You may be right about this, I have read stories of women who have had abortions being told that it was just extracting some tissue and then being devastated at what went on.
Here is a site with some examples: http://www.gargaro.com/regrets.html
These are probably extreme cases but I think if people read things like this they would be less likly to have abortions.
Well beth, when there were discussions going on about RU386 and whether or not it would become legal in the US or not, NPR did a spot where they talked about male contraceptive drugs. The doctor they spoke with (sorry, but I don’t remember the name) said that there were several companies pursuing this, but with little success. Most of the drugs tested only reduced sperm counts around 50%, which isn’t nearly enough to offer protection. The drugs that reduced the sperm count low enough to prevent conseption also rendered the men impotent. This is, of course, a doubly effective method of birth control, but the manufacturers wisely realized what the market potential of such a product would be. In any case, whomever does come up with a “vasectomy in a pill” will undoubtedly end up making piles of money, so the incentive is certainly there from both a societal and profit perspective.
Most abortions take place in the first trimester, when it IS simply removal of a small bit of tissue, usually vacuumed out. Anti-choice activists like to talk about late-term abortions to shock people when in fact those are pretty rare.
CHROMIUM GRIN & JESS
I never mentioned Utopiah, you didn´t say anything about rates percentages on crime, drug, abortion, alcohol,or corruption in the state of UTAH compared to the rest of the USA. It will be also very interesting to know what percentage belongs to kids that don´t have any religios believes, as we all know now Utah is not only inhabited by LDS people.
JOE MALIK says:
Well, I’m not going to debate “all moral action.” I am not equating social taboos against murder (which obviously uphold the fabric of society, in that people who were allowed to kill each other, or did kill each other, could not long live together) with a religious taboo against not eating non-kosher food, for example. But in the context of abortion, and granting that pro-life people consider abortion to be murder, you cannot equate that belief with a mere religious convention. They are simply taking a tenet accepted by society to its (in their opinion) logical conclusion: if it is wrong to murder, it is wrong to murder unborn babies. My answer to this has always been that I do not personally believe a non-viable fetus to be a “person” entitled to rights or protection independent of those afforded its mother. But I do not pretend that those who believe otherwise do not truly believe, or that their beliefs are not defensible according to their rationale.
First, I think it’s very important to stress yet again that
Actually, if you read the OP again, you will see that it invites discussion of both the moral and legal aspects of the subject. You can hardly excise the morality out of it anyway, since the chief rationale for making abortion illegal is that it is a morally indefensible procedure.
I know this; I think most people do. The point you are missing is that only “certain” rights are protected and those rights may not be infringed “arbitrarily” – your words. This begs the question, of course, of whether the right to abortion is one of those “certain” rights or whether limiting it would be “arbitrary.” The obvious answer, of course, is that if we grant that life begins at conception, then protection of that life is not “arbitrary.”
You have missed the point entirely. Assuming that life begins at conception and that we as a society have agreed that murder is wrong, then “rational justification” exists for taking steps to protect an unborn child. It is because we as a society do not agree on this first point that we as a society cannot agree that “rational justification” exists in this context. For those who disagree with the “life begins at conception” tenet, that fact (or rather, the lack of that fact) does not justify limiting access to abortion services; for those who do believe life begins at conception, it certainly does.
Again, you are assuming, without reason, that the pro-life position is entirely indefensible – a position held by “irrational fanatics,” and a position held arbitrarily and without thought. I continue to maintain that this is not correct; their position is just as “rational” to them as yours is to you. You paint a compelling picture of anarchy under those irrational people and their arbitrary laws, but you do a far poorer job in demonstrating that they are, in fact, irrational or their position, in fact, arbitrary.
But no one ever said this, so we’re doing okay.
And why, again, do pro-life people who believe through reason and “the evidence of their senses” that abortion is wrong, fail this test?
[quote]
All government is not oppression.
[quote]
Sure it is. It tells you what you cannot do, what others cannot do to you, what you must do, and what others must do. It is inherently coercive.
