I continually find it depressing, distracting, and unuseful how quick some are to immediately attribute everything to overt politics. Why some submissions catch on when has so many variables. We're quick to see patterns, amplified by our own biases. Other than skywriting, I'm pretty confident that clouds aren't shaped to be animals or faces. The data for submissions is available via a couple APIs. If you want to ascribe politics as playing a role in this post making the top page now, you can try to back it up with some actual evidence and make your claim substantial.

So this was not an attempt to "atttibute everything to overt politics". Embryonic stem cells, however, are an overtly political issue in the US.

You seem to be exempt from this rule, however:

> why mention it at all other than to muddy the waters by injecting additional politicization to the HN community?

Do you see how you were ascribing unfounded and unproven intentions to someone else for their comment? Your claim that "obviously, they must have done it to muddy the waters" is the perfect example of precisely what you complain about.

There's no argument to "win". After my second comment, I responded to your question. As for "getting the last word in", I only do so to refute the idea that I said you were uncivil. You're right that this is far off-topic now, and likewise I won't respond further.

[1] http://www.secularprolife.org/

Having said that, I have a hard time taking any anti-abortion group seriously (whether religious or not) which does not actually have an official position on rape.

What possible non-religious argument could there be made to force a woman to carry to term (and care for) the child of their rapist?

First off, if a compromise can be found, that could solve the problem instantly - for example, if instead of abortion, a fetus could be removed and implanted safely in another woman, or in a laboratory, and brought to term, and there was a legal apparatus in place to ensure the child received care, that could eliminate the "killing" aspect of an abortion while preventing a woman from being forced to keep a rape-induced pregnancy to term.

That doesn't exist yet though, so, lemme try this, though I feel very dirty doing so:

If abortion is murder, then there's no legal justification in carrying it out because one is a victim of a crime, even if the abortion is a "solution" to one of the long-term effects of that crime (the rape). Just as one is not allowed to steal to replace stolen goods, one should not be allowed to "murder" an unborn child in response to a rape.

Well, you're not wrong, it's a pretty hard argument to make without bringing religion in.

There is also the religious assertion that in its present state, a zygote is a human being, yet, say, the biological matter that is removed from the body in a woman's period is not. I am not aware of an argument that does not hinge on the zygote being empowered by a magical soul.

Giving the 'undifferentiated mass of cells is clearly a human being' argument even a slight push very quickly devolves into absurdity.

Some animals have a phenomenon called parthenogenesis which allows an unfertilized egg to develop into a living organism. This does not naturally happen in humans. (And I doubt it happens unnaturally.)

So why again should humans be punished when it happens all the time anyway "by design"?

In that case, pro-lifers should have no issues with a pregnant woman asking her doctor to remove her placenta - as long as they don't touch the zygote.

Feel free to present non-religious arguments that contradict the claim.

Human life deserves protection. Human life starts at some point in time. Saying human life starts at birth (when the child leaves the womb), makes no sense. There is nothing unique about leaving the womb that infers humanity. There is nothing different between killing at newborn and killing a baby still in the womb who is past-due. Location doesn't infer something is a life or not.

So we need to find a better indication of when a human life begins. One could argue that if a child could live outside the womb, then it is a human life. Currently children commonly survive being born 26 weeks premature (3 months before being normally born). Again, killing a premature baby is no different than killing it in the womb. It's the same life.

Other believe that human life starts before that. Some believe that once the self-sustaining process of forming a baby starts (fertilization), then it's human life.

I'm not arguing for one or the other. However, I do understand why some people hold those beliefs.

How about if we consider that she should not be forced to feed and carry a parasite against her will. It is risky, regularly including death and disfigurement. People love to talk about the right to life when they are referring to an innocent zygote but suddenly everything changes if the mother's rights are brought into it.

This position in no way denies that rape is gravely immoral. It simply recognizes that the child is not responsible for the crimes of his father. The injustice of rape does not justify the additional injustice of abandoning or killing one's own child.

I think most people have no difficulty accepting this argument at least with respect to born children. Nobody would argue that infanticide, for example, is an appropriate response to rape. But there's no reason why the same logic doesn't apply before birth as well.

Yet the implicit argument here is that the injustice of rape DOES justify the additional injustice of forced pregnancy upon the victim. Pregnancy involves a profound set of changes to the body, not all of them temporary. I find it incredibly unjust that people are willing to argue that the rights of a handful of cells that will eventually become a human outweigh the rights of an inarguably human woman whose body was forcibly violated, by way of causing a second, 9-months-long forced violation of her right to control her own body. A concrete reminder of the rape that she cannot ignore because it's literally inside her and growing every day. It's despicable.

