How To Think About Abortion

muddle's picture

A couple of people chose to take potshots in another thread at republicans who are pro-life. In a sort of hit-and-run style, they suggested that such pro-lifers are "hypocrites" but included that they did not want to get the thread sidetracked.

So here is the appropriate thread.

Notice that I title it how rather than what to think about abortion.

Both sides of the abortion debate include individuals who display an astonishing lack of facility for critical thinking, and end up merely emoting rather than arguing rationally.

Catapulting to the conclusion that anyone otherwise against big government is a "hypocrite" if they would invoke governmental restrictions on "that most private of places, the womb" assumes much without argument.

One blogger here seems to think the pro-life stance is reducible to the following formula: "I'm agin' it, so everybody ought to be agin' it."
He intends it as satire of course, as though the pro-lifer is holding up mere subjective feelings as normative for everyone. Of course, what the blogger fails to see is that this would be exactly the correct attitude if the reason for being "agin' it" was that it was objectively immoral. (And he also apparently fails to see that his satire can have bite only on the assumption that his own opposition to the pro-life attitude in question is normative for all.)

The old (well,"aging") saw of pro-choicers, displayed on the bumpers of Beemers and Buicks, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" utterly fails to address the fundamental issues. (Buggies in 1857 bore a similar sticker: "Don't like slavery? Don't own slaves!)

Merely observing that the fetus, from conception, is a genetically distinct human, and concluding from this that abortion is immoral assumes that genetic humanness is morally relevant and sufficient for the enjoyment of rights. Perhaps. But it requires some argument.

Appeals on either side to raw emotion tend to evade the issues that are objectively at stake. The pro-choicer asks, "If your 12-year-old daughter was raped would you want her to carry the result of that rape to term?" I don't know. But whatever I say does not address the question of whether a fetus has a right to life, and whether that right to life trumps any rights enjoyed by anyone else.

Pro-life dramatic presentations that depict the unborn child looking forward to being "Samantha's little brother" but then wondering "Why mommy doesn't love me" and "Why she wants to get rid of me" insert fantasy into the debate: Fetuses are no more likely to be harboring these thoughts and emotions than they are doing calculus or campaigning for president in that dark environment. (A good analogy to this is an anti-hunting argument that assumes the terrified deer have all of the emotional equipment of Bambi, distressed over the murder of his mom.)

Two questions must be addressed by both sides:

(1) Does the fetus enjoy any rights at all, in particular, a right to life?

(2) If the fetus does have a right to life does it automatically follow that abortion is impermissible? Is it always wrong to kill someone or allow them to die when they have a right to life?

Actually, I should toss in a third question:

(3) Assuming that abortion is morally impermissible, does it follow that it ought also to be illegal? Do we think that there should be a law prohibiting each and every immoral action, such as lying to one's grandma or extending the middle finger in traffic?

Issues (1) and (2) can be addressed effectively by assessing two seminal articles on abortion. Both argue that abortion is morally permissible.

Mary Anne Warren argues in "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion" as follows:

(1) All and only persons have rights
(2) A fetus is not a person
(3) Therefore, a fetus does not have rights.

She supports (2) with a subproof that takes this form (without including the details here):

(2a) All and only persons have some significant subset of properties X, Y and Z. (These are things like self-consciousness, rationality, sentience, etc.)
(2b) Fetuses do not have a significant subset of properties X, Y, and Z.
(2c) Therefore, fetuses are not persons.

In a postscript to the article, she anticpates an objection that takes this form:

(2d) Newborn infants up to age N do not have a significant subset of X,Y and Z.
(2e) Therefore, newborn infants up to age N are not persons.

And, of course, it follows that newborns do not have rights, including a right to life. If murder entails the intentional and unjustified killing of something with a right to life, then, although it is possible to kill babies, it is not possible--by definition--to murder them.

The success of her argument thus seems to hinge on the plausibility of saying that newborns do not have a right to life, as there is no relevant difference--not on her criteria, anyway--between fetuses and newborns. What we say about the one class we should also say about the other.

(And, of course, if babies do not have any rights, then neither do they have a right not to be tortured. If we imagine someone brutally abusing a baby (e.g., Dostoevsky's story of Turkish soldiers snatching Bulgarian babies from their mothers' arms and tossing them in the air to catch them on their bayonets), we might say that it is wrong of him to do what he does, but we will not then be able to explain the wrongness out of direct consideration for the baby itself. (Instead, we might talk about how "recreational baby-bayoneting"
upsets certain adult humans--say, the grief-stricken mothers--to whom we do owe direct obligations.) And this seems to most to be implausible.

All of this re-opens an issue that Warren thought she had closed and sealed tightly: Might we suppose that some notion of potential personhood is what counts? The late philosopher Alan Donagan argued that kind membership is what ought to count rather than the actual possession of various properties or capacities. This, of course, would include babies and toddlers (and the mentally defective), but it would also include fetuses. (See Alan Donagan, A Theory of Morality (U. of Chicago Press, 1977).

The second important article is "A Defense of Abortion" by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson. Thomson allows, at least for the sake of argument, that fetuses are persons with a right to life. (She thinks that by at least the third trimester this is likely true, but probably not in the earliest stages).

But, she asks, if we think that fetuses have a right to life, does it automatically follow that abortion is wrong?

What of cases in which the pregnancy threatens the mother's life? Here, her own right to life is put up against that of the fetus. Shall we take the seemingly extreme position of saying that abortion is wrong even to save the life of the mother? It would seem to fall into the same sort of category as killings out of self-defense. (And it is possible to find yourself having to kill even an innocent person in order to save your own life. Aliens, say, have control of an otherwise friendly neighbor's mind, and they are directing him to kill you. It's kill or be killed even though you know that your neighbor is, left to himself, as pure as the driven snow.)