What ever the law and government may “rest” upon, its function is inherently coercive – unless you believe in the libertarian ideal of being governed only when you feel like it, which I contend is manifestly unsustainable.
Back to rationality . . . I’m not going to cut and paste all this. Suffice to say that your entire post misses the point, in that it argues that irrationality and arbitrariness are bad things – and who would argue that they are not? – but it fails to set forth why people who are pro-life are automatically and a priori irrational and/or arbitrary. Personally, I do not see them as “attacking the very fabric of our society,” just because I don’t agree with them.
Really? And how do you think we could do that?
The solutions to STDs and the avoidance of accidental pregnancy lie in the public realm and exist today. The question is not finding them but pursuading people to use them. How do you imagine you could compel everyone act sexually responsibly without infringing upon their rights?
Make sure women who are pregnant can afford to be pregnant, even if it means five months of bed rest.
Pay birthmothers for their time and effort if they choose adoption. Celebrate women who make this choice.
When two apparently intelligent and articulate people appear to be missing each others’ points, one can reasonably conclude that they are merely arguing different points; indeed that seems to be the case.
My goal in my previous post was to demolish only the argument that “we should make such-and-such illegal because (and only because) I believe it to be morally wrong.”
Reasoning from an arbitrary premise is still arbitrary. Until one can demonstrate the appropriateness or validity of the premise itself. Assuming the fetus is a human being, abortion is murder. Assuming a carrot is a person, vegetarianism is murder. Heck, as long as we’re assuming, let’s assume that as well as being super-intelligent, I’m devastatingly handsome and terribly sweet. Are you free Friday night? 
We may assume anything we wish, and apply logic to those assumptions to create deductions, but those deductions are only as strong as the original premises.
Is there a decent cause to assume the fetus is a person? For instance, many assumptions appear obvious; a broad consensus can certainly act as an appropriate basis for holding an assumption on social policy. Clearly, however, no such consensus exists for the personhood of the fetus. In my years, I have heard no “obvious” cause to make this assumption. I certainly invite pro-life proponents to offer a basis to make the assumption, or a deduction from commonly held or observable assumptions. I would welcome such a argument, because then we could actually start to analyze the issue.
I most definitely do not grant the pro-life proponents the personhood of the fetus any more than I grant PETA the personhood of cows. As long as they reason from that assumption, and argue the right to coerce my behavior based on an assumption I (and a hundred million others) do not hold, they argue by definition for oppression and tyranny. Should they convince me that they can deduce the personhood of the fetus from assumptions I do share, even if I disagree with the details of their deduction, we can argue the point on its own merits, rather than on the meta-rational basis I employ now.
Arguing morality on a rational basis is much more difficult than arguing legality. You (the rhetorical you) do not need a rational basis to hold or impose upon yourself any moral value. It is of absolutely no interest to me whether or not you rub blue mud in your navel on Saturday afternoons, whether you believe that cows (or carrots) are people, how you conduct your sex life and a host of other issues that may have great moral significance to you. As long as your actions cause no one any unreasonable inconvenience or contravene agreements you have made, they are outside the scope of rational debate. The morality of abortion is a non-issue. I am no more interested in controverting your stand that abortion is immoral than I care to debate your vegan moral stricture against eating meat.
As to my later point. We could, if we chose, eradicate all bacterial STDs right now as decisively (and considerably more quickly) as we have eliminated smallpox and polio, and with as little infringement upon individual rights. Eradicating viral STDs might perhaps take longer, we need to improve the underlying medical technology, but experience has shown that when you throw money and smart people at a problem (the concept of welfare eradicating poverty obviously lacks a critical element here), they will solve it in time. Developing a method of birth control with few or no side-effects, and distributing it to everyone is not a particularly challenging technical (or economic) problem. And remember the goal here is to reduce unwanted pregnancy; we violate no one’s consent when we allow a person to consciously control his or her own reproduction.
