and one of them is the sheer fallacious nature of the 'but they don't have....(insert some milestone that they WILL reach if they aren't killed) so it's OK to kill them now, since once they reach that milestone it won't be."

The thing is, if it is not permissible to kill a human child, newborn or adult simply because that person is inconvenient to those responsible for his or her care and feeding, than it is not permissible to kill that individual at any point on the developmental journey.

You claim non religious reasons, but your post betrays you. It seems clear where (at least some of) your emotional reaction comes from in regards to this topic. Mine comes from the fear that someone would be able to dictate to my daughters about carrying a fetus or not without them having a choice in the matter (besides for health reasons I would imagine).

The right for a woman to decide to carry a fetus to term should not be compared to harm done to the living IMO. Not even if they are Mormon. Next I fear you will also want to kill the Beatles over the topic of being able to choose to carry a fetus or not.

I'm sorry about what happened to some Mormons in the early 1800's, but I don't see what that has to do with my daughters for example having the ability to choose to carry a fetus to term or not.

[dianaiad]

You claim non religious reasons, but your post betrays you. It seems clear where (at least some of) your emotional reaction comes from in regards to this topic. Mine comes from the fear that someone would be able to dictate to my daughters about carrying a fetus or not without them having a choice in the matter (besides for health reasons I would imagine).

The right for a woman to decide to carry a fetus to term should not be compared to harm done to the living IMO.

That's the disconnect right there. How is a fetus NOT 'living?" It certainly fits any and all definitions of being a living, distinct, organism...a human being.

Not even if they are Mormon. Next I fear you will also want to kill the Beatles over the topic of being able to choose to carry a fetus or not.

I'm sorry about what happened to some Mormons in the early 1800's, but I don't see what that has to do with my daughters for example having the ability to choose to carry a fetus to term or not.

That example wasn't about Mormons, just because it happened to Mormons. It was about the reason used to kill the nine year old. The killer took Sardius' life for exactly the same reason that abortions are done; to prevent him from 'becoming' what he was 'going to become."

Indeed, the killer was just as incorrect in his assessment as those who abort an unborn human: they don't want this fetus to become a person...but it already is a human being, a life, just as Sardius wasn't "going to become a damned Mormon,' at nine, he already was; he would have been baptized the year before.

I used this example, not because of its religious implications, but because of the excuse used.

I could hunt around and find others that are equally applicable, from all sorts of folks, from atheists to fundamentalists, but I used this one because I already knew about it.

If I became an atheist, my views on abortion would be the same, and as for your daughters....I'd tell them the same thing I told mine. I raised MY daughters to understand how special a bond sex is, and that the reason for, and the product of, sex is children. If it's not for the direct production of children, it's for the cementing of the bond between parents.

I also told them what I would tell your daughters: you have the absolute right to decide whether you want to be pregnant. Your choice. Make it...and do what needs to be done about it...BEFORE you have sex.

Once you have actually conceived...it's not all about you, then, is it? Someone else is there; someone you invited into being. Deal with it, and 'killing' that new being simply because you weren't careful enough with birth control is not an option.

Again...nowadays there is NO excuse, especially in the USA where birth control is both easily obtained and cheap, for an unwanted pregnancy as a result of consensual sex.

None.

[Bust Nak]

"person" is a legal definition, assigned by custom, culture and law. A fetus is not a 'person,' because today's custom, culture and law don't assign 'personhood' until birth. At least.

I never claimed that a fetus was a person. Nor have I used the word 'murder,' because 'murder' is also a legal definition. I think abortion is akin to murder, with the same sort of motive and certainly the same result, but legalities should be observed.

Fair enough, but that hardly changes anything since fetus is not a human being either. As far as I am concern person is interchangeable with human being. I would also accept that "person" is the moral sense and not just the legal sense.

However, SCIENTIFICALLY, that fetus is indeed a human being, as it is a 'being,' (something alive, that exists, and is an individual) and 'human" (anybody who tries to argue that a human fetus isn't, after all, human, is not playing with a full...er, not paying attention in biology)

"human being" is a scientific, not a cultural, designation. That fetus is a being, and it's human.

Science doesn't say what is or isn't a being. Scientifically, a human fetus may well have unique and human DNA, but that doesn't make it a human being or an individual.

We give more rights to the brain dead coma patient who never WILL recover brain function than to the fetus who absolutely will, as soon as more cells divide and develop.

