Incoherent rage re: El Salvador and abortion

[Lemur866]

Why won’t people argue against what Bricker is actually arguing?

Pay closer attention.

The fact that in the case of an ectopic pregnancy the baby is a human being is relevant to whether that baby’s life can morally be ended, but it isn’t the only thing to consider. The baby is a human being, and so cannot be killed for no good reason. However, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy the baby’s mother will die unless the baby is removed.

Yes, the baby will die. If there were any other way to save the mother’s life that didn’t have the secondary effect of killing the baby, then you would (under Bricker’s morality) be obliged to do that instead. Tragically, no such procedure exists. We have no way to save the baby, the baby will die no matter what we do. We do have a way to save the mother, which is to remove the baby from the fallopian tube. And so it is moral to abort an ectopic pregnancy. And so the El Salvadorian law is immoral under Catholic teaching.

Note that I’m not Catholic, but the principle is very easy to understand.

It seems to me that many pro-choice people argue backwards. We must allow abortion…so therefore we must take as an axiom that fetuses (or to use a more loaded word, unborn babies) are not human and have no more right than (in a memorably pithy term) a cancerous tumor. You have no problem removing a tumor, right? So therefore abortion is morally unproblematic.

Except that’s ridiculous. The mere fact that we see legal abortion, even elective abortion, as neccesary, it does not follow that therefore the fetus must have no more rights than a tumor. If someone points a gun at me, I can respond with deadly force, I have that right. But the other human being who threatened me doesn’t thereby become a thing with no human rights. We have decided that my right to protect myself outweighs the other person’s right to life. We have balanced opposing rights, and found a workable compromise. We didn’t have to conclude that some people are things with no rights.

So the mere fact that a fetus might have some rights under some circumstances doesn’t necessarily mean that we must ban all abortion. We might as a society come to the compromise that the fetus’s right to life is outweighed by the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. We might come to the compromise position that while the fetus has the right to life government intervention to protect that life is unworkable and likely to cause more harm than good. In fact, we have largely done so. Only the very most extreme pro-choicers argue that a viable baby has no human rights. And I contend that they don’t make such arguments from principle, but rather they want to preserve legal abortion and are afraid if they concede one iota to common sense we’ll end up with the Taliban.

Thing is, most people in the US are pro-life, they believe that an unborn baby has some kind of rights, even if they don’t know exactly what those rights are. And most people in the US are pro-choice, they believe that pregnant women have some sort of autonomy and need to be able to make hard decisions for themselves. I know it’s hard for ideological pro-lifers and pro-choicers to believe, but most people are smart enough and pragmatic enough to believe both. Yes, you can trot out your exceptions, your foam-flecked fundamentalists, your infanticide supporters.

But why are people so worried about the weakness of their position that they’re convinced that if we allow the democratic process to work that they would lose everything? You’re sure that without Roe v. Wade, American legislators would in a second follow the lead of El Salvador? Really?

[Lemur866]

@Guinastasia

In this case, it doesn’t matter-this person, or fetus, or whatever you want to call it, is a ticking time bomb. So “killing” the person in this case would be self-defence.

That was Bricker’s point. Except it does matter that fetus is a person. Not that you can’t kill the ticking time bomb person in self defense, but that you can only morally kill it BECAUSE this person is a ticking time bomb. If the fetus is just a tumor then there’s no tragedy, just a simple medical procedure like removing an ingrown toenail. Except it doesn’t work backwards like that, the tragic necessity for the baby’s death doesn’t magically erase the humanity of the baby.

[Syntropy]

@Lemur866

Why won’t people argue against what Bricker is actually arguing?

I just did. I think you were composing your post when I posted mine.

The fact that in the case of an ectopic pregnancy the baby is a human being is relevant to whether that baby’s life can morally be ended, but it isn’t the only thing to consider. The baby is a human being, and so cannot be killed for no good reason. However, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy the baby’s mother will die unless the baby is removed.