Been considered an alumni from Aritoteles school really flatters me, particularly when English is not my mother language, I don´t want to make any ilegall I´m just expressing my opinion, and there is not a consensus is only an assumption that a fetus is not a person, so you can dictate termination of his life that will be arbitrarial as well don´t you think so?
And for not wanting to discuss my opinion your last post was really eloquent.
And by the way you missed direction, this happens to be
How to reduce abortion in this country.
I´m a pro-life remember? 
The best way to reduce abortions in this country is to not have one - or contribute to one if you’re the guy.
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, one week, four days, 2 hours, 37 minutes and 56 seconds.
6564 cigarettes not smoked, saving $820.55.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 1 day, 19 hours, 0 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. *(Amen, brother!)[/i
Neither is there a consensus on the non-personhood of the fetus. Joe, this is the second thread I’ve seen you assign “pure” logic to your position (and certainly you’ve spelled out your thoughts clearly). But you continue to describe the axioms of the pro-life advocates in a manner that suggests you see nothing axiomatic about the pro-life stance.
To say personhood deserves protection is axiomatic. So is saying that sentience defines personhood. Just as my belief, that “personhood” is marked by the boundary where a being with a potential for thought comes into being. Whether or not something is a broadly held belief may be a convenience in installing laws and public policy, but it does not render something true (my beliefs as well do not, by themselves, make something true by virtue of their intensity). Both sides see certain “truths” as self evident–beyond a certain point, logic fails us all in that nothing is ultimately “provable.”
I’m not suggesting we abandon logical argument or that “feelings” should rule the day. My entire point here is that you are missing the mark a bit in saying your position is manifestly rational and the opposing side is utterly devoid of logic–both sides possess aspects of logic and of “self-evident” truth.
Satan:
Which reminds me of one of my favorite lines from Whoopi Goldberg’s Broadway show, “You want to reduce abortion? Then shoot your dick! Just take that tired little piece of meat down to the ASPCA and have them put it to sleep for you.”
-GLW
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by GLWasteful *
**Satan:
maybe YOURS is tired 
I’m trying making two big points here: 1) Non-rational arguments are dangerous and 2) I have not seen a rational argument supporting the pro-life position. I believe I have persuaded most people of the validity of my first point.
As to the second, it is not a proof, it is an assertion and as such is easily refuted by a counterexample. As I have said before, I would very much like to see a rational explanation of the pro-life position, beyond the mere bald assumption of the personhood of the fetus. One may either rationally demonstrate that a fetus is a person, or that a fetus deserves protection despite its non-personhood. Contrawise, the pro-choice position can be supported either by demonstrating the non-personhood of the fetus or arguing it deserves less protection despite its personhood.
I spent considerable time deducing that sentience is a rational definition of personhood; I do not hold it as axiomatic. I reason the definition from cases which do have a consensus (e.g. a dog is not a person). I have seen no such deduction from the pro-life position. I do agree that some protection of personhood is consensually axiomatic.
I must say I am very frustrated. I have demonstrated the pro-choice position is not arbitrary, it has a rational justification. This is not to say the logic or premises do not contain error, but the argument is subject to rational analysis in all its phases.
I wish to add that in the context of your own private life, deciding the morality of abortion is an entirely personal decision, and I have neither the desire nor the ability to controvert your decision. If you find abortion immoral, you need not have one. Indeed, I would defend your right to resist having an abortion coerced upon you under any circumstances.
I wish to additionally assert that the burden of proof lies with the person who wishes to restrict or coerce another’s behavior. I think it’s a legitimate argument to claim that “I should be free to do (or not do) such-and-such merely because I wish it.” Naturally such an argument is not authoritative or final; such a person must counter on its own terms any rational argument the proponent of a restriction or compulsion offers.
(Remember that an assertion is merely a statement offered for comment and rational dispute. It is not intendend to represent a proof or a rational conclusion.)
I beg you, I’m pleading, if you wish to support the imposistion of a moral stance on others, offer a rational argument so that we may analyze it as reasonable beings. Please stop complaining that I am calling your position arbitrary and prove me wrong.