The centerpiece of her article is an analogy. You wake one morning to find that, in the night, you were kidnapped and taken to a kind of hospital, Here, you are lying strapped to a hospital bed. You look over and discover that there are IV lines running from you to the next patient.
That patient is a "famous violinist" with a rare blood disorder that would certainly be fatal to him without a transfusion.

Somehow, the Society of Music Lovers has discovered that you have exactly the right blood type for the life-saving transfusion, and there was no time to search for volunteers.

The doctor comes in and says, "I'm sorry that this has been done to you. But now that you are hooked up, you'll have to stay there for the entire duration of this treatment which, by the way, takes about nine months. The reason, of course, is that all persons have a right to life, this violinist is a person, and, so, this violinist has a right to life. To disconnect you would be to kill him, thus violating that right.

Does anyone suppose that you are morally obligated or should be legally compelled to stay there?

If you think not, but if you also think that abortion is impermissible, then you need to show where the analogy fails.

The general point that Thomson wants to make is that X's right to life does not entail a right to the use of Y's body, even if that use is necessary in order for X to survive.

Her humorous analogy: Suppose that she is deathly ill, and the only thing that could save her was for Henry Fonda to fly from the west coast to New England to "lay his hand on [her] fevered brow." The fact that she has a right to life does not entail that he has a moral obligation to hop a flight, much less does it entail that the police should escort him and see to it that the deed is done. No doubt, it would be awfully nice of Fonda to do so. We would regard him as a Good Samaritan. And there are other cases in which we might think that "minimal decency" calls for such deeds. Suppose he is in the same room or otherwise in close vicinity and learns that he can save a life by this simple laying on of a hand. Then, if he is a "Minimally Decent Samaritan" he will do it. But it is not clear that even here she has a right to his doing it.

But is it true that no one ever has a right to the "use of another person's body"?

You and I are hiking, and attempting to make our way across a narrow spot in the trail around a mountain side. To our left is a sheer vertical wall that climbs higher than we can tell. To our right--just inches away--is a precipice that drops away some thousand feet.

You slip and go over the edge, but are just fortunate enough to have landed on a small shelf some twenty or thirty feet down. You may have broken a leg. There is no climbing up, and unless I intervene you will certainly perish, either from exposure or from a wrong move that sends you toppling from your precarious perch.

The saving of your life depends upon the use of my body in hauling you up somehow. Perhaps Thomson would say that if I am a Good Samaritan, then I'll help, but this still does not entail that you have a right to that "use of my body"--particularly if the task would entail some danger to myself.

But suppose that I toss down a rope and persuade you to take hold. I begin hauling you up, and have you about half way to the top. Were I to let go now, it is wildly improbable that your resultant fall would land you back on the shelf. You would more likely fall to your death a thousand feet below.

Now where do things stand? Your survival depends upon the continued use of my body in hauling you up, and you are in this dependence relation because of a decision that I made. Is it not plausible now to suppose that your right to life entails that I have a moral duty to you to do my best to follow through?

We have but to ask which analogy--Thomson's violinist or my hikers--is more akin to the case of abortion. And, of course, both analogies can be tweaked to adjust for complications such as rape, failed contraceptives, extraneous circumstances, etc.

My point here is not to argue one way or the other on the abortion issue. Rather, it is to observe that there is much more to discuss than some of our bloggers seem so glibly to assume.

muddle's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 8:30pm.

Checkout www.Youtube.com for some of your some of your favorite Alison Krauss video's.

I've got Bonnie Raitt & Alison Krauss, "You" on now.


Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 10:05am.

You won't change anyone's mind on this subject. It's one issue that debate does nothing to anyone's opinion. That's how I view it.

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 10:29am.

First, as I made it clear, I wasn't out to change anyone's mind.

Second, I'm not sure that it is correct to say that opinions on the issue are invulnerable to rational reflection. Have you never felt the bite of your opponents' arguments?

Third, even if I grant what you say, all that follows is a fact about human psychology. The foundational issue is the question of the truth of the matter.

_______________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.


Sniffles's picture
Submitted by Sniffles on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 10:02am.

The 13th Amendment of the US Constitution states:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

It would then follow that a woman forced to carry a fetus to term has been placed into "involuntary servitude" against her will in service to the fetus for a period of up to nine months.

I would submit that the choice is very clear philosophically: you are either "pro-choice" or "pro-slavery". Smiling

Cue the aborted fetus picture links in 5...4...3...


Paul Perkins's picture
Submitted by Paul Perkins on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 11:07am.

You're quick to quote the 13th Amendment without quoting the 14th Amendment. Should we not read it ALL ?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution

Can't believe you are for killing innocent human life without due process are you? Ah, but there again is the one question that really matters -What is the unborn?

I repeat the challenge I've posed before. Show me medical science that proves that the unborn child is not a human life -and I don't care how many abortions you have.

BUT-if you cannot disprove that premise, no circumstance can morally justify taking innocent human life no matter what his/her age or size.

Looking forward to your medical and scientific rebuttal.

Cheers,
PP

PS-Just curious my friend, do you really believe the founding fathers had taking the life of children in mind when they wrote the 13th amendment? Clue-pregnancy is a normal human function-slavery is a moral evil. It's an insult to those who suffered the latter to compare it to something that is a part of being human.

This is the way to blog!


