(This post, first published August 1, 2013, is an explanation of why there should be no termination without representation.)
The unborn babies of the world today, January 7, 2015, are living their lives just as you and I were living our lives a short time ago, and as each of us may, in the view of many, soon be living our lives again. What you are today is you as you are today, and what you were not long ago was the same you, as the unborn baby that you were then. An unborn baby is a typical person, operating as one would expect a typical person to operate at its age. It should be considered a citizen of its respective nation or nations, or a citizen of the world, with the rights of a citizen. The era in which we treated the unborn, legally and otherwise, as second-class and “other,” will in future be seen like the dark ages.
One can define personhood, or define anything, in any way one likes. But to view any object of the universe, not to mention an unborn child, with disregard of its potential, would be a very reductive and disconnected way of seeing reality. Full human potential exists at the zygote stage.
And yet, an unborn baby is “a citizen who complicates the life of another citizen.” Let’s look at an example of what this means:
A man who desperately needs a job is taking care of his one-year-old while his wife works. The older kids are at school. Suddenly the man gets a call about his dream job — “Can you come for an interview right now?” He leaves the one-year-old at home, or takes it with him and leaves it in a hot car. He gets the job. The child dies.
We hear about such incidents from time to time. Can that man claim, “I have the right to take care of my own body. So this is a ‘men’s health choice.’ Don’t interfere. I needed the job to maintain my health and that of my older kids” — ? No, he should and will be prosecuted. And yet he did not even kill the child intentionally, as aborting parents do.
The baby in the above example is a person, a citizen, who complicates the life of a man. An unwanted fetus is an example of a person, a citizen, who complicates the life of a woman (and sometimes of other people as well). The first example helps make clear that just because citizen A complicates the life of citizen B, citizen B does not automatically have the right to kill or even endanger citizen A. Citizen B has a responsibility for citizen A (as do others in the society as well). Civilized sensibilities require that person B be prepared to make some sacrifices for the sake of person A.
A person who physically resides in a room within another person represents an extra degree of complication for the second person, opening up the possibility of exceptional measures by the second person under some circumstances. But that is because of the first person’s exceptional location and demands on the second person, not its stage of development. It is not any less a person.
Justice Ginsburg of the US Supreme Court wrote in Gonzales v. Carhart : “[Women’s] ability to realize their full potential . . . is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’” (Here “their ability to control their reproductive lives” signifies, in biological terms, the ability to reproduce, then kill that which they have reproduced.)
I know little about Justice Ginsburg, and everything else she has done and said may be unexceptionable. I do not even necessarily maintain that she was on the wrong side in this case, where the only issue was whether to allow more or fewer gruesome options for dispatching the unborn. But a statement such as this, saying that no one should be expected to make the least sacrifice of their individual goals to spare the life itself of their unborn child, is a truly chilling advocacy for an atomistic, bloodless and dehumanized society, disconnected from the deepest nature of our species. It is an argument that the Justice might have picked up from Ayn Rand, author of The Virtue of Selfishness.
Remember that the man in my above example did nothing more than put “the realization of his full potential” ahead of his responsibility for his baby.
Justice Ginsburg went on to say: “Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures . . . center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature…” The fallacy in citing unequal citizenship stature for a woman who is restricted from a certain style of killing, is to assume that men are NOT often restricted from killing, or that abortion procedures are not killing, both of which ideas can be easily dismissed. And the Justice makes no mention of the highly unequal citizenship stature of unborn children, under her prescriptions.
It is not unusual that one person complicates the life of another. Most often it happens in pregnancy, but not only then. When one person complicates the life of another, what we have is two human beings, two citizens, both equally deserving of due process.
If the life or well-being of any citizen is in danger, that person is equally as deserving as any other citizen of all possible protection by its human family. (Or if any citizen is less deserving, that is beyond the ability of society to judge.) Yet we do have some situations, some unavoidable win-lose or lose-lose situations, where person A complicates the life of person B; that is, the life or well-being of person B is threatened, in some important way or less important way, unless he or she risks or “terminates” the life of person A. Sometimes there is no happy solution.
The obvious need of society in such a situation is to find the right balance between its two responsibilities — its responsibility to each of the two persons. And in the endeavor to find the right balance in the treatment of two human beings — a just and sensitive balance between two lives of equal value — one extremely counterproductive smokescreen that we sometimes encounter is formulations referring specifically to abortion as “women’s right to control their own bodies,” or “women’s health choices/issues” — formulations that cunningly and deliberately obscure the rights and the very existence of one of the two main parties involved.
1) Such formulations say that one of the persons in the equation, the baby (who also has a body and would like control over it), does not deserve any consideration. And 2) such formulations do not even say this openly, where it might be challenged, but simply obscure the very existence of that tiny human being by appealing to a sentiment that anyone would reflexively feel if they did not analyze carefully. That is, if it were really only the woman’s body involved, anyone would immediately support her right to control it — but hers is not the only body involved. And except to an atomistic view, every woman and man of the universe has a legitimate concern for the welfare of each of their unborn brothers and sisters, and has even a moral duty, like it or not, to make sure that their voiceless and otherwise-helpless little kin receive appropriate representation and fair consideration.
If we were to get into the game of deciding who is more deserving than whom, let us remember that both Ginsburg and Rand try to make out an argument for “women’s choice” based on human potential. But an unborn child has an as-yet-unrealized potential for many beautiful childhood expressions, whereas its mother, its parents, have irretrievably lost that potential. Moreover, due to medical advances, the child can be expected to live longer than the parents in absolute terms. Clearly an unborn child has more potential for experience, for achievement, for living than either of its parents. But let’s think twice, in an inclusive society, before getting into the game of deciding who is more deserving than whom.
Whenever, in any society, a proposal is made to perform an abortion, the extremely adverse consequences for the baby are clear, and uniform in nature. Any benefits for the parents, or any avoidance of adverse consequences, on the other hand, are less clear (often largely dependent on future forecasting, and on the role of society), and variable in nature. This reality will always inform the effort to find the right balance. This explanation is not about who is more deserving, but about the probabilities of adverse or positive consequences.
In any society, the decision should be made (except in a medical emergency) by a judicious and sensitive panel. It would be desirable for all the panelists, or at least all who directly speak with the woman involved, to be women, as long as those women represent all people, including all men, who empathize with the sometimes heart-rending plights of the parents, particularly of the mother, but who also regard the unborn, with a human instinct of protectiveness, as their little sisters and little brothers.
© 2013
You may leave a reply, if you wish, without giving your name or email address. If you do give your email address, it will not be published.