I (and it would appear others) do NOT feel you have demonstrated a rational justification for a pro choice position…just saying you have does not make it so(as you said about the pro life stand). Most (not all) folks in this thread seem to agree that a fetus/unborn child IS a human life/human being. That is a scientifically demonstrable notion.
Where most folks disagree is whether the fetus/unborn child has achieved PERSONHOOD. Personhood, by its very nature IS a somewhat arbitrary or axiomatic notion. Some people define legal personhood by sentience…and claim that a fetus lacks sentience. I would argue that a sentience based definition of personhood is AS arbitrary as a skin color based definition of personhood. You have NOT demonstrated to me that your definition is superior, I have not seen any rationale that convinces me otherwise.
Indeed, sentience is but one of the many critical steps of brain development on a continuum…there is no magic switch that is turned on to transform a fetus into a person…
from http://www.catholiceducation.org/abortion/ab0027.htm
(yes, a religious site, but the stats/facts quoted are from science literature)
"Myth 14: “A ‘person’ is defined in terms of the active exercising of ‘rational attributes’ (e.g., thinking, willing, choosing, self-consciousness, relating to the world around one, etc.), and/or the active exercising of ‘sentience’ (e.g., the feeling of pain and pleasure).”
Fact 14: Again, these are philosophical terms or concepts, which have been illegitimately imposed on the scientific data. The scientific fact is that the brain, which is supposed to be the physiological support for both “rational attributes” and “sentience,” is not actually completely developed until young adulthood. Quoting Moore:
“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25.”42 (Emphasis added.)
One should also consider simply the logical — and very real — consequences if a “person” is defined only in terms of the actual exercising of “rational attributes” or of “sentience.” What would this mean for the following list of adult human beings with diminished “rational attributes”: e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, the depressed elderly, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s patients, drug addicts, alcoholics — and for those with diminished “sentience,” e.g., the comatose, patients in a “vegetative state,” paraplegics, and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be considered as only human beings but not also as human persons? Would that mean that they would not have the same ethical and legal rights and protections as those adult human beings who are considered as persons? Is there really such a “split” between a human being and a human person?
In fact, this is the position of bioethics writers such as the Australian animal rights philosopher Peter Singer,43 the recently appointed Director of the Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Singer argues that the higher primates, e.g., dogs, pigs, apes, monkeys, are persons — but that some human beings, e.g., even normal human infants, and disabled human adults, are not persons. Fellow bioethicist Norman Fost actually considers “cognitively impaired” adult human beings as “brain dead.” Philosopher/bioethicist R.G. Frey has also published that many of the adult human beings on the above list are not “persons,” and suggests that they be substituted for the higher primates who are “persons” in purely destructive experimental research."
Even IF sentience WERE a standard of personhood, I DID provide a rationale (through 2 linked web sites in a previous post) to suggest that sentience may appear sooner than many in the pro choice camp would have us believe.
If you choose to disagree with that evidence…fine. To say that YOU have demonstrated a rationale for the pro choice position and that the pro life folks in the thread have NOT, is to just claim that your reasoning is more sound than others. At the very least, it is certainly not an arbitrary position. Disagreement over evidence does not equal arbitrary evidence.
The game is not yet won by either side, but I applaud you for stepping up to the plate. You have clearly proven wrong (and I am sincerly grateful) my claim that there are no pro-life arguments with basis in rationality!
Now, we can begin to examine the actual arguments.
Let’s get rid of the easy stuff first.
I have indeed demonstrated a rational justification. I did not, however claim it was definitive or conclusive; indeed, I have explicitly denied such a claim. I don’t claim to have won the debate, I merely claim to be engaging in it. Don’t mistake my insistence that we remain in the arena of rationality with a claim that my own reasoning is perfect and without flaw.
Of course not. But now that we are both arguing in the arena of rationality we have a chance of examining each other’s arguments in a consistent manner.
Now to the good stuff.