Sniffles's picture
Submitted by Sniffles on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 11:40am.

I'm sure it was an inadvertent oversight, but you left out the all-important first sentence of the 14th amendment

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
(emphasis added)

Now, for our home listeners Paul...please indicate which category of citizenship the "unborn" falls into. The "born" category? The "naturalized" category?

Personally, I don't see how an "unborn" falls into either category, but maybe that is just me. If they don't fall into either category, I find it hard to fathom how an "unborn" would have a right of due process.

As far as science goes, a blogger a few months back stated "a fetus is not a person, just like an acorn is not an oak tree".

I agree. Separate and distinct.


Paul Perkins's picture
Submitted by Paul Perkins on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 12:53pm.

the founding fathers didn't know that the DNA you had at conception is the same DNA you'll have at 90 years of age. 100% of the advancements in technology since the 14th was written favor my side of this debate. Why? Because,scientifically your genetic info is the same from conception to natural death. Are you at a different stage of human growth? Yes. But a child is no less valuable than an adult because he is smaller! In fact,most of us would argue that the child needs more protection because he is at an earlier state of growth than the adult.

I remember well our friend that you quoted
As far as science goes, a blogger a few months back stated "a fetus is not a person, just like an acorn is not an oak tree".

I could do the easy answer and say there is a big difference between people and trees, but let me make it just a little challenging for you. The blogger you're quoting said that after the 4-5th month of pregnancy they were not sure about the personhood idea and abortion may not be a good idea. Since you and the "prior blogger" share a lot of things,(DNA?) maybe you could tell me what magic occurs at that stage that makes this statement true. I've never had a logical answer from the other side on this one.

Hey you --I mean this prior blogger also had this argument about the preborn being similar to drops of water and being just part of a spring rain. By this logic, the unborn is just a part of a human person.

This example fails because both the drops and the storm water are both 100% H20.

I enjoy the discussion (with both of you Smiling ) but would really like to see the medical evidence I referred to in the prior post.

PP

This is the way to blog!


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 11:52am.

Acorns and Oaks are one in essence: members of the same kind. If oaks were endangered and we valued them and sought to preserve them, we would rightly think it a good thing to preserve the acorns from whence they derive. (Imagine saying, "No, the value is placed only on the mature trees.") If we value the mature trees for properties that they display, then perhaps our attention should be focused on the kind of thing that, by nature, produces those valued qualities.

Basmati (that "earlier blogger," as I recall) and Sniffles are one in substance.

________________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.


Sniffles's picture
Submitted by Sniffles on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 12:13pm.

I will certainly admit that they are "members of the same kind". My point is that they are not, however, exactly the same.

Logic gets rather tangled when you attempt to implicitly confer rights on said members based on the fact that they are of the same "kind".

For example, suppose you were hiking in an old-growth forest and pocketed a handful of acorns. Using the above doctrine of implied conferred rights, wouldn't you be guilty of illegal logging under the law?


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 8:39am.

This is a very good counterexample that has really given me pause.

And I also appreciate the fact that it gives evidence that you understand how one must argue here. This is exceedingly—and increasingly—rare, as people, particularly in the "blogosphere," seem to follow the advice of Oscar Wilde: “If you cannot answer a man’s argument, do not panic. You can always call him names.” It’s either that, or a lapse into what C.S. Lewis called “Bulverism” (named after “Ezekiel Bulver”—a fictitious character that Lewis invented just for the purpose of the essay): instead of assessing the man’s argument itself and showing where it goes off the rails, offer an unflattering explanation of why he believes as he does.

But I don’t think your example withstands close scrutiny. One thing it lacks is any reason for thinking that special value is placed upon the kind. Your analogy would work equally well in the case of the hatchet-happy hiker wandering through the old growth forest damaging and destroying saplings and young trees. If all that we know to be valued in the example are the standing trees that have managed to mature, then it would appear that snapping a few saplings would be no worse than pocketing a few acorns. (And, of course, if we carried over the elements of your example into the human domain, so that it is elderly people that are valued for their “sageliness,” we might get the result that toddlers are not sagely at all, and thus dispensable.)

And, too, one thing that your counterexample has in its favor is that we suppose that there are plenty of acorns to go around, and this in a context in which we’ve no reason to think that new trees are a precious commodity.

In order to get the analogy set up, we need a parallel to the special value that we place upon individual humans. We could, I suppose, do this “California-style”: assign a slate of rights to individual trees.

But it will serve our purposes just to suppose that the species of tree that we have in mind is endangered. Where this is the case, the value of each individual specimen is increased for its rarity and function in generating more of its kind. One may readily imagine, say, a national park enforcing a law against the removal of acorns and treating violations, for all practical purposes, as they would “illegal logging.” And the reason is that the acorn and the mature tree are of the same, valued kind.

Imagine putting some species, say, the American bald eagle, on the endangered species list, but specifying that it is only the mature birds that are protected. (Immature eagles do not have the distinctive white-on-black markings, but have rather a mottled appearance.) Valuing the mature birds entails valuing the immature birds, not to mention their eggs, and this is true even if the reason we value them is for their aesthetic properties once mature.

The “turtle people” patrol the beaches behind our Florida condo every summer, marking new turtle nests. It is a federal crime to disturb the nests, which, of course, contain only eggs. (My surfing buddy and I have threatened for years to take a camp stove, skillet and (hen) eggs down on the beach early in the morning to be discovered by the turtle patrol, seated next to a “nest” that we would appear to have dug up, and happily frying eggs, with broken shells all around.)