Some future posts:
Life Panels
Evolution, and the Humanizing and Uplifting Effect on Society of a Commitment to the Unborn
A Trade-Off of a Sensitive Nature
Unborn Child-Protection Legislation, the Moral Health of Society, and the Role of the American Democratic Party
The Motivations of Aborting Parents
Why Remorse Comes too Late
The Kitchen-Ingredients Week-After Pill
Unwanted Babies and Overpopulation
The Woman as Slave?
Abortion and the Map of the World
“The unborn babies of the world today, October 18, 2013, are living their lives just as you and I were living our lives a short time ago…”
Not such a short time ago for many of us. And note: as you and I only became you and I with time and experience (both of which fetuses lack), how could we be placed in comparison with them at all? As such…
“What you are today is you as you are today, and what you were not long ago was the same you, as the unborn baby that you were then.”
… this assumption does not wash.
“An unborn baby is a typical person, operating as one would expect a typical person to operate at its age.”
In that it’s not operating at all… except as a biological burden on the woman that carries it.
“One can define personhood, or define anything, in any way one likes. But to view any object of the universe, not to mention an unborn child, with disregard of its potential, would be a very reductive and disconnected way of seeing reality. Full human potential exists at the zygote stage.”
(Setting aside the large body of work on personhood/citizenship)… Unfortunately, “potential” could also be viewed as nebulous. Potential… for what? How is this meaningfully admissible?
“A man who desperately needs a job is taking care of his one-year-old while his wife works. The older kids are at school. Suddenly the man gets a call about his dream job — “Can you come for an interview right now?” He leaves the one-year-old at home, or takes it with him and leaves it in a hot car. He gets the job. The child dies.We hear about such incidents from time to time. Can that man claim, “I have the right to take care of my own body. So this is a ‘men’s health choice.’ Don’t interfere. I needed the job to maintain my health and that of my older kids” — ? No, he should and will be prosecuted. And yet he did not even kill the child intentionally, as aborting parents do.”
A biologically independent, minimally sapient, and socially/legally recognized child that one is placed in explicit guardianship over (at birth, in writing, by choice) has a right to life and an expectation of care from their guardian… neither the initial conditions nor the stipulated obligations exist with abortions.
“An unwanted fetus is an example of a person, a citizen, who complicates the life of a woman (and sometimes of other people as well).”
You have not established that a fetus is a person or a citizen, which under US law they are not.
“The first example helps make clear that just because citizen A complicates the life of citizen B, citizen B does not automatically have the right to kill or even endanger citizen A. Citizen B has a responsibility for citizen A (as do others in the society as well). Civilized sensibilities require that person B be prepared to make some sacrifices for the sake of person A.”
Wait, what “sensibilities” are these? In the US, there are plenty of laws that allow for deadly force to be used against those who are trespassing/aggressing on another’s body or property, even if they aren’t necessarily aware of having committed the acts. A fetus satisfies both cases.
“(Here “their ability to control their reproductive lives” signifies, in biological terms, the ability to reproduce, then kill that which they have reproduced.)”
Perhaps… are you saying their reproductive lives should be determined by others? (note your mention of the “panel” below)
“I do not even necessarily maintain that she was on the wrong side in this case, where the only issue was whether to allow more or fewer gruesome options for dispatching the unborn.”
Why is gruesomeness an issue here?
“But a statement such as this, saying that no one should be expected to make the least sacrifice of their individual goals to spare the life itself of their unborn child, is a truly chilling advocacy for an atomistic, bloodless and dehumanized society, disconnected from the deepest nature of our species. It is an argument that the Justice might have picked up from Ayn Rand, author of The Virtue of Selfishness.”
This radical presumption belies the facts: most women who choose to have abortions in the US already have children, and note some measure of financial hardship as the main reason they choose to abort. This is NEVER a matter of “individual goals” separated from the woman’s family, friends, an community engagement.
“The fallacy in citing unequal citizenship stature for a woman who is restricted from a certain style of killing…”
Correction: she is restricted from determining the use of her reproductive organs… are men likewise restricted?
“When one person complicates the life of another, what we have is two human beings, two citizens, both equally deserving of due process”
.
You keep claiming this, but fail to follow through. In addition, you are ACTUALLY claiming that the fetus (and it’s erstwhile guardians from the government) has MORE rights than the woman does over the use of her own body.
“The obvious need of society in such a situation is to find the right balance between its two responsibilities…”
Why is this “obvious”?
“That is, if it were really only the woman’s body involved, anyone would immediately support her right to control it — but hers is not the only body involved.”
Her’s is the only body that is being -violated-, however.
“… every woman and man of the universe has a legitimate concern for the welfare of each of their unborn brothers and sisters, and has even a moral duty, like it or not, to make sure that their voiceless and otherwise-helpless little kin receive appropriate representation and fair consideration.”
According to what? Repetition does not confer validity.
“But an unborn child has an as-yet-unrealized potential for many beautiful childhood expressions,”
And also truly terrifying ones as well… should we value those as well? How about their “potential” for becoming a mass-murderer?
“whereas its mother, its parents, have irretrievably lost that potential.”
If it were a bad potential… wouldn’t that be better?
“Moreover, due to medical advances, the child can be expected to live longer than the parents in absolute terms.”
Why is this a good thing?
“Whenever, in any society, a proposal is made to perform an abortion, the extremely adverse consequences for the baby are clear, and uniform in nature.”
Not really, as you have drawn “potential” so nebulously that there’s little way of knowing what was for the best. As it is with…
“Any benefits for the parents, or any avoidance of adverse consequences, on the other hand, are less clear (often largely dependent on future forecasting, and on the role of society), and variable in nature.”
… these matters as well. However, as the woman in question is an unequivocal goal-bearing agent living under a set of specific conditions, matters of potentiality as MORE clearly delineated here.
“This explanation is not about who is more deserving, but about the probabilities of adverse or positive consequences.”
Such determinations are best made by the woman and her family… lest the government act as breeders for society.
“In any society, the decision should be made (except in a medical emergency) by a judicious and sensitive panel.”
Just wondering… what else can this “panel” dictate to the woman? That she donate a kidney? Provide her body for sex-work?
Thanks for a thoughtful comment.
I also appreciate your concern for the plight of some pregnant women, which can be heart-rending.
Though your points are thoughtful, I don’t think any of them ultimately hold up, and some of them may contain logical defects.