Actually you do no such thing in your post. You do better! You deduce that the definition of personhood based on the exercise of sentience excludes obvious and consensually determined cases of beings we both consider persons. I find your reasoning ironclad and without flaw; I am forced to agree without reservation. Clearly, defining personhood by the exercise of sentience is not compatible with our shared beliefs.
To recap my argument from the other thread, I have offered an alternative definition: The possession of the physical capability of exercising sentience, i.e. the possession of a sophisticated and powerful brain. This definition seems to offer the advantage of including every obvious case of personhood and excluding every obvious case of non-personhood, as well as objective determinability. Note that the possession of a fully developed brain is not the criterion I offer. Babies, children, the mentally retarded, even a third-trimester fetus, show clear objective evidence of possessing a brain more sophisticated than any but the most intelligent adults of non-human animals. (Indeed, I would consider non-obvious the personhood or lack thereof of certain animals, notably adult dolphins and gorillas).
Of course, my argument is as yet inconclusive, but we have entered actual reasoned debate and I cannot help but feel we are making real progress.
I invite you to both refute my definition and to offer your own. I welcome the opportunity to submit my own views to your careful and skeptical scrutiny as eagerly as I do the opportunity to examine your views with equal care and skepticism.
JOE MALIK says:
But no one ever said that, so you spent a lot of time refuting a position no one took. I said that a broad social consensus (grounded at bottom in morality) underlies many laws; I never said that anything should be made illegal solely because any one persons believes it is morally wrong. No one else asserted this either, as far as I can tell.
Surely you see that this is a two-edged sword. It is your “arbitrary premise” that the pro-life position (or, as you call it, premise) is invalid. But you have failed to articulate why that is so. I realize that this devolves into a “you go first,” “no, you go first” argument over who is going to initiate debate, but I simply point out that it was you who first asserted that the pro-life position is essentially rationally indefensible, and it is technically up to you to prove the truth of your assertion. But what the heck, I’ll take a shot at defending the logic of the pro-lifers, just in the interest of moving this along.
This question is not phrased appropriately, IMO. Contrary to your phrasing, we are not talking about “assumptions;” we are talking about proof. You yourself are demanding proof (or at least defensible argument) for what you term their “assumption;” in so doing, you are demanding that they make something more than a mere assumption of it.
Actually, I think that social consensus is a remarkable poor standard for deciding if a particular premise (“life begins at conception”) is objectively defensible or not. An entire civilization may believe that the volcano explodes because the god is angry, but that doesn’t make that premise correct.
Alrighty. Through science: Life begins at conception because conception is the single act that results in a “new” entity that is scientifically provable to be neither its father nor its mother, but rather entirely new and unique. Through logic: Life begins at conception because it is the starting point in a progress that, if left to run its own natural course, will almost inevitably result in the birth of a new person. Through religion: Life begins at conception because the moral imperative to respect human life includes by extension the moral imperative that one respect the potential for human life.
I’m sure other people can come up with other reasons. And I want to be careful to point out that I am not arguing the underlying validity of the pro-life position. As a person who is firmly pro-choice, it would be inappropriate for me to do so, and I couldn’t do it with any conviction, because I personally do not think it is a valid position. I am simply pointing out that – contrary to your thesis – legitimate, rational, non-arbitrary arguments can be made in support of the pro-life position. You may disagree with them if you choose – I do – but I your position that no such arguments exist at all is, IMO, incorrect. Just because we don’t agree with the arguments does not mean the arguments don’t exist and are not defensible as argument, if not (in our opinions) for their underlying validity.
Surely you can see that a basic definitional argument of “personhood” could include a newly-conceived human embryo. You do not have to agree with it, but such a definition is every bit as workable as any other. And your disagreement with that definition does not make it an “assumption” anymore that whatever personal definition of “personhood” you approve of is a priori an assumption on your part.
Again, the flaw in your argument is your assumption that a pro-life definition is indefensible and arbitrary – is, in other words, nothing more than an assumption.
