# Pharmacist's conscience and new Indiana abortion law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850 "2011-05-14T00:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/221 "2011-05-18T01:24:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Because morality doesn’t even exist unless other people are inolved. Morality, by definition, pertains to how you treat other people. Behavior which does not affect other people has no moral significance one way or the other. Let’s say I fuly accepted that “_Morality, by definition, pertains to how you treat other people_”, that’s not the question. The question is why is it, for you, morally wrong to molest young girls. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/222 "2011-05-18T03:44:32Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Let’s say I fuly accepted that “_Morality, by definition, pertains to how you treat other people_”, that’s not the question. The question is why is it, for you, morally wrong to molest young girls. Because it harms another person. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/223 "2011-05-18T14:46:45Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Because it harms another person. And that is wrong because you have decided that harming is morally wrong, therefore making it your own personal opinion. Got it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/224 "2011-05-18T15:16:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I didn’t assert that Legal" was “the correct standard.” I pointed out that it was legally true, but I also said it was _factually_ true, which its is. It is objectively, scientifically true that abortion (at least the legal abortion that we are talking about) does not involve another person. Insentient tissue is not a person except by a fabulist leap of religious imagination. No. There is no universally accepted scientific definition of a “person” that excludes a fetus. If you have reference to some contrary citation, post it. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/225 "2011-05-18T15:23:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. There is no universally accepted scientific definition of a “person” Just to clarify, I snipped your post to the way I understand it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/226 "2011-05-18T15:36:09Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Just to clarify, I snipped your post to the way I understand it. Of course, you’re correct. Which of course implies that my statement is correct, as well - how could it be otherwise? But your statement is much better, because it focuses on the problem and does not include the distractor. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/227 "2011-05-18T17:43:27Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > And that is wrong because you have decided that harming is morally wrong Correct. That’s exactly the same way everybody makes moral decisions. There’s no other way to do it. We also live in a society which is ostensibly “free,” meaning that we try to prereve individual liberties as much as possible. Whatever doesn’t affect other people is nobody else’s business. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/228 "2011-05-18T17:47:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. There is no universally accepted scientific definition of a “person” that excludes a fetus. There’s no scientific definition of “person” at all, but it is a scientific certainty that a fetus has none of the empirical attributes which commonly apply to the entities we call “persons.” No sentience, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/229 "2011-05-18T19:20:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There’s no scientific definition of “person” at all, but it is a scientific certainty that a fetus has none of the empirical attributes which commonly apply to the entities we call “persons.” No sentience, for instance. A person is a coma does not exhibit sentience. But he’s still a person. And I bet your list of “empirical attributes which commonly apply to the entities we call ‘persons’” isn’t something you have a cite for either, is it? So once again, you seek to declare that your peculiar definition is the correct one, period. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/230 "2011-05-18T19:24:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A person is a coma does not exhibit sentience. But he’s still a person. A person in a coma has a brain and has brain activity. You’re incorrect about this. A person who lacks any cortical activity at all (like Terry Schiavo) is a corpse. > [@](#): > > And I bet your list of “empirical attributes which commonly apply to the entities we call ‘persons’” isn’t something you have a cite for either, is it? Try a dictionary. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/231 "2011-05-18T19:57:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Try a dictionary. **Dio** , I’m on your side from a policy standpoint, but you can’t have this both ways. Personhood is not a rigidly defined concept from a scientific or legal standpoint, and that’s something both sides of any debate concerning human life just have to deal with (or declare axiomatically and start from there). ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/232 "2011-05-18T20:25:58Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > **Dio** , I’m on your side from a policy standpoint, but you can’t have this both ways. Personhood is not a rigidly defined concept from a scientific or legal standpoint, and that’s something both sides of any debate concerning human life just have to deal with (or declare axiomatically and start from there). It may not be “rigidly defined”, but a mindless fetus is far, far away from any gray area. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/233 "2011-05-18T21:56:41Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It may not be “rigidly defined”, but a mindless fetus is far, far away from any gray area. Depending entirely on your criteria/definition. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/234 "2011-05-18T23:02:47Z")
It’s not a word with no definition at all. PETA types somtimes say that animals are “persons.” Not every self-serving, idiosyncratic religious definition deserves respect. A zygote isn’t a person. Sorry. It’s just not. Clicking your heels together and saying “it IS a person, it IS a person” is not going to make it so. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/235 "2011-05-18T23:03:26Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Depending entirely on your criteria/definition. The “criteria/definition” that gets used everywhere else except abortion. For that matter, the anti-abortionists clearly don’t generally believe their own rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/236 "2011-05-18T23:55:01Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Clicking your heels together and saying “it IS a person, it IS a person” is not going to make it so. I don’t disagree, but the opposite doesn’t either. It’s a person or it’s not, depending entirely on the arbitrary (I’m using this word carefully) criteria one uses. Fetal personhood, or lack thereof, is not a good argument for either side. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/237 "2011-05-19T00:12:12Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Fetal personhood, or lack thereof, is not a good argument for either side. No, it’s a good one for both sides. For the anti-abortionists because it’s a good way of manufacturing a fake moral dilemma, and for the pro-choicers because their position fits the facts and is consistent with the rest of our moral and legal structure. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/238 "2011-05-19T00:45:21Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, it’s a good one for both sides. For the anti-abortionists because it’s a good way of manufacturing a fake moral dilemma, and for the pro-choicers because their position fits the facts and is consistent with the rest of our moral and legal structure. “Good” in the sense of actually convincing anyone of anything. If all you want to do is shout a lot and not actually convince anyone of anything, by all means, quibble a definition until your eyes bleed. The only even halfway decent way to convince anyone of anything in the long term is to start from THEIR axioms. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/239 "2011-05-19T02:13:27Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I don’t disagree, but the opposite doesn’t either. It’s a person or it’s not, depending entirely on the arbitrary (I’m using this word carefully) criteria one uses. Fetal personhood, or lack thereof, is not a good argument for either side. It is manifestly, objectively, empirically, scientifically, factually not a “person” in any rational, reasonable sense of the word. People are entitled to hold magical beliefs that a clump of insentient tissue is a person, just like they are entitled to believe their stuffed animals are people, just because somebody imagines something is a person doesn’t mean the rest of us are obliged to humor it. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/240 "2011-05-19T02:15:50Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > “Good” in the sense of actually convincing anyone of anything. If all you want to do is shout a lot and not actually convince anyone of anything, by all means, quibble a definition until your eyes bleed. > > The only even halfway decent way to convince anyone of anything in the long term is to start from THEIR axioms. Except that the anti-abortion people can’t do that, since going by the “axioms” of the pro-choice side they are clearly in the wrong. And the pro-choice people can’t do that because the anti-choicers are dishonest, hateful and irrational. You can’t win a logical, factual argument with people who don’t consider logic or facts important. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=13)