I think that if we can eliminate simple illogic on both sides, the disagreements between us will boil down to two differences in points of view [Edit: intuitively-based points of view]:
1. I think that ethically, all humans should be considered as equal in value, whereas you think some should be second-class citizens (or perhaps think there should be not only two, but multiple gradations of value?).
2. I think that ethically, humans should be expected to sacrifice for each other to a considerable extent, whereas you think that the extent should be minimal or non-existent.
Due to time constraints, I may have to reply little by little over a period of a week or so. Meanwhile, if you wish, you would find some of your points addressed in other posts on this blog, particularly “Too Young for Rights?” Please at least try the test suggested in “The Answers Better Be Good”: could you look Gianna Jessen or Melissa Ohden in the eye and advocate your position? And on another site, I strongly recommend http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion
Before I continue: “matters of potentiality as MORE clearly delineated here” — do you mean “ARE MORE clearly”?
Acyutananda
“I also appreciate your concern for the plight of some pregnant women, which can be heart-rending.”
Regardless of how we might feel about this issue, it’s a matter of civil rights and the social health… both of which are served by a woman’s right to choose.
“I think that if we can eliminate simple illogic on both sides, the disagreements between us will boil down to two differences in points of view:”
I made my disagreements above quite explicit; if YOU wish to boil this down to your two points, go right ahead… just note that those aren’t the only considerations on our plate.
“1. I think that ethically, all humans should be considered as equal in value,”
This is false, given your willingness to subject the use of a woman’s body to a “panel”, something a man does not have to go through. I’d like more detail about how you’re defining value here.
“(or perhaps think there should be not only two, but multiple gradations of value?)”
That’s closer to my point of views, but “value” is not as meaningful a matter to me as applicability (via capacity) is when it comes to rights. Laws of consent, contracts, licenses, etc… all of these are predicated on the meaningful agency of the person in question. 15 year-olds do not have the knowledge or empowerment to safely engage in sexual acts with adults, the insane (or senile) cannot knowledgeably and soundly sign contracts, and 5 year olds (or the blind) cannot legally drive due to their limitations. Infants have next to no rights at all… not much agency to employ them. And then we get to embryos/fetuses… which unlike infants have no biological independence, no sapience at all (at least in the first few months of gestation), and no clear social/legal status anyways.
“2. I think that ethically, humans should be expected to sacrifice for each other to a considerable extent, whereas you think that the extent should be minimal or non-existent.”
Where did I say this?
“could you look Gianna Jessen or Melissa Ohden in the eye and advocate your position?”
Yep. Why wouldn’t I?
“Before I continue: “matters of potentiality as MORE clearly delineated here” — do you mean “ARE MORE clearly”?”
Also yep.
“Regardless of how we might feel about this issue, it’s a matter of civil rights and the social health…”
I completely agree with the words as such.
In “Education and Art to Change Perceptions of the Unborn,” I wrote:
“It humanized us (those of us who are white) to come to see other races as persons; it humanized us (those of us who are men) to come to see women as persons; it humanized some of those of us who are Americans to come to see the Vietnamese as persons; and it will humanize us to come to see the unborn as persons. That step, crossing that last civil-rights frontier, will humanize us more than any other, because of the subtlety of thought involved. But that may only be possible through education and art.”
As regards “social health,” I would begin by maintaining that an inclusive society, which would mean a humanized society, is likely to be a healthy society.
But for the moment, let’s go on about “civil rights”:
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=52819
“According to Dr. [Alveda] King, when asked about where the Pro-life Movement fits in with her life’s work, ‘The Pro-life Movement is a continuation of the Civil Rights Movement, and abortion is one of the greatest Civil Rights issues of our time.’
“Furthermore, she notes that her father and uncle, Martin Luther King, Jr. were Pro-life and ‘worked hard to promote and preserve civil rights for all Americans.’ In that way, they laid the groundwork for the Pro-life Movement of today . . .”
http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/03/viewpoint-pro-life-and-feminism-arent-mutually-exclusive/
“Not only does this young generation of pro-life women shun the notion that abortion somehow liberates women; it views abortion as the civil- and human-rights cause of our day. Abortion is an injustice that permeates our society. Forty years after Roe v. Wade, we realize that a third of our peers are not here . . .”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-is-a-human-rights-issue
“‘Abortion is a defining human-rights issue of our time,’ according to Speaker of the House John Boehner. And yet most recognized ‘human rights’ organizations do not stand up against this human rights tragedy. Many of these groups – Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others — actually help promote the killing of unborn human beings in the name of ‘human rights.’
“. . . tens of millions of innocent human beings worldwide continue being deprived of their right to life each year.
“All people who care about the human rights of the unborn should act to change the dynamic, to ‘challenge the prevailing paradigm’ in our society, and help get so-called human rights groups to see that abortion is indeed ‘the human rights abuse of our day’.”
To continue regarding “social health”: Once we have an unwanted pregnancy, society has already lost some of its health, and no solution is going to restore that health completely. The situation is complex, and either the solution offered by Roe v. Wade or the solution offered by unborn child-protection legislation will have pros and cons. I think the balance of pros is clearly on the side of unborn child-protection legislation, but I will have to get back to this later.
I had said —
“I think that if we can eliminate simple illogic on both sides, the disagreements between us will boil down to two differences in points of view”
— and you replied —
“I made my disagreements above quite explicit; if YOU wish to boil this down to your two points, go right ahead… just note that those aren’t the only considerations on our plate.”
The first of my points had been —
“1. I think that ethically, all humans should be considered as equal in value,”
Now you say —
“This is false, given your willingness to subject the use of a woman’s body to a ‘panel’, something a man does not have to go through.”
Here you consciously or unconsciously repeat the well-worn fallacy that I exposed in my post, of focusing artificially on only one of the two bodies involved.
Or, you ARE aware that two bodies are involved, yet you prove the main thesis of my point 1 here — you think that some humans should be second-class citizens — without acknowledging that you are basing your sentence on the very idea of “second-class” that I am challenging.
(In other words, I said, “all humans should be considered as equal in value . . . you think some should be second-class citizens,” and you have replied, in effect, “Your first clause doesn’t hold up because the unborn ARE second-class citizens, and ” — now you proceed on that shaky basis — “therefore the panel seems to be primarily concerned with the body of the woman and not with the life of the child.”)
If a man tries to kill a child, his body should be subjected to the intervention of society. There is no inequality here.
“I’d like more detail about how you’re defining value here.”
I don’t know if you really suspect a problem with the definition of “value,” or whether what we have here is simply one of the many disagreements that boil down to my point 1. However, it is true that “value” does ultimately deserve to be defined. I hope to work on this later.