It was in this overall context that, in my original blog, I cited the late Alan Donagan from his book A Theory of Morality.

There, Donagan is assessing Mary Anne Warren’s argument for abortion. Warren had argued that fetuses are not persons because they do not actually display the requisite capacities typical of actual persons. As such, they cannot rightly be thought to enjoy the rights attributed to persons. Donagan says this:

This argument implies that moral rights are acquired and lost as one comes to be capable of certain sorts of mental activity, or ceases to be. To be a person, in Warren’s sense, is not the nature of any being, but a stage through which some beings pass…. Let it, then, be provisionally conceded that, in the first instance, respect is recognized as owed to beings by virtue of a state they are in: say, that of rational agency. If there are beings who reach that state by a process of development natural to normal members of their species, given normal nurture, must not respect logically be accorded to them, whether they have yet reached that state of not? The principle underlying this reasoning is: if respect is owed to beings because they are in a certain state, it is owed to whatever, by its very nature, develops into that state. To reject this principle would be arbitrary, if indeed it would be intelligible. What could be made of somebody who professed to rate the state of rational agency as of supreme value, but who regarded as expendable any rational creature whose powers were as yet undeveloped?

________________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.


Submitted by Bonkers on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 4:12pm.

Yeah, I eat eggs--I'm a chicken killer; I have wooden furniture--I'm a tree killer; I eat beef and pork---I'm an animal killer; my car has leather seats--I suppose I'm some kind of animal killer again; and this is enough examples except maybe eating all nuts would deprive many trees and bushes from surviving!
Ball players eat tons of sun-flower seeds--shame on them!

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 11:26am.

"..do you really believe the founding fathers had taking the life of children in mind when they wrote the 13th amendment.." No, but I really don't think that the founding fathers were referring to developing cells and zygotes in the womb either, when referring to "life."

Anti-choice advocates have twisted the word "life" in their rhetoric for decades now. We can all read, copy, and paste into these blogs (muddle) what the constitutional scholars write about these Amendments, and re-interpret the true meaning behind the Amendments, all day long. So here's my interpretation: I believe they were more interested in escaping the OPPRESSION of England and creating a new FREE society, when they wrote the Constitution! Not referring to gametes and cells!

Enough! Let's agree to disagree on this personal topic.


Submitted by skyspy on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 9:16am.

First of all I don't think that any of us will change anothers beliefs or opinions on this topic. I don't have any ostentatious, pedantic arguments to add to this discussion. Instead of trying to proselytize here are some questions:

1. What quality of life would a child have if it was not wanted?

2. Is the child's quality of life important? Is living important or good if it is in an environment where there is no love?

On Sunday nights on Fox 5 they run a segment called Wednesday's Child.

If you are human at all it will break your heart. There are waiting lists for infants, however many older kids are bounced around from foster home to foster home. This appears to be true if the kids have siblings and they would like to stay in the same family. These kids languish for years, some for a lifetime from foster family to foster family.

Is this quality of life?? What if in the first 12 weeks it was decided that the person carrying the embryo was completely incapable of being a parent?

How many people who claim to be pro-life have put their wallets where there big mouths are??

I know Git Real has.....but ...

It seems like too many people think that there is some kind of special magic in their personal genes that they have to have their "own" kids. If you really love kids wouldn't any kid do??

For the large number of people who characterize themselves as "christians" and "pro-life" why do we even need a segment called Wednesdays Child??

If you are "pro-life" what are you doing to benefit or further your cause?

BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 9:44am.

I know by now everyone knows my story of wanting a baby for 12 years, and this is even when we just got married. Adoption was something we were looking into, and we were going to go and then I found out I was going to have a baby.

Yes, I see Wed. child, breaks my heart- you know me- I would take everyone of them if I could afford it.

I guess my point is I believe God creates life- sure it takes two people- but in the final say- God creates life - we don't have the right to take it away-

Do you know how hard it is to adopt-forever- Wed. child you have to think about the older ones and the problems they have gone through and could you deal with it- but I still believe they deserve their life.

We have thought about Wed. child but we are in our 40's and we have to think it's a huge responsibility.

I know you don't even know this person, but his name is James Robinson- okay I will get loads of responses- his story, parents did not want him- foster home after foster home- finally God had a foster parent that showed James his worth in God's eyes regardless of what had happened in the past- for the first time in his life- He felt value because of a God who made him not by mistake but by God's choice He made him- God had a plan for his life.That plan is to tell everyone how valuable they are and he does all the time.

They are not a fetus, as I said before I did not have a fetus, if you could see a ultrasound and the heartbeat, they are alive- I believe at conception.

If I had it to do over again, I was 32 when I had my son, I wish I had waited a couple of years and then adopted. But, I can't relive that.

I go to a massage therapist that does foster kids, he ends up adopting them - I get to hear how their parents don't want them, g-parents have 5 others they have already had etc.

My answer is stop having sex for just pleasure-if you are not married- if you are married and don't want kids please use protection.

Oh. suprise- yes- we were looking into a mixed race child- hey if anyone out there has the money to help me with Wed. children, I will quit my job and raise them.

I still think you are great, you do have a big heart, even if you don't think I know it- for that I admire you- please they desereve life-

Do you have kids, oh- the first time they place the baby in your arms- hey my husband tears streaming down his face.

What can I do to benefit the cause educate the people having babies is not a game- or oops I am having a baby let me just put it down the garbage disposal- that's what they do.

Sky, don't think I am being nasty- we are friends.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 9:32am.

