Prozacman kind of beat me to the punch. I was going to note that an additional problem with that photo is that it contained not only just men, but only Xtians.
In another abortion thread, I argued my position on abortion with reference to development of the entity from fertilized egg to (at some point) full human being.
In this thread the matter of human "beingness" is being argued by Xtians based on the existence of a soul. I believe this is an important difference because it does short circuit arguments based on development.
Clearly if souls are real, and souls are what must be protected from harm (it is what makes a human a human "being"), and souls are inserted at point of conception, then fertilized eggs are just as much human beings as someone 30 years old.
But these are a lot of ifs. I think for those arguing along this line, a few questions must be answered...
1) What objective proof is there of a soul, and if there is none, is this not a purely religious position (which is not to say "wrong", just one of faith), and so its adoption into law an advancement of religion?
2) Assuming souls to be real, when is their introduction to the physical host? Given that (if I remember right), over 60% of fertilized eggs do not make it through to birth, is it true that souls manifest at that stage?
++2a) Why would souls enter (or be placed in) at a point when they are unlikely to reach existence?
++2b) If they do enter at conception are all these souls of the (60+%) unrealized babies "lost"? As in, are they truly destroyed?
++2c) If not, then why would abortion (which destroys the material body as much as a natural loss) destroy these souls?
++2d) If abortion does not destroy the soul, then what harm is being done beyond what happens during gestation so as to constitute murder?
3) Assuming souls are real and conception is the point they "enter" the body and they are harmed in some way, does this not mean that all anti-implantation contraceptives (IUD, the pill) are forms of murder as well?
It is clear that the men pictured in that photo believe the "soul" argument, and this is what is more chilling to me than the outlawing of a procedure in late development (which may be acceptable to those using development criteria and why they chose to start there).
What is being introduced, in this piece of legislation as well as the language of laws to "protect" the fetus from criminals and poor health coverage, is terminology regarding a singular faith and its specific ideas regarding a connection between "life" and "souls" and a specific "creator". This sets precedent to waylay arguments based on development alone later down the line.
Because this is often the background position on "fetal" issues, I view "pro-choice" not simply to mean the right of a woman over her own reproductive system, but the ability of a woman to choose her own religious beliefs.
The photo depicts a Xtian majority's victorious first step over having to accept and allow other religions and philosophies regarding life. Those who do not believe in a soul and base arguments/definitions regarding life on development have been undercut.
That is NOT the way democracies are supposed to work, specifically in the United States. With all due respect to Buz, the founding fathers were not unanimous in anything regarding religion, and certainly not regarding the status of souls in the development of the fetus. They recognized that a religious majority should not be allowed to vote down minorities and impose their world views.
Even at the state level, democracy was to be the mix of people coming together to write laws which allow the empowerment of all religions and philosophies.
I understand that to persons which hold modern Xtian viewpoints, from the moment of conception onward the entities we are discussing are considered to be human beings endowed with a soul. While I might argue against that belief, I could not think of voting it away or a person's ability to choose based on that belief.
I think what is necessary (and unfortunately is lacking) is reciprocity. Fundamentalists must understand that there are those with completely opposing views on this matter, and that they must not be prevented from choosing based on their own religion or philosophy.
This can only be maintained by leaving the decision up to doctors and patients, and allowing them access to as much information from all sides, so as to make up their minds.
As a parting comment, I will only point out that not more than 500 years ago people believed sperm were little "people", and that that is where the souls are. That is one of the reasons the "loss of sperm" through masturbation and other nonprocreative acts were considered crimes against nature, and in a sense... murder. Now we have advanced to realize this is not true, and the little humunculi have been pushed into the fertilized egg. I wonder at the hubris of those that can say that they understand even today, given the lessons of the past, that they truly know when life and souls begin.
------------------
holmes
™ Version 4.2