Not necessarily, but it’s certainly an increased risk, along with sepsis. It will certainly endanger her life.

It seems to me that many pro-choice people argue backwards. We must allow abortion…so therefore we must take as an axiom that fetuses (or to use a more loaded word, unborn babies) are not human and have no more right than (in a memorably pithy term) a cancerous tumor. You have no problem removing a tumor, right? So therefore abortion is morally unproblematic.

Whaaaa? No. No one is saying “we need abortion to be legal, so let’s find a scientific justification.” Not at all. If abortion were morally unproblematic, it wouldn’t be a difficult choice for so many women. You seem to be under the impression that pro-choice people are fooling themselves into believing something. On the contrary, most pro-choice advocates are fully aware of the moral dilemma. That’s why most pro-choice advocates ARE pro-choice. It’s such a large decision, only the woman involved can make it for herself. Only she can decide if the moral implications of having a child outweigh the moral implications of not having one. And vice versa. That’s why it’s pro-choice and not pro-abortion. See the difference?

Except that’s ridiculous. The mere fact that we see legal abortion, even elective abortion, as neccesary, it does not follow that therefore the fetus must have no more rights than a tumor. If someone points a gun at me, I can respond with deadly force, I have that right. But the other human being who threatened me doesn’t thereby become a thing with no human rights. We have decided that my right to protect myself outweighs the other person’s right to life. We have balanced opposing rights, and found a workable compromise. We didn’t have to conclude that some people are things with no rights.

No one is saying that. What we are saying is that until that fetus is self sustaining, it isn’t a person, except in potentia. There are specific benchmarks of development which define that personhood.

But why are people so worried about the weakness of their position that they’re convinced that if we allow the democratic process to work that they would lose everything? You’re sure that without Roe v. Wade, American legislators would in a second follow the lead of El Salvador? Really?

Well, right now, we’re discussing El Salvador and how one specific type of pregnancy is causing unnecessary long term problems for many of its female citizens. If you want to discuss the ramifications of whether or not overturning Roe would inflict the same problems on our citizens, please start a new thread.

[Gorsnak]

@Lemur866

And so the El Salvadorian law is immoral under Catholic teaching.

If that is so, then why did the RC hierarchy in El Salvador under the leadership of Archbishop Lacalle actively campaign in favour of the current law, and why is the Catholic church doing nothing to alter the current state of affairs?

I’m trying to engage with the argument Bricker says he is making, namely, that the situation in El Salvador is “not the logical conclusion of extant pro-life views”, but he has so far ignored my posts challenging that position.

[Syntropy]

@Lemur866

That was Bricker’s point. Except it does matter that fetus is a person. Not that you can’t kill the ticking time bomb person in self defense, but that you can only morally kill it BECAUSE this person is a ticking time bomb. If the fetus is just a tumor then there’s no tragedy, just a simple medical procedure like removing an ingrown toenail. Except it doesn’t work backwards like that, the tragic necessity for the baby’s death doesn’t magically erase the humanity of the baby.

It. Isn’t. A. Person. It never will be. Never, ever, ever. No matter how many times you say it’s human, or how hard you try to emotionalize the issue by referring to it as a baby. It will never acheive personhood.

[Bricker]

@Guinastasia

In this case, it doesn’t matter-this person, or fetus, or whatever you want to call it, is a ticking time bomb. So “killing” the person in this case would be self-defence.

“Self-defense” is not quite the right term, since the usual instance of self-defense is against a person who has chosen to use deadly force against YOU. In this case, the threat is not borne of malice or negligence.

Let’s suppose thet you were dying, and in order to live, you needed a heart transplant. I have a tissue match to you; my heart can safely be transplanted into you.

Are you morally justified in killing me to save your own life?

And would you want to defend yourself in such a way that leaves the victim wounded (complete removal of the Fallopian tube), or where the victim is unharmed (the less invasive removal of the fetus itself)?