1. What quality of life would a child have if it was not wanted?

This assumes a form of utilitarianism or consequentialism. Here you have the rudiments of an argument for euthanizing unwanted children on the grounds that they would otherwise lead miserable lives.
2. Is the child's quality of life important? Is living important or good if it is in an environment where there is no love?

Of course it is. But, before that, it is the child that is important.

Utilitarians have this unfortunate problem of ultimately valuing the states of mind of which persons are capable of displaying, rather than the persons themselves who display those states.
If the person is incapable of displaying the valued mental states, then the consequence appears to be that the person is without value.

An early Nazi document was titled "On the Concept of a Life Devoid of Value." This concept is entirely possible if we think that the value of human life is contingent upon the "quality" of that life.

_______________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.


Submitted by d.smith700 on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 12:57pm.

"If the person is incapable of displaying the valued mental states."

Hard quote of yours to be able to understand!
I guess it means: nuts, fools, severe cripples, and new or pre-borns,aren't capable of displaying such things, so why not get rid of them also?

Harsh words but understandable to the average citizen!

I haven't heard any opinions on dropping a bomb on Iraq and killing 50,000 men, women, and babies. More necessary than an abortion, I suppose?

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 11:32am.

What copying and pasting are you talking about? Certainly not my blog, which I wrote word-for-word with you in mind.

Once again, you show a propensity for emoting where arguing is called for. (You did the same when discussing religion.)

And the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever the "founding fathers" thought. Rather, it is whether a developing fetus qualifies as a person in the morally relevant sense of personhood.

To say that it is a "personal" topic begs the question. I don't think it is "personal" at all. Whether abortion involves a violation of a right to life is as public a topic as they come.

_______________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 12:04pm.

muddle - I read Mark Goldblatt's article 'Liberty, Logic and Abortion' on Philosphy Now, and it sounded quite a bit like your blog post (sick Violinist story) so, it looked like a cut and paste job - sorry if you took offense.

And yes, I do 'emote' when I argue about such passionate topics as religion and abortion - 2 topics that continue to divide not only our country, but most of the world. I stopped arguing (ooooops, I mean emoting) about religion with you because it was obvious you would never open your mind enough to see another side - my side. I have gotten to a point in my life that I accept, and even respect, other religions, and believe that they may possibly be true, at least true in the mind of that person - and I respect that. However, you failed to see my side, or the possibility that another's religion may hold 'a truth' and I was finding it a waste of my time to further the discussion with you. Although I think you and I could have a great discussion, one on one, over several martini's (or beers), but not in a public forum - too much emoting!

And for abortion, yes, it is probably the most personal topic to discuss in a blog, so I have to excuse myself from this - way too emotional (even bpr is getting emotional). I've had my say, now I need to move on.


Paul Perkins's picture
Submitted by Paul Perkins on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 1:00pm.

on this subject (and very easily).

One more time, just show me sound medical science that demonstrates that the unborn is not innocent human life and I'll help you get all the abortions you want.

If you can't, I stand by my statement that there is no circumstance that can justify killing innocent human beings.

Not trying to be difficult, I just need to see your evidence.
Fair enough??

This is the way to blog!


Submitted by Bonkers on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 4:14pm.

How about bombs and bullets from airplanes?
How about murderers?
Oh, I see--those are human exceptions!

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 12:52pm.

I have gotten to a point in my life that I accept, and even respect, other religions, and believe that they may possibly be true, at least true in the mind of that person

This speaks volumes.

What in the world does "true in the mind of that person" mean? What can it possibly mean? Shall we suppose that, somehow, there really is a divine Being who created the world and has all of the attributes of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob so long as there is someone who harbors the belief that there is one? And, also, there really is not such a being, so long as there is someone who believes that there is not?

Or perhaps the two people really inhabit different universes--one theistic and one atheistic--but do not realize it?

The only sensible meaning that can be given to your language is the benign observation that one person believes one thing and another person believes something different. To use the word "true" is to misspeak. And so, now we find that there are different beliefs that function as competing claims to truth. They cannot all be correct because they say mutually contradictory things.

As I was observing in that earlier exchange, the only way a Unitarian assembly such as your own can work out if for people to assume something like relativism or pluralism (or to think that the beliefs aren't really important enough to talk about).

it was obvious you would never open your mind enough to see another side - my side.

Tosh and nonsense! How is my continued argument against your position any more a sign of "closed-mindedness" than your rejection of what I was saying? As I explained then, the reason I would not "open my mind" to what you were saying is because your position entails a contradiction, and anything that entails a contradiction is false. Where I offered arguments and invited rejoinders, you replied with social science explanations for my seeming inability to see things your way.

Although I think you and I could have a great discussion, one on one, over several martini's (or beers), but not in a public forum

As much as I love beer and philosophical discussion, I doubt that it would work out. For there to be intelligent dialog, both parties must at least agree that there is such a thing as objective truth and that the point of the dialog is to try together to discover what that truth is.

I read Mark Goldblatt's article 'Liberty, Logic and Abortion' on Philosphy Now, and it sounded quite a bit like your blog post (sick Violinist story) so, it looked like a cut and paste job - sorry if you took offense.

The obvious reason for this is that Goldblatt and I are both familiar with Thomson's important essay in which the violinist example originally appears.