Exactly as one was expect, given the moral worth of a human being over a fetus, no?

I find that to be....unconscionable and incomprehensible. I honestly do not understand the mind set.

I don't think it's hard to understand, we see a fetus as a blob of human tissue, you may not see it the same way, but in what way is that hard to understand at all?

[dianaiad]

"person" is a legal definition, assigned by custom, culture and law. A fetus is not a 'person,' because today's custom, culture and law don't assign 'personhood' until birth. At least.

I never claimed that a fetus was a person. Nor have I used the word 'murder,' because 'murder' is also a legal definition. I think abortion is akin to murder, with the same sort of motive and certainly the same result, but legalities should be observed.

Fair enough, but that hardly changes anything since fetus is not a human being either. As far as I am concern person is interchangeable with human being. I would also accept that "person" is the moral sense and not just the legal sense.

However, SCIENTIFICALLY, that fetus is indeed a human being, as it is a 'being,' (something alive, that exists, and is an individual) and 'human" (anybody who tries to argue that a human fetus isn't, after all, human, is not playing with a full...er, not paying attention in biology)

"human being" is a scientific, not a cultural, designation. That fetus is a being, and it's human.

Science doesn't say what is or isn't a being. Scientifically, a human fetus may well have unique and human DNA, but that doesn't make it a human being or an individual.

We give more rights to the brain dead coma patient who never WILL recover brain function than to the fetus who absolutely will, as soon as more cells divide and develop.

Exactly as one was expect, given the moral worth of a human being over a fetus, no?

I find that to be....unconscionable and incomprehensible. I honestly do not understand the mind set.

I don't think it's hard to understand, we see a fetus as a blob of human tissue, you may not see it the same way, but in what way is that hard to understand at all?

I don't understand, really, how you CAN see it as just 'a blob of human tissue."

To me, it is a devaluation of everything human; it's arbitrary. An excised appendix is a 'blob of human tissue,' but it will never become a grown up human adult.

A conceptus will.

If it doesn't die/you don't kill it first.

......and while 'person' is a legal concept, "human' and 'being' are NOT legal concepts. There's no squishiness about either 'human' or 'being,'

There is no medical or scientific point at which everyone can look at and say 'here it is a human" and "here it isn't."

From the time the egg and sperm meet and that human is on the path to adulthood, it is HUMAN. more, it is A human.

The only difference between a blastocyst and the human adult it will become (unless it dies first) is development and time. There's no point after that in which the ultimate result might change, so that this specific human will become something else...like a guppy. It is, and will always be, a human. The only thing that will stop it from being an adult human is death....

And that is the deciding line for me. Any point along that line that you draw to say 'here it is ok to kill it, and there it isn't' is purely arbitrary, without any scientific or ethical justification.

So I can't draw that line and I honestly do not understand the viewpoint of those who can.

[Clownboat]

That was excuse enough.

I think exactly the same thing about those who figure that it's OK to abort fetuses because they aren't born yet, or breathe yet, or whatever developmental milestone it is that has been arbitrarily set in order to say 'well, this fetus hasn't got here yet, so we can kill it."

Nits make lice, after all.

The reality is, the REASON those fetuses are killed is so they will NOT be born and become adults, eventually.

Nits make lice.

If you want to call this a tautology...well, yes, I suppose it is. But the fallacy isn't on the part of those who point out that a fetus WILL become an adult unless it dies first. It's on the part of those who use 'but they aren't adults yet, so it's permissible to kill them"

Or as you put it 'there is no objection to killing them."

When I say "It's ok because they aren't yet conscious", what I mean is there is an absence of sufficient reason to prevent it, with regards given to those who talk about them being human, the fact that they will become conscious has nothing to do with the argument at all. Consciousness is brought up because having consciousness and the capability of moral learning is more valuable than being the same species.

It may be possible in 100 years time to wire up a rock with some complicated circuitry and make it conscious. It might be inevitable for a particular rock. But that wouldn't affect the morality of breaking the rock now.

Yes, the reason they are killed is so they will not be born, of course. But that has nothing to do with the reason for which they should be allowed to be killed - namely the lack of sufficient reason to ban it.

Comparing an embryo to a child is a false analogy - embryos aren't conscious or capable of significant learning and children are. Killing an embryo IS like killing a nit.

Frankly, this attitude scares me. Really.

It may be easier to kill a nit than a full grown louse, but it's not illegal or immoral to kill a louse.