“. . . ‘value’ is not as meaningful a matter to me as applicability (via capacity) is when it comes to rights. Laws of consent, contracts, licenses, etc… all of these are predicated on the meaningful agency of the person in question. 15 year-olds do not have the knowledge or empowerment to safely engage in sexual acts with adults, the insane (or senile) cannot knowledgeably and soundly sign contracts, and 5 year olds (or the blind) cannot legally drive due to their limitations. Infants have next to no rights at all… not much agency to employ them. And then we get to embryos/fetuses… which unlike infants have no biological independence, no sapience at all (at least in the first few months of gestation), and no clear social/legal status anyways.
I completely agree that we should not let the unborn drive or vote. Above you have given examples of various categories of person. And those examples serve very well to make a point that you may not have thought of: 15-year-olds, the insane (or senile), and 5-year-olds (or the blind) do not have all rights. But all those categories have the right to life. Killing any of those persons is murder.
The unborn should not have all rights. But, just like all the categories of lesser capacity that you have mentioned, they should have the right to life. Let’s be consistent. Let’s follow through on your analogy.
As your examples show, in other words, there is ONE right that we do not normally, and should never, predicate on capacity or meaningful agency.
I had written —
“2. I think that ethically, humans should be expected to sacrifice for each other to a considerable extent, whereas you think that the extent should be minimal or non-existent”
— and you replied —
“Where did I say this?”
On the page where we first met, you said:
“If someone cannot compel you to hand over your blood and/or organs for their survival, why would a fetus possess such a right?”
I replied —
“Who says that law is good? Maybe it should be changed also, at least regarding blood. A mother normally only gives blood, etc., not an organ permanently. And the ‘needle to draw the blood’ is already inserted by nature.
“And the child will give blood to her later when she needs it — if it doesn’t, why not compel it?”
— to which you replied —
“I believe it was a supreme court justice who ruled that for the -state- to compel someone to hand over their organ/tissue/blood to another would be ‘ghoulish’, even if it could be morally justified. Are we little more than spare parts?”
And on this page you have extravagantly compared the situation in which we all necessarily begin life, a situation in which a helpless person must depend temporarily on another person, to “trespassing” and “violation of her body.”
Okay, at some point you said, “A [post-natal] child . . . has . . . an expectation of care from their guardian…” I should have said only “minimal.”
Skipping over the quotes of John Boehner et al…
“To continue regarding “social health”: Once we have an unwanted pregnancy, society has already lost some of its health, and no solution is going to restore that health completely.”
An abortion treats the symptom, but indeed… widespread birth control use, comprehensive sex education, and gender equality needs radical implementation in order to address the causes.
“Here you consciously or unconsciously repeat the well-worn fallacy that I exposed in my post, of focusing artificially on only one of the two bodies involved.”
It’s not artificial at all: you seek to force unplanned-pregnant women to carry to term, do you not?
“Or, you ARE aware that two bodies are involved, yet you prove the main thesis of my point 1 here — you think that some humans should be second-class citizens —”
I don’t believe embryos/fetuses CAN be citizens in any meaningful sense, much less possess super-citizenship that would allow them (through their guardians, the state) to take possession of the bodies of women, who are unequivocal citizens.
“If a man tries to kill a child, his body should be subjected to the intervention of society. There is no inequality here.”
An unplanned/unwanted pregnancy is a trespass/aggression that is justifiably met with termination… there is no inequality there, either.
“I don’t know if you really suspect a problem with the definition of “value,””
Yep, I certainly do… particularly when it is used as a weapon against women.
“I completely agree that we should not let the unborn drive or vote.”
I also don’t think they should be able to feed off of an unwilling woman’s body.
“The unborn should not have all rights.”
Why should they have ANY, given that they cannot act as agents in ANY capacity whatsoever?
“And on this page you have extravagantly compared the situation in which we all necessarily begin life,”
(This is irrelevant to this matter, btw)
“a situation in which a helpless person must depend temporarily on another person, to “trespassing” and “violation of her body.””
You cannot deny this basic fact.
(continuation of October 30, 2013 at 5:48 pm)
You have replied to a number of points of my thinking now. To a large extent, you have replied in a spirit that I welcome. As mentioned, I’m under some time constraints. In starting to reply point by point to you as far as practicable, I may start a reply under one of your posts before I finish replying to another of your posts, but I will try to resume the first as soon as possible, and within each post will take your points in order.
I’d like to start with some points you made to me on the web page where we first met (where we faced technical difficulties).
You had said: “A fetus merely being alive is not enough to pass the bar of personhood . . .”
I had replied: “You haven’t stated your ‘bar.’ Sounds arbitrary. [Please see] ‘Personhood and Citizenship.’”
You then replied: “Biological independence, minimal sapience, socio-legal recognition; birth is a reasonable demarcation. . . .
“(and your article was jam-packed with question-begging, so I’m not sure what the relevance of it is here)”
The web page was dedicated to challenging existing abortion-related laws on ethical grounds. So in the first place, in citing “socio-legal recognition,” you attempted to use part of the very laws that were being challenged, as an argument in a discussion about the ethical status of those laws. Besides mentioning the circularity of the argument, I’ll have to mention that law is of no significance as an ethical standard, yet here on this page also you have three times cited law as if it provided some kind of ethical standard.
Secondly, “Biological independence, minimal sapience . . . birth . . .” This is not one bar, but three different stages of development. If you are unsure where to set the bar, it raises doubts as to whether there should be any bar set later than conception.
Now, “question-begging”: This phrase originally denoted a particular kind of fallacious argument. The typical form of the argument was to use a “proof” that was merely a restatement of the starting premise of the argument. Above you have argued, essentially, “My bar isn’t arbitrary, because it’s reasonable.” This is question-begging in the original sense.
However, many people now use “beg the question” as a synonym for “raise the question.”
In your two comments so far here under my article itself, you haven’t repeated the charge “jam-packed with question-begging.” But if you continue to have that concern, please clarify in which sense you mean the term, and identify an example or two in the article.
As I said in my previous reply to you on this page, “. . . the disagreements between us will boil down to two differences in [intuitively-based] points of view.” The above discussion about a “bar” boils down to number 1, and the other matter that we discussed on that page boils down to number 2 — whether humans should be expected to sacrifice for each other. I’ll try to get back to that matter.
