Comment: dducks, I really appreciate

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Okay, here's my thoughts. (see in situ)

dducks, I really appreciate

I really appreciate your thoughtful approach here.

I'm just going to follow up on your last train of thought -- the notion of a grace period after conception.

A woman knows that she could get pregnant if she has sex. (Even if she uses birth control, all of which have a failure rate.) By engaging in sex when she is not willing to at least birth the baby, she's already taken the chance -- refused the grace that would protect her from making a life/death decision. By definition, she's been willing to take the chance of killing another life. Perhaps this would be analogous to having one too many at a party and driving home. Chances are you'll be okay and everyone you pass on the highway will be okay. But you decided to take the chance. Should we remove tell you it's all okay because you didn't mean to if you hit my child on your way home?

So we push that grace period back, lets say to the morning-after sort of high dosage of birth control bills. In this case, the woman kills a zygote, a new life, but one that hasn't attached to her body and sent chemicals into her bloodstream. She doesn't know if she's pregnant. Neither medical tests nor the government knows if she's pregnant. Everyone involved can claim gray because ending the zygote's ability to implant and actually make a pregnancy is caught forever in that gray. A lot of zygotes -- maybe 30 percent -- never do implant. So we're more okay with this. We never have to say we killed a growing baby because we don't know what would have happened. I'm suspicious of a moral or legal code built upon choosing gray. I mean think about it; if the fact that you don't know if a life is growing in you is the moral foundation of being able to kill that life, your knowing or not knowing is then the hinge upon which your morality swings. I'm uncomfortable with not-knowing being a foundation. In the case of pregnancy, you'll know in a few days. After which, your choose isn't a duck, it's not built on not knowing; but a real choice -- a moral choice.

Goodness, I'm going on and I mean to be short and to the point.

I guess I mean to say that giving people extra-biological grace periods typically doesn't lead to more responsible behavior. Biology has given women grace periods. We can not engage in sex when we're not willing to bear the consequences. We can double and triple contraception when we wish to role the dice. I'm not sure that divorcing ourselves from the real and biological consequences of our actions, however personally detrimental those consequences are, does anything real for human morality or success. I'm not sure that we should embrace grace periods for our behavior. Where does that lead? You get a grace period for driving drunk? For pilfering just a few dollars from your employer? For lying to a friend? As an atheist, I'm assuming your moral positions stem from the notion that natural consequences form the backbone of our moral code. That natural consequence of sex produces a baby, eventually. It may feel all magnanimous to remove the consequence by annotating the definition of protected human life to get women off the hook. But we do so by only by making women less morally able and, therefore, culpable.

We all have our moral crosses to bare. To attempt to remove one group's cross, is to deny that group full entrance into the moral morass that we all contend with -- whether atheist or god-fearing in all its incarnations.