My point is that you need a more solid argument than souls or religion.
While that might be your personal reason for opposing abortion, it isn’t good enough to base public policy on. The reason that there are many different religious beliefs, your example of Hindu’s from India is a good one.
As a thought experiment, if technology could progress and in 1000 years we could block a a body from receiving a soul, for the purposes of abortion or growing body replacement parts for the parents... Under the “don’t kill it because it has a soul” basis, this would be medically ethical.
That is why I do NOT base my opposition to abortion on religion.
While that might be your personal reason for opposing abortion, it isn’t good enough to base public policy on. The reason that there are many different religious beliefs, your example of Hindu’s from India is a good one.
As a thought experiment, if technology could progress and in 1000 years we could block a a body from receiving a soul, for the purposes of abortion or growing body replacement parts for the parents... Under the “don’t kill it because it has a soul” basis, this would be medically ethical.
That is why I do NOT base my opposition to abortion on religion.
I don't know what you mean by "more solid," but what you are explaining is contradictory. "Public policy" on the one had, is something you apparently believe must be purely scientifically based. Which you state excludes the invocation of the discussion of a soul in a human body.
Okay, I get that that is your position.
But then you give an example of a human body that specifically, positively is confirmed as not having a soul, made for supposedly ethical reason of replacing damaged or failing body parts, and you reject that idea.
Well you can't have it both ways. Is the body sacred because it has a soul, or is it not? If it is, then how do you reject the inclusion of the considerations of the soul in the issue of abortion for public policy? If it's not, what is wrong with crowing human body parts if the body is known to lack a soul?
Either be consistant, or reject consistancy. Many public policies take into consideration things that cannot be measured by science (yet). That doesn't mean they aren't compelling, or even crucial, consideration in public policy matters.