It IS illegal and immoral (with some very rare and extenuating exemptions) to kill a human baby/child/teenager/adult.

It is not possible for a human infant to think, reason and behave like an adult. It is not physically or mentally capable of doing so, but in an odd twist of moral...something...it is actually considered more outrageous to murder an infant than it is to murder an adult, in most (if not all) cultures.

...and a new born infant is not going to become an adult in nine months. A conceptus, however, WILL become an infant in nine months, if it doesn't die first. It's not going to become anything else. Yet you seem perfectly fine with killing the human at that stage.

It honestly makes no sense to me. None. I really don't understand how anybody can think this way....and not realize that his argument can be applied with equal validity to killing a newborn...or a two year old...or a prepubescent boy or girl.

All you have to do is substitute a different level of development in the place of the one you are using as the 'line' for the fetus.

Doesn't matter what line you draw or where you draw it. If the ONLY reason this human individual doesn't get there is because it dies first, then killing it so that it won't get there is EXACTLY like killing an infant to prevent it from becoming a child.

.................................exactly the same reasoning.

And I really do not understand those who engage in it.

No questions in your post to address, so...

Why do you think a god might create a process that aborts nearly 70% of conceptions? Does that not bother you in the least? It's difficult to watch you argue against a women being the one to make the decision while knowing you believe in a god concept that aborts 70% of fetuses via the process he created.

Most of these 70% would end up being wanted babies, while almost 100% of choice abortions or done on an un-wanted fetuses. Yet, which do we hear people fighting for? Yup, the fight is for the unwanted fetuses, not the wanted ones. Why choose to fight for the unwanted over the wanted in this instance? Because a god is behind it?

So like you, I really do not understand those who engage in it.

Please answer the question if you can and avoid telling me that I'm trying to justify killing humans or any of the Beatles by pointing out this observation.

[dianaiad]

Why do you think a god might create a process that aborts nearly 70% of conceptions? Does that not bother you in the least? It's difficult to watch you argue against a women being the one to make the decision while knowing you believe in a god concept that aborts 70% of fetuses via the process he created.

Most of these 70% would end up being wanted babies, while almost 100% of choice abortions or done on an un-wanted fetuses. Yet, which do we hear people fighting for? Yup, the fight is for the unwanted fetuses, not the wanted ones. Why choose to fight for the unwanted over the wanted in this instance? Because a god is behind it?

So like you, I really do not understand those who engage in it.

Please answer the question if you can and avoid telling me that I'm trying to justify killing humans or any of the Beatles by pointing out this observation.

First, Fighting for the right of the survivors of the most dangerous nine months in the life of a human to actually, y'know, SURVIVE, doesn't mean that one is not also striving to find help for those who don't survive.

Indeed, this is rather personally important to me, since I'm a grandmother of one...who died before she was a day old, having been born too early.

My daughter has been pregnant at least eight times.

So do not tell me that I am not concerned about this. The only person who might be more concerned is my daughter, herself.

As to why they don't...I actually figure that the reasons they don't are the same reasons an atheistic specialist in the field thinks they don't; failure to thrive, difficulties in conception, bodies too ill formed or the woman unable to provide the proper nutrition...all sorts of reasons.

The difference between you and me, though, is that for some reason you insist that all these tiny humans are being punished by a god. I think that, IF they have spirits, then those spirits either go on or get another chance. If they don't, yet, then the spirits that would have inhabited those tiny humans will get another body.

This is why my objection to abortion has nothing to do with religion, and wouldn't change should I lose faith in God.

We don't KNOW about the spirit/soul connection; when it happens or why things are the way they are, spiritually. Because we don't know, we can't assume that it's OK to abort because those tiny humans don't have one; what if they do?

WE can't assume that they do, either....we can't assume anything at all here.

All we can do, from my POV, is work to give them the best chance possible, and not make their existence, once started, utterly impossible.

[agnosticatheist]

As to why they don't...I actually figure that the reasons they don't are the same reasons an atheistic specialist in the field thinks they don't; failure to thrive, difficulties in conception, bodies too ill formed or the woman unable to provide the proper nutrition...all sorts of reasons.

All of the reasons can ultimately be traced to God if you believe that God is responsible for the creation of the universe that we live in.

If he had not designed this universe to be the way it is, it wouldn't be the way it is...

you insist that all these tiny humans are being punished by a god.

Where did Clownboat insist that?