Now in the present tense, you have said:
“as you and I only became you and I with time and experience (both of which fetuses lack)”
A 10-year-old also lacks the amount of experience that you and I have. As of right now when I type this, you and I lack the experience that we will have by the time you read it. So you have a consistent argument only if you say that there is no continuity of identity during any period of life – that wherever you look throughout the whole expanse of a life, the same identity is never maintained from moment to moment. That argument would be consistent. However, that argument would not be using the usual definition of “identity” that the idea of personhood depends on.
Referring to my sentence –
“An unborn baby is a typical person, operating as one would expect a typical person to operate at its age”
— you say –
“In that it’s not operating at all… except as a biological burden on the woman that carries it.”
Here, after playing with words for a moment (which I don’t mind), you change the subject to “burden on the woman.” This is a concern that you will keep returning to (and certainly a concern with a certain relative importance) – you will say “trespassing,” “a fetus has more rights,” “her body is being violated.”
You’re correct that a baby in utero is a burden on a woman to some relative extent. In my post, I went so far as to say, “A person who physically resides in a room within another person represents an extra degree of complication for the second person, opening up the possibility of exceptional measures by the second person under some circumstances.”
It would be hard for me to believe, however — though admittedly I’ll never be pregnant — that pregnancy is in all cases a more severe burden than any adult (for instance, an adult who is not the mother, or a mother after pregnancy) might ever be expected by society to bear for the sake of a child. For example, I bet that a lot of mothers feel more burdened on an average day during the first six months of a baby’s post-natal life than they did on an average day during 95% of the pregnancy. Yet would you say that in view of that burden — that trespassing, that violation — that such a mother has a right to kill that post-natal child, or even to passively neglect to feed it and clean it?
I’m not proposing any law that is based on a different principle than existing laws. I just say, let’s extend the coverage of existing child-protection laws, just be more consistent.
(“Any adult who is not the mother”: In my post I gave an example of a job applicant. Here –
http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion
— please see the example – offered by Kristine, a woman! — of the sailor.)
“Potential… for what? How is this meaningfully admissible?”
Potential, for example, for the zygote that you used to be to become what you are now.
The point is that you are able to find a way to deny personhood to a zygote only by thinking of it as if frozen in time, as if it were not part of a seamless process. A human life is one seamless process that has to start somewhere, and how can it be expected that it won’t start small? To ignore potential is a reductive, disconnected, artificial and contrived way of seeing reality.
“A biologically independent, minimally sapient, and socially/legally recognized child that one is placed in explicit guardianship over (at birth, in writing, by choice) has a right to life and an expectation of care from their guardian… neither the initial conditions nor the stipulated obligations exist with abortions.”
Law again. Here you’re just quoting the law as if it were infallible, and as if it were an ethical argument. You’re not addressing the obvious and illogical inconsistency between the protection that the law provides to one baby, and its failure to protect a baby slightly younger and more defenseless.
“You have not established that a fetus is a person or a citizen, which under US law they are not.”
Again, law — as if we have not seen enough bad laws throughout history. The present US anti-unborn laws are just part of a long tradition in the world of oppression and discrimination bearing the sanction of law. Law should be made to conform to morality. We should not set our moral standards to conform to some transitory law of some imperfect society.
A couple of times in your comment you say I have not established that a fetus is a person or a citizen. But you say that, without addressing the case I made in the post. I don’t mind elaborating on that case if necessary, but I should first understand your objections to it. You made your point about “experience,” but I think I have showed how that point does not hold up. Do you have any further objections?
More later on other points.
(continuation of 2013/10/31 at 4:34 pm)
I had written –
“Civilized sensibilities require that person B be prepared to make some sacrifices for the sake of person A”
— and you replied —
“Wait, what ‘sensibilities’ are these? In the US, there are plenty of laws that allow for deadly force to be used against those who are trespassing/aggressing on another’s body or property, even if they aren’t necessarily aware of having committed the acts. A fetus satisfies both cases.”
The analogy between a fetus and a person old enough to trespass/aggress (in terms of the laws you have cited) is far-fetched, and we can find a much less far-fetched analogy: the analogy between a fetus and a week-old baby.
Now we can easily answer the question “what sensibilities?” The same sensibilities that criminalize the killing, abuse, endangerment or even neglect (such as failure to feed it) of a week-old baby, require that person B be prepared to make some sacrifices for the sake of a fetus. And they will operate once we all have clearer vision about that fetus.
“are you saying their reproductive lives should be determined by others? (note your mention of the ‘panel’ below)”
“Reproductive lives” is like “women’s right to control their own bodies.” The latter was analyzed more thoroughly in the post, but the former also is a cunning and cynical bit of socio-linguistic engineering which I don’t have to use in my own speech. I certainly am saying that we should protect our innocent little sisters and brothers in many cases.
More later.
“So in the first place, in citing “socio-legal recognition,” you attempted to use part of the very laws that were being challenged…”
More accurately, I was using in part the grounds from which these laws are made, which here constitutionally refers to birth as the meaningful demarcation for citizenship.
“I’ll have to mention that law is of no significance as an ethical standard,”
How so?
“Secondly, “Biological independence, minimal sapience . . . birth . . .” This is not one bar, but three different stages of development”
No… one could view them as three different bars.
“If you are unsure where to set the bar, it raises doubts as to whether there should be any bar set later than conception.”
Your position is not the ethical default.
“”Now, “question-begging”: This phrase originally denoted a particular kind of fallacious argument.”
Yes, such as your presumption of fetal personhood and the value of potential.
“A 10-year-old also lacks the amount of experience that you and I have. As of right now when I type this, you and I lack the experience that we will have by the time you read it.”
Yep. In the former case however, that 10-year-old does not possess the experience necessary to meaningfully employ many rights that adults possess. In the latter, matters of standing could be brought up, but little else.
“So you have a consistent argument only if you say that there is no continuity of identity during any period of life – that wherever you look throughout the whole expanse of a life, the same identity is never maintained from moment to moment. That argument would be consistent. However, that argument would not be using the usual definition of “identity” that the idea of personhood depends on.”
Whose idea of personhood, might I ask? I’m afraid I’m not granting you this “continuity of identity” outside of legal pragmatic concerns.
“Here, after playing with words for a moment (which I don’t mind),”
I wasn’t playing with words: a fetus does not operate as a person at all… heck, it lacks even the basic capabilities of an infant.
“You’re correct that a baby in utero is a burden on a woman to some relative extent.”
Actually, it’s life-derailing for most.
“It would be hard for me to believe, however — though admittedly I’ll never be pregnant — that pregnancy is in all cases a more severe burden than any adult (for instance, an adult who is not the mother, or a mother after pregnancy) might ever be expected by society to bear for the sake of a child.”
