HR36 and a few abortion thoughts

I don't blog a lot about abortion. Probably less than gay rights by a fair degree. Maybe less, even, than gay marriage specifically.

But, with the House passing HR 36, the euphemistically titled "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," it's time to do that again.

First, that title. Almost all doctors outside those with a specific pro-life oar they're rowing say fetuses don't feel pain until at least 24 weeks. Therefore, the bill's title, as well as one main premise, are lies.

So too is the lie that Margaret Sanger et al were trying to eliminate the black race.

Next, a few journalism opinion notes.

I don't agree with Ross Douthat, unlike I once did. Roe itself didn't enshrine a "near-absolute" right, and it's been whittled away since then anyway.

I also don't agree with Ted Rall (link to original broken), unlike I also once did. Abortion is not murder for various legal grounds. A, it isn't by constitutional definition. B, Outside of that, even, a woman seeking abortion generally is not acting under the idea she is taking human life. And, on 8 years of further experience with Rall's handiwork, I recognize his stance for the "look at me" semi-trollery that much of his stuff is.

Next, some legal history, and plain history, here. That link will explain the history of abortion in America, what the Bible does and does not say (basically, says nothing) and more.

And from there, to matters biological. As in, spontaneous unconsciously deliberately done abortion happens in the animal world.

Spontaneous (maybe also unconsciously deliberately done, for all we know) abortion happens in at least 20 percent, and probably 30 percent or more, of human conceptions. That's why Francisco Ayala, a renowned biologist and at least nominally a Catholic, says "god is the greatest abortionist of all." That should be no surprise; the allegedly omnipotent god or "intelligent designer" of purportedly orthodox Christianity allows teratomas, chimeras and other abnormal conceptions. The ones that make it to birth should NOT be taken as a pro-life justification, as they ignore the surely more than 30 percent that are aborted, or in the case of most teratomas, only one is actually alive.

And, that leads more directly to theology. Soul ensoulment at conception, as shown in part by teratomas and zygotes, has no medical standing. And, unless one wants to call god "the greatest soul-killer of all," it has no theological standing either.

Please do NOT cite original sin to blame a mythical Adam and Eve for this, either. Let's start with that being offensive even in terms of some Christian doctrines. Let's then go to many Christian wings, including the entire Eastern Orthodox tradition, not believing in original sin. (And, yes, like Ken Ham, some Xns actually will attribute the cause of anything wrong in our world to original sin.)

==

That said, as I noted on Twitter, and up at the top here, I don't blog about abortion a lot.

There's several reasons.

One is that although I no longer agree with Douthat or Rall in semi-major part, even (I never did fully), I still think that neither is totally wrong.

Per Douthat, I do think that some people in the pro-choice movement, just like the majority of the pro-life movement, do engage in some slippery slope thinking.

Per Rall, abortion may not be murder, but, it's "something." Involuntary manslaughter, or some weird halfway equivalent? If we as a society as a whole feel zero moral questioning over the issue, period ...  shouldn't we?

And, that's one other reason I don't blog about it a lot.

I'm a Humean philosopher. I know that his famous "an is does not imply an ought" is very, very, true here. Just because spontaneous abortion happens in humans, and in animals, and perhaps some subconsciously deliberate happening in animals, doesn't mean we should necessary say, "OK, abortion!" We may decide for other reasons to accept a right to abortion in at least some cases, but it neither logically nor ethically follows that we should do so based on those biological facts.

And that is how philosophy works in the real world.

And, without revealing conversational details? Anyone who thinks any of this is "shallow"? I'm sorry, but I'll respectfully say that that's your problem, not mine, whichever "side" you come from.

And, with that, and since we're talking about philosophy on a complex issue (about which I only covered a portion — I didn't claim to be writing an encyclopedia — I simply covered the biology and ethics of the issue, not the availability of abortion providers, insurance or other coverage of costs, or many other issues), let's go to a favorite quote from another philosopher, Idries Shah:

“To 'see both sides' of a problem is the surest way to prevent its complete solution. Because there are always more than two sides.”

That's VERY true on this issue.

That's one big reason I don't write more about it. The fact that it has encyclopedic permutations, philosophically, legally, politically and otherwise is another reason, and a related one.

It's also why I get firmer in looking for the third or fourth side of it as I get older. 

And, on "both" sides of the argument as usually presented, this is also, in my opinion, very much a typical American issue. Black-and-white. Polarities. And, yes, one can find nuances both emotions and thoughts.

Otherwise, I just ask for logical and empirical honesty.

That said, I'll give you one more of mine.

I"ve long felt that Roe, while rightly decided on the result, was wrongly decided on the grounds. It should have been placed under the Ninth Amendment and the court should have used the opportunity to find a right to privacy as one of the amendment's unenumerated rights. Justice Goldberg, in the related Griswold case, and the district court in Roe, both went that way. Rightly, in my opinion.