A full salpingectomy is only performed when the implantation and growth of the embryo has damaged the fallopian tube too greatly for it to function in the future, or if the fallopian tube has already burst. If this has not happened, it’s perfectly licit to perform a partial salpingectomy, which does not remove the complete tube and is much less of a wound to the mother.

[Bricker]

@Maureen

It. Isn’t. A. Person. It never will be. Never, ever, ever. No matter how many times you say it’s human, or how hard you try to emotionalize the issue by referring to it as a baby. It will never acheive personhood.

Why not? Merely repeating this claim yourself is hardly proof. Why should I accept your definition of personhood?

[Bricker]

@Gorsnak

If that is so, then why did the RC hierarchy in El Salvador under the leadership of Archbishop Lacalle actively campaign in favour of the current law, and why is the Catholic church doing nothing to alter the current state of affairs?

I’m trying to engage with the argument Bricker says he is making, namely, that the situation in El Salvador is “not the logical conclusion of extant pro-life views”, but he has so far ignored my posts challenging that position.

I can’t answer that, except to speculate. I have no idea whther this Salvadorean law is a result of any compromise between groups; I have no idea if Bishop Lacalle saw this as a flawed, but better, state of affairs than had existed before… I simply don’t know.

What I do know, if pretty solid detail, is the current pro-life stance of the Church here in the US, and the distinctions between that stance and the Salvadorean law.

[Gorsnak]

@Bricker

I can’t answer that, except to speculate. I have no idea whther this Salvadorean law is a result of any compromise between groups; I have no idea if Bishop Lacalle saw this as a flawed, but better, state of affairs than had existed before… I simply don’t know.

What I do know, if pretty solid detail, is the current pro-life stance of the Church here in the US, and the distinctions between that stance and the Salvadorean law.

Without professing to know anything about the political situation that wasn’t in the OP’s article, I nevertheless call bullshit. You have no idea if this law was the result of a compromise?!? Riiiiiight. Lacalle and the RCC were fighting tooth and nail against even more conservative forces that were trying to impose the death penalty on anyone who even mentions abortion, maybe? Give me a break. RTFA. Lacalle and the Church were instrumental in pushing for a more restrictive law. They were not reluctantly supporting it while trying to mitigate its excesses. How can I possibly take your response here seriously?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

“Self-defense” is not quite the right term, since the usual instance of self-defense is against a person who has chosen to use deadly force against YOU. In this case, the threat is not borne of malice or negligence.

Let’s suppose thet you were dying, and in order to live, you needed a heart transplant. I have a tissue match to you; my heart can safely be transplanted into you.

Are you morally justified in killing me to save your own life?

That seems an oversimplification. Surely a more accurate analogy would be one in which your condition is *caused or the result of * the actions of the potential heart transplant patient. I’m sure you’d agree that while there is not malice or purpose behind this cause, that it is the foetus that is the cause.

[Bricker]

@Lemur866

Why won’t people argue against what Bricker is actually arguing?
.
.
.
But why are people so worried about the weakness of their position that they’re convinced that if we allow the democratic process to work that they would lose everything?

I can only speculate, but I find it interesting that sloppy and incomplete logic are permitted here without outcry from any observer… no one, except you, has pointed out the disconnect between the arguments I’m making and the responses I’m getting.

I have a theory: that when a particular instance of a cherished cause… Bush Sucks or Abortion Is Sacrosant … is challenged, even when the particular instance is on shaky ground… the general board population is loathe to criticize flawed defenses. They simply remain silent, when the same display of shaky logic on
any other topic would give rise to multiple posts heaping well-deserved ridicule on the proponent thereof. Here, it’s as though each reader thinks to himself, alsmot subconsciously, “Well, that’s wrong, but I can’t say anything here… it would be like attacking abortion rights, and that’s just not the thing to do.”

It’s very disenheartening. It would be much better to say, “Hey, Maureen, your logic is flawed here. That doesn’t mean abortion rights as a whole are in danger, but you’re not addressing the issue being argued.”