I think that, IF they have spirits, then those spirits either go on or get another chance. If they don't, yet, then the spirits that would have inhabited those tiny humans will get another body.

So...you are hypothesizing reincarnation here?

We don't KNOW about the spirit/soul connection; when it happens or why things are the way they are, spiritually. Because we don't know, we can't assume that it's OK to abort because those tiny humans don't have one; what if they do?

WE can't assume that they do, either....we can't assume anything at all here.

All we can do, from my POV, is work to give them the best chance possible, and not make their existence, once started, utterly impossible.

We can only go on what we know. If humans do indeed have souls, the physical indicators for the presence of a soul don't appear until further in the pregnancy than when women usually discover they are pregnant and might contemplate aborting the child.

You keep saying your position isn't based on religious reasoning, but I think your position probably can still be traced to religious reasoning.

Let me ask you this:

What does a woman have to lose if she decides she wants to abort the fetus because it would be an inconvenience to her?

Until the indicators for the presence of a soul are present, what's wrong with aborting the fetus?

If I remember correctly, you previously have argued that it's not ok to decide whether or not the fetus gets to live based on indicators for a soul being present or not, because if you abort the fetus before those indicators are present, then the fetus does not get the chance to develop to the point that those indicators are present.

At first, I thought you had made a good point, but now that I have thought on it, I am not sure if you made a good point.

It's as if the fetus is actually a human in the sense that a 20 year old, or 40 year old is. It's not. It's no more unique from a value perspective than a housefly, crocodile, etc.

It makes no sense to say "Well, if you give it a chance, then it will be able to display the indicators for a soul."

"It" before the indicators for a soul are present is not a unique human in the sense that a 20 year old, 40 year, etc, are. It's a collection of organic matter.

If you abort the fetus before stuff like the brain, brain activity, personality, etc are present, then where is the crime? It's not a unique human with a personality. It has the potential to be a unique human with a personality, but it's not actually a unique human with a personality.

Consider the following scenario:

We live in a world where crocodiles are considered sacred, and banana trees are not considered sacred.

If I kill the crocodile, I have killed a sacred life form.

If I kill the banana tree, I have killed a non-sacred life form.

It does not matter what an organism could become. What matters is what the organism is.

[dianaiad]

As to why they don't...I actually figure that the reasons they don't are the same reasons an atheistic specialist in the field thinks they don't; failure to thrive, difficulties in conception, bodies too ill formed or the woman unable to provide the proper nutrition...all sorts of reasons.

All of the reasons can ultimately be traced to God if you believe that God is responsible for the creation of the universe that we live in.

If he had not designed this universe to be the way it is, it wouldn't be the way it is...

you insist that all these tiny humans are being punished by a god.

Where did Clownboat insist that?

QED. As, by the way, are you.

If you insist that God (if He is the creator of all things) is responsible for everything, then what could any bad thing be BUT 'punishment?"

I think that, IF they have spirits, then those spirits either go on or get another chance. If they don't, yet, then the spirits that would have inhabited those tiny humans will get another body.

So...you are hypothesizing reincarnation here?

No. I think we only get one go around...but I also think that...maybe...it's like someone ordering up a new car. There might be a few screwups before he gets a good one, but he still only gets one.

Now THAT is speculation of the wildest sort, and I'm certainly not going to base my decisions regarding 'right to life' on it. What if that's not how it works, and each conceptus does indeed 'have a spirit' that doesn't get a second chance?

What if we really ARE ending a fully formed soul when we abort?

...........whether you wonder 'what if it really is a human being,' or 'what if it really has a spirit,' the logic is the same; I choose to err on the side of 'just in case we might be killing a human being...or one with a spirit, whatever, it's best not to kill it. "

Y'know, if a SWAT team is about to enter a building, unless they absolutely KNOW that there are no innocent children in there, they don't go in shooting. Why? Because there might be. They don't shrug it off with 'well, there might not be any children in there, so let's go ahead and shoot the place up."

We don't KNOW about the spirit/soul connection; when it happens or why things are the way they are, spiritually. Because we don't know, we can't assume that it's OK to abort because those tiny humans don't have one; what if they do?

WE can't assume that they do, either....we can't assume anything at all here.

All we can do, from my POV, is work to give them the best chance possible, and not make their existence, once started, utterly impossible.

We can only go on what we know. If humans do indeed have souls, the physical indicators for the presence of a soul don't appear until further in the pregnancy than when women usually discover they are pregnant and might contemplate aborting the child.