This is not to mention the lesser injustice of failing to provide her with any assistance during the pregnancy--she will need to consume more calories, will eventually find it difficult or impossible to perform her work duties until the child is born, etc. Where is that assistance provided for in all this legislation?

And for that matter, where are the appeals to the duty of caring for one's children when an adult with young kids is carted off to prison? Clearly there are circumstances in which that duty is superceded by some set of societal concerns. Why is conception by rape not one of them while some crime committed by a parent is?

[1]: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/abortion.htm

they had a number of programs for getting rid of unwanted individuals and actually not only forced people but also did public (IIRC) outreach to sell the idea to doctors and parents of severly disabled or otherwise unwanted kids.

(Long time since last I read about this but I think "aktion t4" and "Tiergartenstraße" is the thing to search for if anyone is interested.)

"One of those things is not like the other, one of those things..."

Not donating bone marrow requires doing nothing. Having an abortion require an active procedure.

True, but simply not relevant to any point I made. No metaphor is perfect, but the point here is that your control over your own body trumps another right to life. You wouldn't allow the government to forcibly take your bone marrow to save a life, and that's no different than being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against your will in regards to the point of bodily autonomy. Another persons right to life ends when it depends on someone else's body to live. The other person has a right to not consent to use their body against their will.

I think you need to refine that stance.

As a parent, I certainly don't have control over my own body. If I fail to provide the necessities of life for my child, I will go to jail and my kid will be taken from me. The gov't can (and will) force me to do certain things with my body.

The whole case is on shaky legal ground without you having to take a stance on it!

The real issue is that Congress has not wanted to try to push this issue no matter which side has control because it is so divisive. Since the harms to the women from leaving a patchwork system of laws in place are real, that just leaves the courts to fill in the vacuum as far as setting a national policy goes.

This is primarily the reason it hasn't been overruled, and its been close in times past! The "precedent" hasn't been in place that long as far as case law goes.

Check out a few of the dissenting opinions

"Life begins at conception" is primarily a political construct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_the_Catholic_Chur...

"The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or fetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception". From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.""

For the modern policy a search of the Vatican's excellent web server is probably the best source http://gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=abortion&btnG=Search+on&s...

See "Declaration on procured abortion, 18 November 1974," it can be thankfully found using your search:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docum...

"Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion" [(c. 133 – c. 190 AD) he was a Father of the Church, another author quoted is Tertullian c. 155 – c. 240 AD, moreover, Synod of Elvira, the fourth century, and on and on through the centuries...]

"In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault."

To repeat: "the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion."

Only if you really didn't read what I typed. There is a history and there were different opinions in the church. Read the history of the Middle Ages and quickening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion_law_debate...

"The Venerable Bede" "c. 725, upheld the 40-day distinction, prescribing a one-year penance for abortion before the 40th day" "After 40 days the penance was 71/2 years, the same as for homicide."

"English common law: Starting with Leges Henrici Primi, around 1115, abortion was treated as a misdemeanour prior to 'quickening', accruing a penalty of 3 years' penance, or as a 'quasi homicide' after quickening."

"Pope Gregory XIV," [1591] "pronounced that abortion before 'hominization' should not be subject to ecclesiastical penalties that were any stricter than civil penalties"

Etc. It supports again the Vatican's text which I've cited: "the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion."

If I've missed something and you have a counterexample I'd like to see it. Thanks.

"Question 4. Is it permissible to give a mother in extreme illness medicine to expel a fetus? Reply. Firstly, it is certain that it is not permissible for a mother outside of danger of death to take medicine for expelling even an inanimate fetus, since directly impeding the life of a human being is a grave sin, and a still graver one if the fetus is animate. It is certain, secondly, that it is not permissible for a mother even in danger of death to take medicine for expelling an ensouled fetus directly, since this would be procuring the child's death directly."

This quote of de Ligorio is on the Wikipedia page I've already posted here, in my first answer to which you replied. It still supports what Vatican wrote and I cited: "the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion."

"you are correct for the modern church, but there is a history..."

which I understood that you mean that there was a time in history when the Church didn't "oppose all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or fetus," contrary to what it does as "the modern church." But going with you through the names you gave, there is no proof for such a claim. The Church always opposed and considered it "illicit" (which supports Vatican claims in its 1974 text).

If you agreed with my citations then I don't understand why you replied in a manner like I had used some wrong information?

If you agree that the Church did oppose (or considered "illicit") abortion from the conception through all the time of its existence (independently of different opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul) which is what Vatican claims and I quoted here more times, then we both agree. Moreover, my reply was to refute the statement "'life begins at conception' is primarily a political construct" with the proof that the Church was always against abortion starting from conception, that is, it can't be seen differently than other Church decisions like "what should constitute the Bible" and "is Jesus both of human and god nature." Which was never considered politics but religion. Thank you.