No, you haven’t, but then I’m not asking you to. You won’t find me arguing that the pro-choice position cannot be rationally justified – it can. But so can the pro-life position, under the arguments made above (among others). Again, you may legitimately disagree with the validity of those arguments, but I am at a loss to see how you can continue to argue they do not exist and are not rationally defensible.
I have given you three rational arguments in favor of it. I am not willing to argue their validity (as I have already said), since my only intention is to take issue with your contention that no such rational arguments even exist.
This is unfair. If you assert that the prolife position is arbitrary – which you have – then it is up to you to prove the validity of your own assertion. It is not incumbent upon those whose position you have attacked to prove your wrong, before you have supplied even an iota of argument tending to prove you are right. It’s your argument; you make it, instead of demanding someone else “prove you wrong.”
Which is the whole ball game as far as I’m concerned, because that was the argument I personally found indefensible. But I’ll stick around . . .
Again, no you haven’t. And, with respect, your “did too!” assertion does not make it so. If Dave and I have mised it, feel free to cut and paste it.
And here we get into trouble.
-
Who decides how “sophisticated and powerful” a brain is needed to qualify for “personhood”? A brain “sophisticated and powerful” enough to make the heart beat? That’s first trimester, not third. One “sophisticated and powerful” enough to cause movement and reaction to stimulus, including pain? That’s second trimester, not third. Fetal development is a continuum and every fetus develops at a different rate, so how would you go about establishing the “personhood” of each individual fetus, and who do you trust with the awesome task of making that determination?
-
What about other entities (not fetuses) that do not meet the criteria of “sophisticated and powerful” brains, like a full-term baby born without a brain stem, or an adult rendered brain-dead in an accident? Do they not qualify for “personhood”?
Look, I’m pretty sure I can speed this up. You will offer your definitions of “personhood,” which a pro-life person will reject because they are unworkable and cannot be uniformly applied, or because they do not take into account other attributes that a pro-life person will consider crucial to a definition of “person.”
The pro-life person will offer his or her definition of “personhood,” which you will reject because you do not agree with them, either.
The two of you will never agree, nor will either of you ever be willing to concede the validity, much less superiority, of the other’s argument, and we will be right back where we started.
If it was possible to reach a consensus on what constitutes “life,” and when life begins, we’d have solved the abortion debate years ago. It’s precisely because we cannot agree of this that we continue to argue the issue.
And, lest you think I am criticizing your position while refusing to state my own, I am pro-choice and personally believe that a reasonable determinant for the propriety of on-demand abortion would be the point at which a fetus becomes viable outside the womb without extraordinary medical intervention. But that’s just me; I have no illusions that I will be able to argue pro-life people into agreeing with me.
From Pro-Life - Is it about compassion or punishment.:
Bob Cos: “I am (pro-life) because I think it is reasonable to believe this entity prior to birth is human life, which deserves protection and respect.” (However, he offers no reasons).
PatrickM: “Any person’s taking of another person’s life, without legal justification for such an act, such as for self defense, act of a declared war, or capital punishment, is ALWAYS wrong.” (He assumes personhood of the fetus)
beagledave: “But to say that people with a moral position shold not try to 'impose” that moral position on others is silly and naive."
beagledave: “I had said that SOME pro choicer folks will say that pro life folks don’t have the right to “impose’ (a word usually used by those speakers) their 'morality” on others. i responded that the “imposition” of morality occurs in lots of settings. If you (or anyone else) wants to disagree with this particular 'imposition of morality” (or coersion as you put it), then fine…that’s what a democratic political process is for." (And so I did).
My overall apologies for refuting such arguments in only this thread; the other had become unwieldly and was (at the time) embroiled in a discussion on the applicability of the tenets of Jewish law.
Indeed I am asking for proof or at least a consensual basis for holding the assumption. They are the ones asking to coercively enforce standards of behavior, it seems appropriate that they should be required to make an argument to be taken seriously.