Good grief. What ARE the 'physical indicators' of having a spirit? Most non-believers don't see any physical indicators of that in fully grown adults, for crying out loud!

You keep saying your position isn't based on religious reasoning, but I think your position probably can still be traced to religious reasoning.

No, actually, it can't. Indeed, my position on abortion is a bit more strict than that of my church.

Why MUST my position on abortion be religious? Why can't it not be?

Let me ask you this:

What does a woman have to lose if she decides she wants to abort the fetus because it would be an inconvenience to her?

That depends entirely on her belief system. I'm concerned about what her baby has to lose; his or her life.

Until the indicators for the presence of a soul are present, what's wrong with aborting the fetus?

Again, what 'indicators" would those be?

If I remember correctly, you previously have argued that it's not ok to decide whether or not the fetus gets to live based on indicators for a soul being present or not, because if you abort the fetus before those indicators are present, then the fetus does not get the chance to develop to the point that those indicators are present.

At first, I thought you had made a good point, but now that I have thought on it, I am not sure if you made a good point.

It's as if the fetus is actually a human in the sense that a 20 year old, or 40 year old is. It's not. It's no more unique from a value perspective than a housefly, crocodile, etc.

A housefly, crocodile, etc., are not humans.

A human fetus is. A human, that is. Of course, if you are one of those who don't feel that humans have any more value than crocodiles, then the argument is moot.

It makes no sense to say "Well, if you give it a chance, then it will be able to display the indicators for a soul."

"It" before the indicators for a soul are present is not a unique human in the sense that a 20 year old, 40 year, etc, are. It's a collection of organic matter.

Again: what are the 'indicators for a soul?" I have never mentioned any. Personally, I suspect that the spirit of a person becomes at least INTERESTED upon conception. That may even be when they join. I don't know.

That's not why I am against abortion.

If you abort the fetus before stuff like the brain, brain activity, personality, etc are present, then where is the crime?

Don't you see...this is exactly the same argument as "if you kill a child before it can speak/ walk/ be weaned off of breast milk/ make his or her own considered decisions/ enter puberty, where is the crime?"

You have just put the line in a slightly different point of development.

But it's the same argument, and if it isn't a good one when the line is at walking or talking, it's not a good one for 'brain function,' either.

It's not a unique human with a personality. It has the potential to be a unique human with a personality, but it's not actually a unique human with a personality.

It's not "potential," when the only other option is 'dead."

Consider the following scenario:

We live in a world where crocodiles are considered sacred, and banana trees are not considered sacred.

If I kill the crocodile, I have killed a sacred life form.

If I kill the banana tree, I have killed a non-sacred life form.

It does not matter what an organism could become. What matters is what the organism is.

That example only applies to culture and religion. My objection to abortion has nothing to do with the validity of either to decide this matter.

[Clownboat]

That's the disconnect right there. How is a fetus NOT 'living?" It certainly fits any and all definitions of being a living, distinct, organism...a human being.

A living breathing human has more value than a clump of cells that has roughly a 30% chance of being born.

"Living" is not the word you should be getting hung up on. Is E. Coli not living? Have you ever swatted a mosquito? I'm sure you are not arguing for protecting all living things. For this reason I acknowledge the disconnect, but reject you having a point just because we can call something "living".

Not even if they are Mormon. Next I fear you will also want to kill the Beatles over the topic of being able to choose to carry a fetus or not.

I'm sorry about what happened to some Mormons in the early 1800's, but I don't see what that has to do with my daughters for example having the ability to choose to carry a fetus to term or not.

That example wasn't about Mormons, just because it happened to Mormons. It was about the reason used to kill the nine year old. The killer took Sardius' life for exactly the same reason that abortions are done; to prevent him from 'becoming' what he was 'going to become."

I don't understand how that is relevant when the argument is to not allow a woman the choice to carry a fetus or not.

You don't feel that a woman carrying a fetus should be allowed to decide to not carry it, correct? What does a despicable hateful act done to Mormans in the early 1800's have to do with woman making this decision or not?