Just out of curiosity… if you believe that society has sway over our reproductive functions, do you think it has the right to curtail them via population control measures?
“For example, I bet that a lot of mothers feel more burdened on an average day during the first six months of a baby’s post-natal life than they did on an average day during 95% of the pregnancy.”
Sounds like yet another reason to grant abortion rights: the potential burdens of motherhood. (you like that word)
“Yet would you say that in view of that burden — that trespassing, that violation — that such a mother has a right to kill that post-natal child?”
An infant is not residing inside her body against her will; big difference there.
“(– please see the example – offered by Kristine, a woman! — of the sailor.)”
An awful example in an awful article. As per usual, analogies that utilize non-invasive rights-bearing persons in the place of fetuses have little value.
“Potential, for example, for the zygote that you used to be to become what you are now.”
Or to become practically anything else… and of course, eventually die. Why is this open array of possibilities meaningful and admissible?
“The point is that you are able to find a way to deny personhood to a zygote only by thinking of it as if frozen in time, as if it were not part of a seamless process.”
I have no problem viewing our lives as continuous… I simply haven’t the frankly rather religious commitment you and others have to viewing this “seamless process” as unitary, rather than ENDLESSLY in flux.
“A human life is one seamless process that has to start somewhere, and how can it be expected that it won’t start small?”
Ok… given the nebulousness of conception/implantation, how about birth as the “start”? Or maybe we go the other direction, and consider the Quiverfull movement’s idea that not choosing to have kids as often as possible robs those potential kids of their lives?
” You’re not addressing the obvious and illogical inconsistency between the protection that the law provides to one baby, and its failure to protect a baby slightly younger and more defenseless.”
An embryo/fetus, not being biologically independent nor minimally sapient, is not merely younger and more frail… it’s neither a person, nor would it have right over a woman’s body for food any more than you or I.
“Law should be made to conform to morality. We should not set our moral standards to conform to some transitory law of some imperfect society.”
Who says morals should be standardized?
“The analogy between a fetus and a person old enough to trespass/aggress (in terms of the laws you have cited) is far-fetched,”
Seriously, you need to be more explicit here.
“and we can find a much less far-fetched analogy: the analogy between a fetus and a week-old baby.”
No comparison can be made, as the infant does not reside inside of the woman. Also…
“The same sensibilities that criminalize the killing, abuse, endangerment or even neglect (such as failure to feed it) of a week-old baby,”
All of these operate under choice: a parent (or en loco parentis adult) takes on such responsibilities by choice upon birth, adoption, job (day care worker, for example) etc.
““Reproductive lives” is like “women’s right to control their own bodies.” The latter was analyzed more thoroughly in the post, but the former also is a cunning and cynical bit of socio-linguistic engineering which I don’t have to use in my own speech. I certainly am saying that we should protect our innocent little sisters and brothers in many cases.”
So yes… you believe women should be made brood mares by committee? This is the heart of the matter.
One of the two main differences between us in intuitively-based points of view has been addressed in a new post, “Personhood,” which I would invite you to look at.
Regarding points of yours not completely addressed in that new post, I will just take one at the moment:
“As per usual, analogies that utilize non-invasive rights-bearing persons in the place of fetuses have little value.”
Your argument about invasiveness is that the sacrifice a pregnant woman makes in carrying and delivering a child is unique — men don’t have to make it — and therefore women should not have to make it either. But what you are doing is artificially defining the issue in such a way that you cannot lose; you are saying that because men don’t have babies inside them, nothing that a woman might do related to her unborn baby could possibly be wrong, lest it violate equality. YOu are trying to impose a rule “If a form of suffering is unique to one gender, that gender has a right to avoid it regardless how much destruction may be wrought, lest it violate equality.”
But really, every sacrifice that might be made to save some helpless person is unique. If I see a child about to run out in front of a car, I can say, “I don’t want to save it because I have a sore ankle, and it’s unique — no one ever had a sore ankle exactly like mine before.” (It’s completely true.) So merely because some sacrifice is unique, is not necessarily a big deal.
So I don’t accept that uniqueness is the issue. The real consideration is the degree of the sacrifice. Compare a healthy and affluent woman who has a trouble-free pregnancy and as smooth as possible a delivery, and thereafter gives for adoption or employs a nanny, to a [Edit:disabled] man living at bare subsistence level who is the only support and care-giver of a sick daughter for years and years — even if that is not your arbitrary “invasiveness.”
More later.
(continuation of November 8, 2013 at 4:25 pm)
I had written —
“Potential, for example, for the zygote that you used to be to become what you are now”
— and you have replied:
“Or to become practically anything else… and of course, eventually die. Why is this open array of possibilities meaningful and admissible?”
We have both been operating on the unstated premise that the chance to live is of some value. If that were not true from your point of view, you would not care about the plight of women. Women also face an open array of possibilities, and will die — though on average sooner than babies, meaning that the value they can expect to realize (whatever that value is) is typically less than that of the babies (some of whom are women).
It would make things more tangible, which might possibly be useful, if you would specify the value of living that you see for women.
And if you would like to discuss potential deeply, that discussion would best be based on your having read also “Too Young for Rights?,” where I’ve further developed my thoughts on that subject.
More later.
” As per usual, analogies that utilize non-invasive rights-bearing persons in the place of fetuses have little value.”
When I looked at this earlier, I recognized the invasiveness argument, and replied only to that. Thinking now about “rights” . . .
You’re saying you would consider (give value to) an analogy between a fetus and X, but only if X was in a woman’s uterus or thereabouts and had no rights.
Rights is the topic of the debate, and you’re saying that the X which Kristine or I use for an analogy must have no rights.
So if we say, “A fetus is just like X (who has no rights),” you will consider it.
The only analogy you will consider is a self-defeating one; in other words, you’re forbidding argument by analogy.
Isn’t this a security fence around your existing thought processes?
Shouldn’t you remove the fence and consider Kristine’s analogy?
(Yes, this is the same Anon Y Mous who has posted extensively at the prolifehumanists.org site.)
In computer science there is a thing abbreviated as “GIGO” –Garbage In, Garbage Out. Basically, if the assumptions at the beginning of a logical argument are flawed, then the conclusions are also flawed. Always.
So, let us start with the flawed assumptions in the argument here, regarding “Personhood and Citizenship”.
1. “The unborn babies …” –that phrase invokes an emotionally charged buzzword, which has nothing to do with Scientific Fact. While I know full well about “dictionary definitions”, I also know that definitions that are not based on Scientific Fact tend to change as a culture changes. In this case the Fact is, a “baby” is human that has been born, while prior to birth, the CORRECT description is “baby under construction”, not simply “baby”.