_______________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 8:11pm.

I don’t believe we can debate this because it is impossible to logically discuss, an illogical topic. For many people, me included, religion is illogical. Why? Because many basic tenets of the great religions, are based on faith, not proof or logic (i.e. resurrection, reincarnation), so how can we even begin to have a logical discussion on a topic so illogical? Hmmm, let’s see… the Baptists believe you will go to hell if you are not baptized (logic or faith?) The Mormons believe there are varying levels of heaven, and only the highest of those within their church, will reach the highest level in heaven (logic or faith?). Hindu’s believe that the soul reincarnates, evolving through many births and deaths (logic or faith?). Protestant Christians believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus and that he rose from the dead (logic or faith?). In order to logically debate any topic, the topic should be logical in the first place.

I know that human nature requires many people to have to believe in a higher being, the promise of an after-life and a need for a religious “moral compass”, and religion, whatever brand a person chooses or is born into, provides this. And who are we, as individuals, to tell the other person they are wrong in their belief? It is true, for them and their group and it is most likely a belief passed down over the millenniums, based on their culture, and ethnicity. And for the outsider, it probably looks and sounds really bizarre! But again, who are we to tell them they are wrong?

Is my thinking illogical, because I believe that all religions may be true? Fine then. It is my illogical answer, to the illogical topic and question of religion. However, if you believe that religion is a logical topic, please show me the proof of its logic first. Or, maybe we both agree that religion is illogical and cannot be discussed intelligently in the format of logic and contradictions.


Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 9:40pm.

It appears that it was you that deviated from the topic, and then ran headstrong into a religious debate, rather than what the topic was all about, which was abortion.

For some of us, abortion is an important topic, but not one necessarily guided by our religious persuasion. Some of us just happen to have problems with the taking of an innocent life with such cavalier attitudes, such as to help make it easier on your conscience.

Cute little bumper sticker slogans might assuage your "distaste" for the subject, however, two bit slogans should not be the means by which society determines its morality. I think Muddle has merely attempted to take you above and beyond the simplistic slogans and to delve deep into truely understanding what you believe and whether its sufficiently grounded in logic and most importantly, truth.

Instead, you retort is to call it an impossible subject to discuss because its an illogical topic in the first place.

Sounds to me like the logical part is giving you a hard time. Maybe thats why you are now scurrying away, because you are hearing comments which tend to tear that bumper sticker philosophy off the chrome grill of your 65 VW Beetle.

Reading this debate reminded me of this little one.

"Main Stream: Wait a minute. Who elected you leader of this outfit?
Muddle" Well M. Stream, I figured it should be the one with the capacity for abstract thought. But if that ain't the consensus view, then hell, let's put it to a vote.


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 10:44pm.

"Some of us just happen to have problems with the taking of an innocent life with such cavalier attitudes, such as to help make it easier on your conscience."

OK, I'll dive in.

Richard, can I take it from the quote above that you would have no objection to "taking a life" if it were not innocent?

If carrying a baby to term risks the mothers life, is it morally acceptable to terminate the child in order to save the mother?

If I'm not mistaken, muddle has said that religion and morality are inseparable, ie, morality is derived from religion.

Can I therefor assume that an Atheist will have no moral problem with adoration?


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sun, 12/16/2007 - 8:38am.

If I'm not mistaken, muddle has said that religion and morality are inseparable, ie, morality is derived from religion.

Please don't misunderstand me.

My claim re religion and morality was that a consistent atheist or naturalist has no place in his worldview for moral realism--the view that there are objective moral facts. One reason for this is that a Darwinian account of how humans came to have moral beliefs undercuts those beliefs. We likely have them because the basic "moral" orientation undergirding them was reproductively advantageous for our ancestors given the circumstances of survival; not because the beliefs are true.

Now, you ask this:

Can I therefor assume that an Atheist will have no moral problem with [abortion]?

My answer is that nothing follows about what an atheist will think about abortion or rape or genocide or child molestation. Rather, the consistent atheist should side with Nietzsche in saying that, since God is dead morality died with him.

On an atheistic view, it is hard to see why Daniel Dennett is not right when he says that the notion of natural or moral "rights" is "nonsense on stilts." If Bertrand Russell was correct in telling us that "Man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving" and that all of our loves, hopes, dreams and aspirations are "but the outcome of accidental colloocations of atoms," then it is very hard to see why we should suppose that anyone has a natural right to anything. The abortion issue, with its talk of the "right to choose" versus the "right to life" will just be a non-starter.

If theism is true, then even atheists are created by God. And if we have the fundamental moral orientation that we do as a part of our original equipment as designed by God, then it will not be at all surprising that atheists tend to share many or most of the same considered moral judgments that theists hold when it comes to the uncontroversial moral issues such as the wrongness of rape or child molestation.

One need not read a Bible in order to know the difference between right and wrong. But that natural knowledge derives ultimately from the Creator.

________________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sun, 12/16/2007 - 3:34pm.

I'm trying to incorporate what you wrote with the article below.

I actually found it easer to understand what you wrote.

I'm not at all familiar with Mr. Hauser's work or background.

Is Morality Innate and Universal?

"Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser's new theory says evolution hardwired us to know right from wrong. But here’s the confusing part: It also gave us a lot of wiggle room."

If I'm reading and understanding Mr. Hauser correctly, morality derives from Darwinism. (Evolution = Darwinism)

"Why would natural selection have favored the evolution of an innate moral code within our brains?"

"One possibility is that these principles that I’m describing were not selected for morality. They were favored for other aspects of social cognition and are simply borrowed by morality."

I hope now you can see why I'm a little confused.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sun, 12/16/2007 - 5:00pm.

One current "Harvard psychologist" took multiple philosophy classes with me. Though I'm proud of him, we certainly do not see eye to eye on many issues.

I'm not directly familiar with Hauser's work. But I think I can anticipate what he has to say.