I agree that it’s not perfect; certainly a premise is invalid, however widely held, if it contradicts observable facts or makes unverifiable factual claims. However, especially in a debate about values and social policy, statements to which we all agree form a very good starting point. I am willing to hold, for instance, the strong protection of persons from death as axiomatic; I doubt that many here would care to argue the opposite view.
I agree, being convinced especially by beagledave’s exposition.
I disagree. It was not from disagreement but from absence of argument (since corrected) that impelled me to label the definition arbitrary. As mentioned above, I am willing to allow an arbitrary definition if it is consensual (I both agree with it and it seems virtually uncontested). However, I am not willing to grant an arbitrary definintion if it does not fulfill both conditions. My own arguments (as opposed to my private beliefs, which are no one’s business but my own) on controversial issues either derives from consensual assumptions or from the default argument that unless you can defend your position, you shouldn’t impose it by force on another.
My definition of personhood is such a deduction. We are tasked with creating a reasonable definition of personhood. To evaluate a candidate definition, it should exclude every obviously non-human thing, and include everyone obviously human. We cannot achieve perfection but we can place our decision on a more rational basis than simply saying, “such-and-such is a human begin because I say so;” a technique entirely void of rationality.
Let us consider some obviously non-human things: A rock, A carrot, A dog, My severed finger, A sperm in a man’s testicle and the ovum in his wife’s ovary.
A precondition for humanness is biological animal life. Clearly a rock or a carrot does not qualify in this regard. However a dog does qualify, so this qualification, while necessary, is not sufficient; it includes too many obviously non-human items.
Let us consider some obviously human beings: An ordinary adult, a baby, a mentally retarded child, a pair of identical twins.
Now, let us consider qualifications that include each of the obvious humans but (and this is the critical consideration) does not include any of the obviously non-human items.
The possession of human genetic material includes all the humans, but includes my severed finger and the sperm and ovum. Unique genetic information includes the finger (from random mutations in the various cells). Unique and sufficiently distinct genetic information incorrectly excludes one of the pair of twins. Clearly it seems difficult to formulate a consistent rational definition based on genetics alone.
Sentience, the exhibition of obviously human mental processes, seems a more fruitful area of inquiry. But sentience alone will not serve; a baby does not display distinctively human mental processes. However, it posseses in present time the necessary physical apparatus of the brain to develop such consciousness, as well as the ability in present time to exist independently. If we attempt to include indirect potential, we lose the ability to exclude things like the seperate sperm an ovum, which does indeed have the indirect potential.
I have summarized the argument and necessarily omitted many important points. For instance in some cultures an infant under one year old does not qualify as “obviously” human; infanticide is not considered murder. But the basic thrust of the matter in creating a definition is that one must craft it based on substantial agreement (obviousness), and then see where the situation in dispute lies. My analysis may be flawed, but I believe I have conclusively proven that it rational and not arbitrary.
I disagree. I am not the one telling people which choice to make in a controversial situation. There is a fundamental asymmetry: The pro-choice position counsels passivity; one should not interfere in the freedom of another. The pro-life position compels a particular choice. On them rests squarely the burden of proof.
I did not assume that the pro-life definition was arbitrary, I concluded so from the absence of evidence to the contrary. A counterexample was all that was necessary to refute that position. And I never even clamed that pro-life was indefensible; to the contrary I have called time and again for its proponents to engage in that defense.
I might as well refute your substantive points. You may disclaim adherence, but I’m sure they will be repeated by those with a more sincere interest.
Life begins at conception because conception is the single act that results in a “new” entity that is scientifically provable to be neither its father nor its mother, but rather entirely new and unique.
A fetus fails the test of “entity” since it does not have independent existence.
Life begins at conception because it is the starting point in a progress that, if left to run its own natural course, will almost inevitably result in the birth of a new person.
A glance between two heterosexual fertile lovers can form such a starting point, depending on your arbitrary definition of “almost inevitable”.
Life begins at conception because the moral imperative to respect human life includes by extension the moral imperative that one respect the potential for human life.
This includes a separated sperm and egg as “human” since they have such “potential”.