I appreciate your willingness to say it, Lemur866.

[Syntropy]

@Bricker

Why not? Merely repeating this claim yourself is hardly proof. Why should I accept your definition of personhood?

I didn’t define it; it’s defined by fetal development. Until such time as a brain stem develops and higher brain functions are intact, there is no consciousness and no self awareness, because there are no neural pathways and no connecting synapses. What we have is potential. A beating heart doesn’t make a person. Self awareness makes a person.

[Bricker]

@Revenant Threshold

That seems an oversimplification. Surely a more accurate analogy would be one in which your condition is *caused or the result of * the actions of the potential heart transplant patient. I’m sure you’d agree that while there is not malice or purpose behind this cause, that it is the foetus that is the cause.

Sure, I agree. I’m not sure there is an analogy that’s precisely on point. But if we could imagine some circumstance in which the tissue-matching donor, through no fault of his own, caused the heart attack that led to the need for the transplant… we still wouldn’t cede to the heart attack vicitm the right to kill the tissue match guy.

[Bricker]

@Maureen

I didn’t define it; it’s defined by fetal development. Until such time as a brain stem develops and higher brain functions are intact, there is no consciousness and no self awareness, because there are no neural pathways and no connecting synapses. What we have is potential. A beating heart doesn’t make a person. Self awareness makes a person.

And who decided that self awareness makes a person?

[eleanorigby]

@Bricker

Why not? Merely repeating this claim yourself is hardly proof. Why should I accept your definition of personhood?

And merely repeating yours doesn’t make it proof or correct or morally superior either.

Ectopic pregnancy is a physiological occurence-like cancer or polyps. Only the fact that conception occurs changes it in the minds of some people into an ethical dilemma. Rest assured, if this were to happen to me, I would prefer that my life be in the hands of HCP who were not constrained by law to endanger my life-or my daughter’s or future daughters-in-law.

A more apt analogy would have been if you had a growing aneurysm but were taking part of a crucial scientific study of some sort-and the researchers told you that surgery was NOT an option for you (even though you would likely die when the aneurysm ruptured) because they needed you to be present and surgery would skew the results. Silly scenario? Perhaps, but it’s damned hard to come up with a male equivalent of this.

[Lemur866]

@Maureen

It. Isn’t. A. Person. It never will be. Never, ever, ever. No matter how many times you say it’s human, or how hard you try to emotionalize the issue by referring to it as a baby. It will never acheive personhood.

Yeah, “baby” is an emotionally loaded term. So is “human being”. And “person”. And “rights”. And “fetus”. And “tumor”.

Refusing to call this entity as a “baby” is a way of unemotionalizing the issue, just the same as refering to it as a baby emotionalizes it.

What’s the big deal? I don’t have any problem at all with ending an ectopic pregnancy, and I’m not in favor of criminalizing elective abortion in most cases either.

If you argue that the fetus will never achieve personhood because it will die before it becomes a person, well, that’s a matter of opinion. I’m not catholic, I’m an atheist. And as LHOD said, there is no magic moment where a sperm and egg transform into a person. However, at some point before the 9 month gestation period is finished there is unarguably a person there. The magic moment isn’t at conception, the magic moment isn’t at birth, the magic moment isn’t at viability, because there’s no such thing as a magic moment.

There’s no particular reason we have to have a bright line judgement that an entity with such and such characteristics is a human being, and an entity without those characteristics is a thing with no more moral significance than LHOD’s ficus plant. For instance, I don’t think animals should have human rights, but some animals have some sort of moral significance. Anyone who kills a dolphin or an elephant or a gorilla for no good reason is doing something immoral, in my opinion.

For the life of me, I can’t understand the idea that an unborn baby must have no moral significance, or that an unborn baby must not be a person, because otherwise…what? Yeah, an embryo with no nervous system doesn’t have the same moral significance a 1 year old toddler does. Yeah, a 15 week fetus with no frontal lobe activity doesn’t have the same moral significance that a 1 year old toddler does. But at what stage can I call the fetus a “baby”? When my wife was pregnant we called the baby a baby from the first time we knew she was pregnant. Were we wrong to do so? It certainly doesn’t seem like we were misusing the term “baby” to me. When did our baby become a person? Who knows? At what stage do I stop emotionalizing the issue of pregnancy when I use the term “baby”?