Contra Jeffc, the idea is that natural selection has played a role in shaping human psychology, and this includes basic moral predispositions. Consider, for instance, the mother's drive to nurture and protect her children. It is implausible to suppose that this is something taught--handed down from mother to daughter, for instance. Rather, looking around, we discover much the same thing in other mammals where it is wildly implausible to suppose that any "teaching" occurs.

And so it is plausible to suppose that this basic maternal drive springs from our nature rather from any kind of "nurture" (again, contra the all-too-reactionary Jeffc).

But, as Mary Midgley (an author whose works should be on the reading list of all thoughtful people) observes, when we are dealing with creatures with higher levels of intelligence, there is no reason to suppose that the gentic "programming" strictly determines what is done. I think this is the "wiggle room" that your author has in mind.

I am waiting for either a rejoinder or a retraction (or an apology) from our friend, Jeffc, on all of this. I am convinced that he read only deep enough into my essay to suppose that he knew what I was up to, and he reacted. Had he gone further, he would have seen that the original premises that he cites in his "refutation" were abaondoned in light of better criticisms than his own, and gave rise to revisions.

________________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 10:29pm.

Muddle and I had a discussion going about religion a while back and because these blogs are all over the place, I couldn't find our original posts. Anyway, he brought it up again in this abortion thread, and in this particular post, and I was addressing the original discussion we had, days ago. - that's all. Sometimes I'm slow to respond.

65 VW Beetle? Fill me in on your stereotyping, please.


Submitted by Bonkers on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 11:21am.

If you don't want to have one for whatever reason, then don't have one!
I'm not interested in your personal life!

Paul Perkins's picture
Submitted by Paul Perkins on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 11:35am.

If you don't want to have one for whatever reason, then don't have one!

Poor logic (from all 4 of you)
That's like saying "Don't like child molesters? Don't be one."

We are contenting that the above is a morally evil act to perform on a child.

I'm making the assertion that taking the child's life at any age is a moral wrong. Your actions,opinions,etc. (or mine) don't change that.

The other side would rather agree to disagree than refute the medical challenge in my previous post.

This is the way to blog!


Sniffles's picture
Submitted by Sniffles on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 8:11pm.

I don't believe your analogy holds water, Paul.
Abortion is legal in the United States.
Child molesting is not legal in the United States.
To equate them from a action/consequences point of view is rather spurious.

Let me give you a better example
Abortion is legal.
Bacon is legal.
Yet consumption of bacon by orthodox Jews is considered against Jewish moral codes (the Talmud).

Should we all (Jews and Gentiles alike) shun bacon because it is against the moral code of the Jews? Do Jews have the right to dictate what others can and cannot eat based on their own religious doctrine? And should scientific/medical evidence that bacon causes sclerosis of the arteries and therefore detrimental to good public health have any bearing in that decision?

That's how I liken your interpretation. Your religious code finds abortion abhorrent, but unlike the Jews you insist on everyone following the tenets of your particular religious code. The medical/scientific questions you throw out are interesting, but ultimately not germane to the ultimate subject: Why should your religious beliefs trump mine?

Pre-emptive strike dept: Typically at this point in the argument the subject of the religious underpinnings of laws prohibiting murder are brought up. Please keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of public opinion finds murder to not be in the best interests of society as a whole. The same cannot be said regarding abortion, as a substantial percentage of the populace supports the right to an abortion.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 8:47am.

I'm actually kind of surprised to see you defending this bonkers analogy. Paul is right: without further argument, the quip, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" utterly sidesteps the issues. In that respect, you might as well say, "Don't like child molestors? Don't molest children!" or "Don't like slavery? Don't keep slaves!"

Your own reply to Paul makes the grave mistake of being grounded in law and popular sentiment. These, of course, are contingent. Further, if we suppose that morality is objective (and we must all be agreeing on this, otherwise, how could we debate the morality of abortion?), then we must allow that, in principle, there can be bad laws and that public opinion on moral issues may be mistaken.

The main problem I see with this bonkers logic is that it begs the question against the pro-life side. IF the fetus qualifies as a bearer of rights, then, all other things equal, abortion entails the violation of the right to life. This little bumper sticker response utterly fails to address the central concerns.

I gave you an A on your "acorn" reply. Not so here.

________________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.


Submitted by Bonkers on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 9:08am.

I eat eggs: some chickens never get born, I suppose?
Oh, that is right, chickens aren't "human!"

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 9:11am.

You just don't get it, do you?

_______________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.


Submitted by Bonkers on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 4:03pm.

OK, enough arguing.
You are afraid to let other people do their thing, which might mean that you could be wrong!
There is no comparison as to what you do to yourself and what other people do to you or anyone else! Don't you understand the difference?

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 4:09pm.

You're right Bonkers, lets try this you hit yourself in the nose and then let d.smith hit you in no, wait, that won't work, same person, OK try this you hit yourself in the nose and then let nitpicker hit you in the no, darn that won't work either. OK lets try this, you hit yourself in the nose and then let dollar hit you in the, oh hell, I give up. There is no difference.

I yam what I yam....Popeye


Submitted by Bonkers on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 4:46pm.

I said I was Ms. Shelton, didn't I.
What else do you want from me?
Want some pills?

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 4:27pm.

Are these your Sybil pills?

I yam what I yam....Popeye


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 4:54pm.

Wrong thread, try to keep up. If all of you get a prescription, you have more pills then that wrassler you're always harping about.

I yam what I yam....Popeye


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 10:49am.

We can all opine all we want, but the fact is until you're in that particular circumstance, you don't know what you will do.