> "'life begins at conception' is primarily a political construct"

I didn't say that, I never said that, and I don't know where you got that from.

WRONG!

The Church opposes abortion using the same language and reasoning as they were using in opposition to birth control.

In addition, the Catholic Church has been very clear that this opposition does NOT rely on whether a fetus qualifies as life, human or ensouled and so sidesteps that whole issue.

So, we are back to "life begins at conception" being a political slogan, not a religious one.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13497854

I don't see how you can disprove it without the citations. The "all caps" words don't matter, the citations do.

> In relation to elective abortion, Pope John Paul II wrote about ensoulment in his 1995 encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae that:

> Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same doctrine of condemning all direct abortions has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors. Even scientific and philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion.[17]

> While the Church has always condemned abortion, changing beliefs about the moment the embryo gains a human soul have led their stated reasons for such condemnation, and the classification in canon law of the sin of abortion, to change over time.[18][19]

Please note that Pope John Paul II is very clear that the two issues are separate.

Go take it up with the Pope.

"Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same doctrine of condemning all direct abortions has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors."

Your claim it's a "political concept" so how is a consistent condemnation by the Church during its whole existence of 2000 years a "political concept"? I understood your claim like it was something invented for the last few election cycles, and made because of the contemporary politics. And it's the opposite, it's the Church doctrine that through the 2000 years condemned abortion, in spite of the lives of the mothers involved.

To be just "a political concept" it would have to be a period where the Church did the opposite, which it never did?

Moreover, how is supporting the doctrine on the Father of the Church from the second century, as in my quotation, "political"?

Is for you then the doctrine of Christ being both human and divine, which was established later than in the second century, also political? The trinity, established in the fourth century, political? The selection of which books are part of the Bible, political?

If the Church selected what is a part of the Bible and what is not, and it did, you can't even claim "it's political because it isn't in the Bible" since it's the Church which decided what the Bible is going to be, so your approach would make the Bible just "a political concept" too. Finally, the Church itself (any Church) is "a political concept." The faith, too.

I, not being a believer, confirm that they are all human inventions. But all that is what is traditionally called, understood and lived as "religion" not "politics."

OK. It may not go over well, but I'll make an appeal for tolerance and better characterization of the issues here.

Hypocrites and monsters aside, people don't just make up the god they want to have, at least not consciously. It's not like people say, "Hey, this guy has a cool beard and I like embryos, too! How do I get baptized? Now I win all my stem cell arguments, right?" That is, religious people don't go shopping for their God any more than LGBTQ people go shopping for their orientations.

Thinking that people take their prejudices and work backwards from there is, at a minimum, misunderstanding another philosophy and culture. I think it's rational to understand other ways of thinking, even if I disagree.

And please don't conflate the basic humanity of LGBTQ people with the ideologies of people who consistently try to rob it from them. I grew up in a conservative Christian part of the Midwest and was routinely beaten and threatened by your run of the mill Christians for "seeming gay." What they did to actual gay people was even worse.

Of course people use religion to justify their prejudices - there's almost no reading of human history that would suggest otherwise. You can toss around some No True Scottsman nonsense about how that doesn't reflect the true values of Christianity, but until mainstream American Christianity walks away from all its hypocrisy and monstrosity, it's a distinction without a difference.

[0]https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Gods-Secular-History-Conversi...

I haven't been beaten for seeming effeminate, but I have been ridiculed and bullied for the same reasons. I don't decide to find which demographics about the bullies are salient (some were latino, some were athletes, are either of those fair game?) to form prejudices around.

More importantly, you misunderstood my core point:

> Except in America, people do shop around for religions.

I agree, but whether people shop or not, the existence of God is a factual question. It's either true or not. Same goes for a particular moral framework. Either it's true or not. We are all making our best bets on those dimensions. It's important not to judge, hate, outgroup, closet, ostracize, or despise because we happened to weigh available evidence and experiences differently.

In this specific case (to stay on topic), it's fair to criticize the science of whether embryos count as people. It's fair to discuss, philosophically, the benefits and drawbacks of using embryos in research. It's fair, again, to discuss whether we want corporate industries involved in embryo production to improve health outcomes.

I think we need better empathy and reasoning if we're going to act like bringing God into existence was a choice people made some day and could just as easily unmake. That's where there are very strong parallels with other justice issues like the treatment of people based on sexual orientation, immigration status, marital status, or mental health conditions.

[1] https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/19/california-stem-cell-age...

[2] http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/justice/stem-cell-appeal/