[Syntropy]

@Bricker

And who decided that self awareness makes a person?

Quite a few people with a lot more letters after their names than me that specialize in this field of research. Do you have a better, scientifically supported explanation of what constitutes personhood? One that is not biased by religion of any stripe?

[Bricker]

@eleanorigby

And merely repeating yours doesn’t make it proof or correct or morally superior either.

True. But I’m not saying mine is absolutely the right answer. I’m saying it’s what I, and many others, believe, and it’s a view we are entitled to advocate in the same way that all citizens are entitled to advocate views in a representative democracy. It’s not a matter susceptible to definitive proof, since it’s ultimately a matter of definition.

The rebuttal position seems to be that no, you can’t possibly contend that it’s a person, because it JUST ISN’T. I don’t agree. I say it is. I acknowledge that reasonable people may disagree. And all people are entitled to sway the legislative process to reflect their own views - is that not the essence of representative democracy?

[Bricker]

@Maureen

Quite a few people with a lot more letters after their names than me that specialize in this field of research. Do you have a better, scientifically supported explanation of what constitutes personhood? One that is not biased by religion of any stripe?

No, but I don’t agree that your cite of “Quite a few people with a lot more letters after their names” can possibly offer a “scientific” answer to this question either, because it is a question of first instance. There is no “scientific” reason that compels us to accept a definition of personhood that includes self-awareness - is there? What postulates must I accept that compel that as a conclusion? There are none – you’re not asking me to accept “scientific” reasoning – you’re askimg me to accept that definition as a given.

[Syntropy]

@Lemur866

If you argue that the fetus will never achieve personhood because it will die before it becomes a person, well, that’s a matter of opinion.

No. It’s a matter of scientific evidence.

I’m not catholic, I’m an atheist. And as LHOD said, there is no magic moment where a sperm and egg transform into a person. However, at some point before the 9 month gestation period is finished there is unarguably a person there. The magic moment isn’t at conception, the magic moment isn’t at birth, the magic moment isn’t at viability, because there’s no such thing as a magic moment.

Right. Not magic. Science. Some time between the 20th & 28th week, when higher brain functions begin.

There’s no particular reason we have to have a bright line judgement that an entity with such and such characteristics is a human being, and an entity without those characteristics is a thing with no more moral significance than LHOD’s ficus plant. For instance, I don’t think animals should have human rights, but some animals have some sort of moral significance. Anyone who kills a dolphin or an elephant or a gorilla for no good reason is doing something immoral, in my opinion.

What on earth does that have to do with abortion? Or are you likening having an abortion to “killing an elephant for no good reason”?

For the life of me, I can’t understand the idea that an unborn baby must have no moral significance, or that an unborn baby must not be a person, because otherwise…what?

For the life of me, I can’t understand why you refuse to see that I never said it mustn’t. I just said it’s too big of a choice, morally, me to exert my moral code on another person when she makes that choice. It should be her moral code, not mine, that decides it.

[quoteYeah, an embryo with no nervous system doesn’t have the same moral significance a 1 year old toddler does. Yeah, a 15 week fetus with no frontal lobe activity doesn’t have the same moral significance that a 1 year old toddler does. But at what stage can I call the fetus a “baby”? When my wife was pregnant we called the baby a baby from the first time we knew she was pregnant. Were we wrong to do so? It certainly doesn’t seem like we were misusing the term “baby” to me. When did our baby become a person? Who knows? At what stage do I stop emotionalizing the issue of pregnancy when I use the term “baby”?[/QUOTE]

When “It’s a baby!” is not longer a rallying cry to stop a woman from terminating a pregnancy.