I also argue that Sardius was not killed simply because he would become a Mormon. There was a "war" after all.
For example:
In the eyes of many non-Mormon citizens (including Alexander Doniphan),[11] these settlements outside of Caldwell County were a violation of the compromise.[21] Mormons felt that the compromise only excluded major settlements in Clay County and Ray County, not Daviess County and Carroll County.[22]

The earlier settlers saw expansion of Mormon communities outside of Caldwell County as a political and economic threat.[1] In Daviess County, where Whigs and Democrats had been roughly evenly balanced, Mormon population reached a level where they could determine election results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_War_(1838)

If I became an atheist, my views on abortion would be the same, and as for your daughters....I'd tell them the same thing I told mine. I raised MY daughters to understand how special a bond sex is, and that the reason for, and the product of, sex is children. If it's not for the direct production of children, it's for the cementing of the bond between parents.

And I would tell my daughters that I feel your statement is naive and site examples of people getting pregnant even though they used protection. I would of course encourage them to be smart about sex, but I will acknowledge that birth control can fail and pregnancies can happen without intercourse.

I also told them what I would tell your daughters: you have the absolute right to decide whether you want to be pregnant. Your choice. Make it...and do what needs to be done about it...BEFORE you have sex.

Would you also tell them that birth control can fail? What would you tell them if they were using birth control and it failed and they became pregnant? Would you then change your stance?

I think not and therefore reject your claim above about it being an "absolute right". It cannot be absolute like you claim when birth control can fail and pregnancies can happen without intercourse.

Once you have actually conceived...it's not all about you, then, is it? Someone else is there; someone you invited into being. Deal with it, and 'killing' that new being simply because you weren't careful enough with birth control is not an option.

I disagree, there is no "someone" yet. You also fail to address the times when the conception was not invited. You may be able to look past these scenarios, but they are glaring to me and I feel they should be considered.

The bold above is the dictating I keep referring to. I may agree with the statement on a personal level, but uttering such a thing to another human is stepping past their nose (where your rights end IMO).

Again...nowadays there is NO excuse, especially in the USA where birth control is both easily obtained and cheap, for an unwanted pregnancy as a result of consensual sex.

Only if we forget failed birth control, rape or pregnancies that happen without full on intercourse.

So I must reject your "NO excuse":
- if you or your partner have semen or pre-ejaculate on your fingers and touch your vagina.
- your partner ejaculates near your vagina.
- your partner’s erect penis comes into contact with your body near your vagina.
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/975.aspx?CategoryID=54

I cannot imagine that you are ignorant of this, so I'm left to wonder why you disregard it and claim "NO excuse" and then qualify it further with, "None".

[Clownboat]

First, Fighting for the right of the survivors of the most dangerous nine months in the life of a human to actually, y'know, SURVIVE, doesn't mean that one is not also striving to find help for those who don't survive.

Does not address my question:
Why do you think a god might create a process that aborts nearly 70% of conceptions?

Indeed, this is rather personally important to me, since I'm a grandmother of one...who died before she was a day old, having been born too early.

My daughter has been pregnant at least eight times.

So do not tell me that I am not concerned about this. The only person who might be more concerned is my daughter, herself.

I'm sorry about your daughter, but your explanation has nothing to do with my question:
Why do you think a god might create a process that aborts nearly 70% of conceptions?

As to why they don't...I actually figure that the reasons they don't are the same reasons an atheistic specialist in the field thinks they don't; failure to thrive, difficulties in conception, bodies too ill formed or the woman unable to provide the proper nutrition...all sorts of reasons.

I'm confused, did you lose your faith and a god is no longer behind the process by which humans are birthed? Or was this process created by a god (in your opinion)?

The difference between you and me, though, is that for some reason you insist that all these tiny humans are being punished by a god.

Ridiculous assertion and should be retracted. If a god is behind the birthing process, this in no way shape or form means that said god is punishing. I allude only to the process that was put in place that aborts so many wanted fetuses. I don't believe there is a god that created said process and I also don't agree that any punishment would be necessarily taking place.

I think that, IF they have spirits, then those spirits either go on or get another chance. If they don't, yet, then the spirits that would have inhabited those tiny humans will get another body.

Do you think that the same thing would happen if a woman makes the choice, or only if the process that a god put in place does?

All we can do, from my POV, is work to give them the best chance possible, and not make their existence, once started, utterly impossible.

Yet here we are discussing unwanted fetuses that a woman chooses to abort while ignoring a process that aborts wanted fetuses. If the motive is to supply the best chance possible, should that also not apply to the 70%? I ask because those fetuses seem to have no one fighting for them. Ironically, the unwanted fetuses do though. Am I the only one that finds this a bit odd?