Science and Religion—The Errant Arguments on Abortion

Can one be pro-choice and anti abortion?

When does life begin and when does a fetus become human? The current arguments on abortion are faulty because they begin with the errant assumptions of physicalism—that consciousness is an emergent property of matter.

I’ve seen as many arguments as I can imagine—a fetus is just a clump of cells, or a baby is not a human (or even alive) until certain levels of brain activity and viability are achieved, but is this true? When does real life begin?

The idea that certain parts must develop (even to the point of extremes) that an embryo is not really a baby, alive, or even human yet is in error. A body is not made of parts like a car, but grows from within. In fact, an embryo has the code, yet has has no parts. Those are arbitrary demarcations for our understanding only. But a baby isn’t made of parts. That’s not the nature of any organism—only our scientific way of looking at them. There is a big difference between assemblage and growth. We are the same creature as the zygote, in a different phase of replication. The code is the creature that links it to consciousness.

Neurons are not parts. Cells are not parts. They are the inner structure created through self similarity, or cell division. You could easily say the fully grown human is still the original zygote. It is the same entity and code, just with more inner structure, more complexity. The human being is still the zygote. And the multiple cells are the inner differentiation of the original entity. We are the exact same original throughout. We were not assembled by bringing parts together. We are the original entity.

Life begins before conception and therefore, during conception and after it. It is a process, a continuum.

Abortion arguments on both sides are based on the assumptions that life begins through biology, but idealism clearly shows that biology begins with life—that we are not the emergence consciousness but “in-consciousness”. We are a process of replication where birth and death may seem like points on a page, but really contains the entire book.

The whole abortion argument is based on the physicalist paradigm, which is false—that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, though it is the other way around. It seems there are 2 camps on this issue and herein lies the real argument—taking responsibility for your actions or not—and the arguments are built from both sides on this responsibility.

Mississippi Abortion

Is 15 weeks a reasonable limit? Is anyone in favor of this?

The Supreme Court should return the issue of abortion to the states, which would mean overruling Roe. The Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice,” he said, adding that the Court should “return to a position of neutrality.”—Justice Brett Kavanaugh


Overturning Roe would not be a neutral act. The Constitution protects liberty, but if women cannot make decisions about their own pregnancies, then they will never have equal status under the Constitution.

At least if the court takes a stance of neutrality, many states would still be available for safe and legal abortion. Either way this is pretty exciting drama.

Pro Choice and Bodily Autonomy

This is one of the best pro choice/women’s rights arguments I’ve heard.

“In our society, we grant bodily autonomy to all members of society. What this means is that you have no rights to my body and vice versa. We extend these rights to corpses. If I am not a registered organ donor, doctors cannot harvest organs from my body even if they would save the lives of multiple patients. Because my express permission was not given during my life, no one has the right to my organs after my death.

We can take this further. If my daughter is stricken with a disease and the only way for her to survive is for me to give her a kidney, I cannot be forced to do so. It may well be morally superior for me to do so and for my kids I would be willing to do so, but this is not a legal requirement. If my child needed to be connected to me via machine for six months to stay alive, I would again be under no legal obligation to undergo that procedure. While I may feel a moral (or other) obligation to undergo this procedure, I am in no legal way required to do so.

What this means is that a woman who is pregnant must consent to allow the fetus to use her body, and consent can be withdrawn at any time. If you deny this and thus force women to remain pregnant, you are literally—not figuratively, giving more bodily autonomy rights to a corpse than you are to a living woman”

http://1001plus.blogspot.com/?m=1