The Rationale associated with the Facts involves the existence of the “placenta”. A living unborn human organism, growing in a womb, has TWO major components. One is the part called the “fetus”, and the other is the part called the “placenta”. The placenta is an ORGAN as crucial to the life of that unborn human organism as is the liver of a born human. Opponents of Abortion, however, typically ignore the placenta; they want you to think that just the “fetus” part of the overall unborn human organism is all that matters, and they call it a “baby”, which at best is just a half-Truth, and at worst a Deception, a Lie.
To prove that the “fetus” part of the living/growing unborn human organism is NOT the “baby”, all we need do is cut the umbilical cord inside the womb. The “fetus” will then quickly die because abortion opponents are NOT telling the truth about the actual nature of unborn humans. The “fetus” is a Baby Under Construction, period, and it need its placenta until the construction process is finished, and THEN, at birth, it becomes an actual “baby”.
So, if the living unborn human organism is not actually a “baby”, then it logically follows it does not deserve to be treated like an actual born baby, much like, say, the framework of a house under construction cannot be treated as an actual house; one must wait until the construction process is finished before an actual house begins to exist.
2. “An unborn baby is a typical person” –ignoring the first GIGO as already exploded above, now there is a totally unsupported claim that a living unborn human qualifies as a “person”. Again, regardless of what dictionaries have to say on the subject, the claim has nothing whatsoever to do with Scientific Fact. Even Politicians are willing to accept the notion that “person” and “human” are two different concepts (search for [“united nations” ambassador aliens], where the brackets represent the search-box, and you exactly type everything between the brackets).
Abortion opponents, however, cling to the FALSE notion that “human = person” regardless of the Facts. In order to show exactly how stupidly FALSE is that notion, I need to borrow some fictional aliens –we KNOW they are fictional, but they represent a CONCEPT that nobody can prove is wrong.
Start with the equation “human = person”, and try to reverse it: “person = human”. If the reversal was true, then it would be impossible for any non-human to be a person. No Vulcans or Yoda or Klingons or Chewbacca or Jabba ….. Since that is an irrational conclusion, that only humans can be persons, we must conclude that the concept of “person” is a “larger set” than the concept of “human”.
Therefore we could start creating a List:
Humans = persons,
Vulcans = persons,
Yoda = person,
Horta = person (Original Star Trek: “The Devil in the Dark”),
“Companion” = person (Original Star Trek: “Metamorphosis”),
Klingons = persons,
Organians = persons (Original Star Trek: “Errand of Mercy” –and possibly including “Q” from Star Trek the Next Generation),
Chebacca = person,
The Bicentennial Man = person (see the movie of that name),
Jabba = person, and so on, for a LONG, LONG list, since we would have to search the whole Universe to complete it.
Which is ridiculous. After all, we can ALSO make another List:
spider = non-person,
bacterium = non-person,
crab = non-person,
lily = non-person,
worm = non-person,
dandelion = non-person,
ant = non-person, … and so on, for an even longer list (every world in the Universe that hosts person-class species will host even more species of non-persons).
So, a Question, “What GENERIC properties do persons possess that distinguish them from non-persons? I specifically included some quite unusual fictional persons in the first List to point out that Personhood need not have anything to do with carbon-based biology. The Horta is a silicon-based life-form; the Bicentennial Man is a robot, the “Companion” was described as being composed of “simple electricity”, and the Organians apparently have even less physical material in their composition. (The CONCEPT remains as valid as the belief, by huge numbers of humans, in a God that is a person-class entity that also has no PHYSICAL existence.)
So now, instead of making a long long List of all persons, all we need is a short list of the characteristics that persons possess, and that non-persons do not possess. And once you do that, it should be obvious that NO unborn human qualifies as a person.
Elsewhere I have argued about the irrationality of incorporating the word “potential” into the definition of “person”. Here is yet another way of revealing that irrationality.
In Biology there exist two major “reproductive strategies”, called “R strategy” and “K strategy”. Humans are K-strategists; we have few offspring and bestow great care upon them, to help them survive. Oysters are R-strategists; they have hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of offspring, and do not in the slightest exert any care for them, to help them survive. Most get eaten, therefore (but as long as each breeding pair has at least two offspring that survive, out of that initial vast number, the species can continue to survive).
There are plenty of species that exhibit a reproductive strategy that is somewhere between the extremes of the R and K strategies, but here we want to bring up the notion of “intelligent R-strategists”. That is, imagine a person-class species that has a hundred thousand offspring at a time. (The concept is not far-fetched; right here on Earth the octopus is one of the smartest creatures in the ocean, and it is an R-strategist.)
Person-class R-strategists will NOT put a lot of effort into helping their offspring survive, and there are several reasons why. First is that it is simply the way Biology and Evolution have made the R-strategy work for reproduction; they will have no inherent biological drive to offer such assistance. Second, since we assume the adults are person-class entities, we can imagine them THINKING about offering assistance –after which there is this Problem: Exactly How Can One Pair Of Parents Support Ten Thousand Offspring??? Third is the spectre of a Malthusian Catastrophe –if every breeding pair raises ten thousand offspring, how fast will that species become overpopulated beyond any possible means of obtaining adequate food?
Basically, the human K-strategy for reproduction, which drives us to place high value on our small numbers of offspring, also leads human philosophers to think that “Potential” is a valid way of defining “person” –when for a person-class R-strategist species, nothing can be farther from the truth. They KNOW that most of their offspring MUST be allowed to die, even though every one of those millions of offspring have the potential to eventually exhibit person-class characteristics!
In other words, If It Was Actually Valid To Associate Potential With Personhood, it would be valid anywhere and under all circumstances. But since I’ve just shown how that can’t be true, the Logic is simple: It is IRRATIONAL to associate Potential with Personhood.
Most of the rest of the “Personhood and Citizenship” article depends on the Bad Logic that I’ve just exploded above. Therefore the article, just like practically all other anti-abortion arguments, is worthless blather, GIGO.
I need to make a slight correction or two to the descriptions associated with the idea of “intelligent R-strategists”. The initial assumption was that each breeding pair had 100,000 offspring at a time, but later on a question was asked, regarding how such a pair could raise 10,000 offspring. So, that second number also should have been 100,000. AND it should have been mentioned that there would be another 100,000 offspring for that pair to raise, every breeding season….