Surely you are not indicating that my statement is equivalent to saying “we should make such-and-such illegal because (and only because) I believe it to be morally wrong”? Oh, wait! That’s exactly what you’re doing. After all your eloquent rhetoric, it’s hard to believe it was lost on you that I was posting to state a consistency of belief (which was the thread’s topic) and not to offer a law that I expected all to follow without question.
You may still feel I have contributed nothing rational to the debate, but to offer this quote as “evidence” of a pro-life proclamation to “follow what I believe, simply and only because I believe it” is, at best, obtuse, and, at worst, dishonest. You demand rational conclusions from others? Please do so in your analysis of “evidence” supporting your contentions.
JOE MALIK:
No problem, but I’m sure you can appreciate my confusion in reading your lengthy refutation of a point no one raised in this thread. Your arguments will very likely miss those to whom they were apparently addressed, namely the participants in that other thread (unless they happen to wander over here), and they were a bit off-point to the discussion occurring in this thread, but nevermind.
The objective proof for the wrongness of abortion is that it unarguably anhililates the existence of potential human beings by putting a stop to a natural process – already begun – that would result in the birth of a child. So there’s “proof,” but a “consensual basis” is precisely what you will never have on this issue because a “consensual basis” will never be reason enough to undertake a certain action in the mind of moral absolutists. If killing another human being is wrong, then it remains wrong even if you are talking about the Aztecs and their practice of ritual human sacrifice. The fact that an entire society agreed that such action was “right” would not make it right in the eyes of a modern moral absolutist. Similarly, a pro-life person who is convinced that life begins at conception will not be swayed even if the vast majority of society disagrees.
Many people – religious people in particular, and not even necessarily fundamentalists – would take strong exception to this statement. Christians, Jews, and Moslems alike believe that “right” and “wrong” are God-given concepts, not dependent on social consensus or “values.” The fact that no handful of Christians, Jews, or Moslems (assuming you mix liberals and conservatives) will agree on the scope of those values will not negate the fact that none of them think they are socially-dependent.
But since you have conceded that their position is not in fact arbitrary, I don’t think we need to worry about this point anymore.
Of course, but you must first get someone to agree with your definition. So far, I don’t think anyone has. For example, you’ve given no justification for excluding the non-human but genetically near-human (such as gorillas and chimps). You’ve given no reason for excluding the human potential (such as a sperm or egg). You’ve given no reason for not excluding the non-sentient-but-otherwise-obviously-human (such as the brain-dead adult or literally brainless newborn). You can’t even start to debate the issue unless you can agree on terms, and for this particular argument, people generally can’t agree on anything.
I am not talking about the larger question of abortion, I am talking about the context of this debate. If you start the debate by essentially stating “the pro-life position is indefensible,” then it is up to you to prove your own point. You cannot simply say (as you basically have) “the pro-life position is indefensible; prove me wrong.” You have the obligation, in the context of debate, to prove yourself right. Especially when, in the playground vernacular, you started it.
I said:
To which you replied:
The fact that an embryo cannot exist independent of its mother does not mean it does not have an idependently identifiable existence. “Entity” may be defined as “the existence of a thing as contrasted to its attributes.” An embryo is an identifiable independent “thing” that is neither its mother nor its father, but something entirely new and different. The bacteria that live in my intestinal tract do not lose their “independent” existence simply because they cannot live outside of my body.
I said:
To which you replied:
I consider this to be semantics, frankly. If two people merely look at each other, the result is not “almost inevitably” a baby unless you use an extremely tortured definition of “inevitable” that you yourself admit would be arbitrary. (And I would go beyond arbitrary – it would be a ridiculous way to define “inevitable,” akin to defining “slow” as “fast.”) If conception occurs, the statistical probability is that a baby will result. The same can hardly be said for a glance.
I said:
To which you reply:
No, it does not, because neither a sperm nor an egg can become a human being without something else happening to it or combining with it. A fertilized embryo needs no other affirmative action to occur in order to become a baby – it does not need to be acted upon, in other words, for that result to occur.