I yam what I yam....Popeye


BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 11:31am.

Honestly, I would know what I would do, again- here comes the crowd to jump down my throat but that is okay- I WOULD HAVE THE BABY.
How do you think the baby was put inside the woman's stomach- sure two get together and then- but who creates life? I will never believe ooops that should not have happened.

You have a child you know how much you love her, I am a female and I can tell you no matter what the circumstance, I would love the baby- it would be a part of me, plus do you believe God makes mistakes?

Granted we make choices and things happen but I believe it is not by chance that a life is created only by God, going by scripture He knew we would be born.

I am not saying this in a cruel way, I have friends that have had abortions, they will tell you the horror of it, and how the memory never ever goes away and they have to live with it the rest of their life.

If you don't want the baby have the baby give it up for adoption, do you know how long it takes to get a baby here in the U.S. I do, but I thank God whom I prayed for 12 years for a child, He gave us a son.
We were in the process at looking at adoption. If so many people would not have abortions the ones that want babies could adopt them.

Honestly, I come in peace, this is just a senstive subject to me, for I knew the pain of wanting a child for 12 years.


Sniffles's picture
Submitted by Sniffles on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 11:54am.

Why would someone jump down your throat, bpr?

You exercised your choice to have a baby...that's the great thing about pro-choice! Nobody making decisions "on your behalf".

Think of how you would feel if you wanted to have a baby and someone made a choice for you and decided you shouldn't! I imagine you'd be pretty steamed.

As far as God and mistakes go, I want to believe God is incapable of making mistakes....but I have to say that seven years of George W. Bush in the White House has tested my beliefs mightily. Eye-wink


BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 2:39pm.

I had more time to read what you wrote, and after spending time with some preschoolers today, I must say - it is not our choice to have a baby, SIR- GOD created the baby.

I will not respond to any nonsense answer from you on the topic, Great choice - ABOUT PROCHOICE- God did not give anyone that right, He created life.

Hey, what if your mom and dad were prochoice? What would they do with you, honestly why can't people use the brain God gave them, I leave in peace. You can respond but this is sensitive subject with me, if you want to be nasty to me fine - I happen to cherish kids. Don't expect a response if you are nasty about it. I ignore someone if they are not nice to me.


BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 11:57am.

You are just trying to get me all steamed up- sorry bud, it's not going to happen. Say what you want. It does not change my mind about your last comment, I just ignore it.

Merry Christmas


BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 12:01pm.

I have to leave to go and meet with some of some of the precious gifts God gave us- school- little ones, so if you see I don't reply that;s why- I will later. While I am there I will thank God for each of them. Peace please.


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 11:41am.

I'm not arguing either way, I'm just saying it's easy to say what you'll do when it's not really happening to you, but when reality jumps up and slaps you in the face it's a whole different ballgame.

I yam what I yam....Popeye


BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 11:53am.

I have had discussions with my friends, and some were intense- like what if you were raped, of course everyone had their view, mine was I carried a baby for 9 months inside me, there is no way on this earth, honestly rape - I could just get rid of it- it's life, cherished by God.

Maybe some Men see it different because you don't have the baby, my husband doesn't- he understands- either choices made or something happens like rape- but it comes down to who created the life inside of you.

I happen to believe it is a baby moment of conception- what do we call it a thing? What is a fetus? I did not have a fetus ,I had a baby.

Honestly, I am not trying to be cruel, some may read and take me as holy moly- I am not- this is just my sensitive subject. I cherish the gift God gave me. It's hard to believe some put them down garbage disposals.

My friends have to live with this choice some of them, my comfort is your child is in heaven, and God does forgive us- the scars stay forever with them. It breaks my heart, I don't or can't have the words to make it better for them.

I hope you understand where I am coming from- I know you love your child just like I do mine. I do come in peace.


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 12:04pm.

I'm happy for you, and I truly hope that you are never in a position to have to decide if your convictions are strong enough. I don't think I would have an abortion, but with me it's a moot point, I can't get pregnant. I also think if someone was threatening my family I would have the guts to blow him away, I really do but until I'm in that position I won't know will I? I hope you understand where I'm coming from, while it's not always this way, I come in peace too.

I yam what I yam....Popeye


BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 2:58pm.

First, do you think my husband would feel any different than you, I think so, but he would know I would need him and his son needs a Dad. Two wrongs don't make a right. That does not mean it's a free ticket for people to get by with such actions.

Also, concern we both have kids, even though my son is in the 9th grade he knows that if he makes choices than there is a price to pay, I would not want him to marry unless he loved the girl- but he knows I would take it in my own hands that he support the kid for the rest of his/her life. Sometimes girls get the shaft on this- it's responsibility. Believe me I would follow through- that would be my grandchild.

Granted she would not be my daughter, I just pray that she would not have an abortion- if she did not want it, I would probably take the baby and pray that she would let us - it's part of us to be cherished. I do pray this does not ever happen, every parent should have a concern about it, not only having a baby, or aids or other dieases for the rest of your life.

I hope I don't have to be in that position to have to decide, but honestly I know the answer as hard as it would be would be to have the baby- I just believe God creates life- circumstances we may not understand but I'm not God if He allowed it to happen (Have a baby) for whatever reason and He's God and I'm not.

Temptation, we have all been there - I just hope my son is strong enough to uses good judgement- as kids we think we know it all, it's so scary- we are in the same boat.

We do have freewill, we make choices that are wrong and sometimes there is a price to pay.

I have a passion for kids- they should all be cherished. Sad but some aren't.
I leave again in peace.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.