And neither do you. That's why there's so much debate on this topic - neither 'side' can claim to hold either absolute truth or moral superiority. Though individuals may claim the issue is a moral one, and may even feel such a moral imperative, when it becomes part of a public debate - whether abortion should be legal, or illegal - the origin of the opinion is not as important as which side who gets to make the decision. This is a power struggle between two groups who hold opposing viewpoints. The question, in the final analysis, is not 'is it right or wrong?' - the question is 'who gets to shape the world in their own image?' Because this is a question of absolutes - it must be a yes, or it must be a no - there are two 'sides' to the debate. There are other ways to answer this question besides a simple yes or no - "yes to some ways, no to others." or "if you disagree with abortion, then you are free NOT to have one, but otherwise, mind your own business" and so on, but because of the nature of public debate and the forums (whether legal or unofficial) push people to adopt a position simply to oppose positions they wouldn't want to live according to. For example: I'm not 'in favor' of abortion, but I don't feel that people with religious/moral concerns should be given the power to dictate the issue to people who may not hold the same religion/morality. But, when the issue becomes a question of absolutes, when it enters the public sphere and is not simply a personal opinion, this becomes a 'no, abortion is not immoral' - you'll note that I'm not actually saying that at all. I'm saying 'I don't know' - but the corrolary of that is that I'm also saying 'and I don't believe you know either.' We use discussion, appeals to divine sanction, scientific rationales, rational argument, emotional appeals because those are the methods we have for resolving disagreements, and it's less to resolve a disagreement than it is to attract more voices to our viewpoint because, really, this is going to play out as little more than a numbers game. The side with the most members wins (not factoring in the inertia of current law). Not because any one of them is 'correct'. Both sides believe they are 'correct', but because of the nature of the question, neither can provide absolute, irrefutable proof of their own rightness. Man is the measure of all things, and some men believe that their God is the supreme ruler while others believe that 'reason' occupies the same role. Who's right? Frankly, I'm not sure that either perspective exists in the form that its adherents contend.
I am not addrressing the theological points of the issuse. There are answers that can be made that do not require faith.
Eh, I don't know. You're the one who introduced the building/embryo comparison. An embryo has Life. That alone distinguishes it from a building. Did you overlook that? A soul would seem to be the next step.
It is all about intent. If the woman intends to have the baby and someone directly causes her to have a miscarriage, it is a crime because the woman intended to bring the fetus to term and bear it, as is her choice. If the woman has decided to abort the fetus, that a choice that she and her doctor can make and should be able to make without interference from the government.
What if she hasn't yet made up her mind? What would the state then do? Or if she and the child are killed, would the state pursue double homicide because we can't ascertain her wishes from the grave? Hello Slippery Slope!
A tree has life, does it have a soul? Why would a soul seem to be the next step? It doesn't seem to me that a soul, which we can't even define, naturally follows life. If you want to have faith in a soul, that is one thing. But to try and logically or scientifically demonstrate that a soul exists, or even define a soul in anything more than terms descriptive of its functionality, is fruitless. Wiser men than you or I have tried without luck.
From Wiki Buddhism teaches that all things are impermanent, in a constant state of flux; all is transient, and no abiding state exists by itself. This applies to humanity, as much as to anything else in the cosmos; thus, there is no unchanging and abiding self. Our sense of "I" or "me" is simply a sense, belonging to the ever-changing entity, that (conventionally speaking) is us, our body, and mind. Sorry. There are no souls. Your sense of "I" will not last forever.
By "the next step" I didn't mean that everybody/thing goes there; I just meant it was something beyond "mere" life. Not every lifeform probably has a soul. I wasn't trying to demonstrate that a soul exists but since we have laws, and many of those laws reflect moral values, our legal system seems to pre-suppose a soul for humans. The pro-Choice movement seems to be about defining Life in such a way that a choice to abort can be made about a lifeform "conveniently" without a soul. That's a reach-- a huge one for all the very reasons you've cited... WE JUST DON'T AND CAN'T KNOW. It's less of a reach to just assume that any new human life has a soul. In fact, I'm not reaching at all. Let it be.
But how do you decide then that there is a soul in a fertilized embryo? A single cell human embryo is about as complex as an amoeba so does that mean amoebas have souls too? Your argument that our laws presume humans have souls is probably closer to that humans have rationality and awareness.
You could argue that the building has the soul too, after it is built and opened. People go on with their business in the building. The building is used as a headquarters, an office, and even a factory. The human soul is the same. And yet, just as a broken ground and blueprints do not make the workings of the building, our syngamy (egg + sperm) means nothing initially. We have potential to achieve great things once we've developed into something tangible. But until then, we're just blueprints and land. To make the case for the importance of human life at this stage you need to look no further than investment. Your body has invested dozens of chemicals dedicated to reproduction. You are carrying on your gene pool. Your blueprints and land are YOUR investment. The owner of the building doesn't want to see his building become run down, just as parents do not want to see their children become run down. As much as we worry about money and dreams when we look at having children, we forget that children aren't that elaborate. One can still acheive their goals, become wealthy, and be apart of a healty family if they understand the investment from them. You don't need to bring theology into this argument.
duh then we'd be paramecium cmon Sishir, any asian guy worth his salt had this beat into him in 7th grade in his attempt to become the doctor that our parents wanted us to be ...j/k
I disagree with this statement. I see no indication that the legal system is in any way concerned with the absence or presence of a soul. I did a boolian search on the United States Criminal Code on the Cornell Law School website and the words 'soul', 'eternal' and 'god' do not appear. The word 'spirit' appears, but only in ways that are irrelevant (i.e. the spirit of the law). Since we are erring on the side of caution, shouldn't we provide full legal right, for instance, to gorillas, or chimpanzees, or dolphins and maybe a few other species? And while we are at it we can assume that their embryos have souls too. I am really not being difficult for the sake of being difficult. It appears to me that you have set some rather arbitrary lines of division, and seem to believe that there is no question about where those lines are set. But things that you say are obvious or can be assumed do not appear that way to me at all.