Thank you. I may need a few days to reply to your post. I have noted this correction. When I reply, would you like an email notification?
Thanks for the offer, but the email address I’ve provided is, so far as I know, as fictitious as the handle. Reply to the post when you like, and in my random page-loads I expect to see it sooner rather than later.
Thanks for your comment.
The structures of “Personhood and Citizenship” and “Personhood,” which you have also seen, are related. I’d like to outline some of the overall structure to explain what “P & C” attempts to do and what it does not attempt to do.
“P & C” begins with a short intuitive appeal regarding the importance of potential in general and of the zygote’s potential in particular. It provides some science for “potential” to hook on to: “Full human potential exists at the zygote stage.” It does not establish the personhood of the zygote as fully as possible. Nevertheless, taking with me those readers who have accepted the personhood of the zygote, and writing off the rest (including you, apparently) temporarily, I proceed to my main topic, which is the signficance of the personhood of the zygote in civic life — “citizenship.”
Then in “Personhood,” I strengthen as much as possible the base that “P & C” rests on: I clarify that personhood cannot ultimately be established by science, and then proceed to try to establish the personhood of the zygote in the best of all the imperfect ways that it can be established: “. . . get to the practical question — should people be free to destroy zygotes, or not? . . . if we want to save the unborn, it is important that they be ‘persons’ . . . Which brings us to the most fundamental question: why do we want to save the unborn? . . . it all boils down to intuition . . . some people’s intuition is better than others.”
So my “final word” on personhood will be found not in “P&C,” but in “Personhood.”
“all we need is a short list of the characteristics that persons possess, and that non-persons do not possess.”
Will comment on this at http//www.prolifehumanists.org, under “A Secular Case.” Search for “Science is fantastic”
Regarding your recurring expressions of concern about overpopulation: Suppose there is a lifeboat designed for 20 persons, but it contains 30. The evening wind about to come up is sure to sink the boat. A few people must die for the sake of the rest. But if someone has to sacrifice themselves or be sacrificed, is it noble for the strong people always to automatically, reflexively, decide that it is the weakest and most defenseless who will be sacrificed?
The structures of “Personhood and Citizenship” and “Personhood,” which you have also seen, are related.
—————-
Actually, I have not closely examined the “Personhood” article. But I will. And while I wrote a reply to the “Personhood and Citizenship” article, I had only read the first bits of it, where you made the errors that I pointed out in my reply. I did not see any need to continue to read flawed conclusions, derived from fundamental fallacies.
=========
I’d like to outline some of the overall structure to explain what “P & C” attempts to do and what it does not attempt to do.
“P & C” begins with a short intuitive appeal regarding the importance of potential in general and of the zygote’s potential in particular. It provides some science for “potential” to hook on to: “Full human potential exists at the zygote stage.” It does not establish the personhood of the zygote as fully as possible.
—————–
Right away I can point out a couple errors. First, “the importance of potential” is a HUMAN valuation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Objective Truth. Therefore you are in-essence appealing to human egos, to act egotistically. Tsk, tsk.
Second, since it is possible to prove that zygotes are NOT persons, it is therefore impossible to prove that they actually are persons. You are wasting your time if you try –and I will in due course be demolishing your efforts in the “Personhood” article.
=========
Nevertheless, taking with me those readers who have accepted the personhood of the zygote, and writing off the rest (including you, apparently) temporarily, I proceed to my main topic, which is the signficance of the personhood of the zygote in civic life — “citizenship.”
Then in “Personhood,” I strengthen as much as possible the base that “P & C” rests on: I clarify that personhood cannot ultimately be established by science,
——————
A FALSE clarification, no-doubt based on incomplete information. There is a reason why I’ve asked you to read part of my Sept 27 post at the other site (starting with the paragraph beginning “Regarding E”).
===========
and then proceed to try to establish the personhood of the zygote in the best of all the imperfect ways that it can be established:
——————
So, by denying Science, you are free to make up whatever “establishing” suits you? Tsk, tsk!
===========
“. . . get to the practical question — should people be free to destroy zygotes, or not? . . . if we want to save the unborn, it is important that they be ‘persons’ . . . Which brings us to the most fundamental question: why do we want to save the unborn? . . . it all boils down to intuition . . . some people’s intuition is better than others.”
—————
And as I’ve written somewhere that you’ve read, there is no way to know whether or not the more-intuitive person is actually using intuition, when making a claim that an abortion opponent would automatically support. “Hear-say” is NEVER admissible evidence!
=========
So my “final word” on personhood will be found not in “P&C,” but in “Personhood.”
—————–
And so I will post my demolition of it to that page, in due course.
==========
“all we need is a short list of the characteristics that persons possess, and that non-persons do not possess.”
Will comment on this at http//www.prolifehumanists.org, under “A Secular Case.” Search for “Science is fantastic”
Regarding your recurring expressions of concern about overpopulation: Suppose there is a lifeboat designed for 20 persons, but it contains 30. The evening wind about to come up is sure to sink the boat. A few people must die for the sake of the rest. But if someone has to sacrifice themselves or be sacrificed, is it noble for the strong people always to automatically, reflexively, decide that it is the weakest and most defenseless who will be sacrificed?
—————–
You are attempting to mix apples and oranges. Per the description above, everyone in the boat is a person. But abortion is about killing NON-persons, mere animals, biological stimulus-response machines. How much would you hesitate before throwing rats overboard? Are you now perhaps noticing that the phrase “Stupid Prejudice” could be relevant with respect to killing rats but trying to save humans that can be EXACTLY as purely animal non-person biological stimulus-response machines?
While certainly abortion kills “human life”, the mere description “human life” does NOT automatically change a mere animal into a person. Perhaps you recall something I wrote elsewhere about white blood cells and homicide? I notice you didn’t reply to that….
Thanks for your reply. Your “white blood cells” remark was in your comment on “Too Young for Rights?” I hope to get to that soon.
I think that the personhood argument is actually a good one. Its just not thought through. If one finishes it, we get a good argument against abortion. I wrote a 3500 word argument from a pro life atheist view. You can check it out here:
http://atheistthinktank.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/part1/
At the moment I’ve skimmed parts of it. I invite you to go to this page (prepend only the http): fightforsense.wordpress.com and do a search on the page for the word “growing”. At each place you find it, if you also find the word “machine” nearby, read that part of the page. Then tell me whether or not the machine, when first released into “the wild”, deserves the same legal protection that abortion opponents would grant to unborn humans. Oh, one more thing. Do you know that “molecular biology” can also be called “natural nanotechnology”? All life-forms are basically machines!