In honor of the anniversary of Roe v Wade, I'd like to present our pro-choice friends an opportunity and an offer.
The pro-life side of the abortion debate has put quite a lot of energy into explaining why we are pro-life. We think unborn human beings (whether zygote, embryo, or fetus), by mere virtue of the fact that they are human beings, have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness enjoyed by born humans, from infant to adult. We think denying these rights, especially life itself, to unborn humans is a terrible evil that harms the society that allows it almost as much as the actual victim. We have explained this and our reasoning for it in great detail in many places and in many ways.
And the pro-choice side responds that we are terrible prudes who just want to control people's sex lives or some other non-sequitur.
So here is the opportunity: This is a place where you can spell out the reason why an unborn human being is not entitled to the same protections you are. Explain why it's ok to kill a human being two months before birth but not two months after.
The offer: Convince me of your position, and I will promise to be a single-issue, pro-choice voter for the next two years. I will not allow tax policy or international issues to influence my vote in any election where there is only one pro-choice candidate. I offer you the prize of a convert. If, that is, you can make a persuasive case.
Ready, set, go!
20 comments:
I don't think I'd try to change your mind.
As a pro-choicer I am saddened by any abortion. It's not something I take pleasure in.
I think you are entitled to your opinion: My problem comes when groups try to legislate their particular morality.
I'm pro-choice because I think that women ought to be be sovereign over their bodies, not government.
As you've said above (and in previous posts) you regard a zygote to have the same set of human rights as an adult human being.
Would you honestly say that the act of chemically inducing a miscarriage is on the same moral scale as shooting an adult human?
Explain why it's ok to kill a human being two months before birth but not two months after.
Not all pro-choicers would agree with the above statement. In the interests of honest debate let's try not to misrepresent each other's views!
Sorry, bad timing of a very busy week.
We only legislate morality. What's the point in legislating anything else? We outlaw murder because it's wrong, not because it's an inefficient way to run a society.
So if I think abortion is wrong, if I think it's murder, how can I not try to outlaw it?
Is an "induced miscarriage" the same as shooting an adult? Is the death of a two-month-old baby equivalent to the death of an adult? Most people would say yes -- or even that it's worse. So what's the difference between a baby two months before it's born and two months after? In my mind, there is no meaningful difference. It's bigger, it's older, it's more developed, but that doesn't change what it is. The only real difference is that we can see it, and that makes killing it more distasteful to some.
Oh, and I know some pro-choicers believe it's ok to kill a baby two months after it's born, but since that's an uncommon view, I'm assuming better of you all.
Oh, and I know some pro-choicers believe it's ok to kill a baby two months after it's born, but since that's an uncommon view, I'm assuming better of you all.
How is this even relevant to a serious discussion about the morality of abortion?
Lets debate positions that mainstream pro-choice groups actually support, for example the one I posed earlier: Most pro-choice groups support the right of women to use oral contraceptives that induce miscarriages by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting.
Is an "induced miscarriage" the same as shooting an adult? Is the death of a two-month-old baby equivalent to the death of an adult? Most people would say yes -- or even that it's worse.
I didn't ask you whether killing a two month old baby was as bad as killing an adult person.
I asked whether killing this was as bad as killing an adult human.
The operative question is, what is the difference between the an embryo, a fetus two months before birth, and an infant two months after birth? I maintain there is no real difference, therefore, if the death of a two-month-old infant is as bad as that of an adult, the death of an embryonic human is as well.
Your task is to convince me that there is a meaningful difference between an adult or an infant and a fetus and/or embryo.
The operative question is, what is the difference between the an embryo, a fetus two months before birth, and an infant two months after birth? I maintain there is no real difference
Here is a drawing of a five week old human embryo. It is approximately 1.5mm long.
Now this is a picture of a two month old baby.
The claim that there is 'no difference' between these two stages of human development leads me once again to conclude that you are not as serious about having an honest debate on this subject as you originally claimed.
Of course there are differences. They are obvious - the issue here is that you have asserted that these differences are meaningless:
Your task is to convince me that there is a meaningful difference between an adult or an infant and a foetus and/or embryo.
I remember once having a discussion with a Catholic who believed that during one of their rituals a ceremonial wafer was actually transformed into the literal body of Christ. Anybody could see that it was just a wafer and that it had not been transformed into anything.
I think you are guilty of a similar kind of failure to observe the obvious, but in this case you are suggesting that we should ignore the very obvious differences between an embryo and an adult human.
I think it's time for you to back up your own claims: Why is it that you consider these very different looking stages of human development to lack any meaningful difference?
Of course there are physical differences. There are physical differences between a two month old infant and a twenty year old adult. Do those physical differences imply a moral differences? Is one more valuable as a human being because his skull bones have fused?
If you will review the post above, the challenge here is for someone to convince me that the unborn human deserves less protection than the born human. If you want to base your argument on the fact that the "arm bud" hasn't formed fingers yet, feel free to proceed.
The difference in morality is obvious:
A soilder would never kill a child or kid.
A soilder though is trained to kill another soilder, mostly an adult.
In germany we have special protection programs to protect childs...up to an age.
The younger a child is, the more protected it is. The older one gets the more unprotected one becomes.
So yes, there is a definitive change in morality the older you get.
The Problem is that pro-lifers only seem to want to protect the unborn child but after that they are getting less and less protective.
Pro-lifers are not protecting the mother of this child (wether because of health issues or emotionaly issues that come with an unwanted child).
And they don't protect the child after birth, because they force the mother to care for an unwanted child, mostly without the funds to do so or the emotional stability needed.
That unloved child is getting born into a society which can't give it everything it needs.
The mother becomes financially and most important emotionally or physically unstable because of the birth.
The society only gains another mouth to feed from money it doesn't have or want to give.
Killing, an unborn as much as an adult life, is never something you want to have to do.
And as long as society can't live in a state of necessary sustainance for everyone involved, may it be fetus, child, adult or elderly, for this long pro-choice needs to exist.
There is another way:
You and every pro-lifer has to bring up, sustain and nurish that child, which comes out of an unwanted birth, personally.
So you won't be "I'm married with 2 kids and no free time" -> "I'm married with 2 kids, a third and no time nor money -- so forget this blog"
Because that is the problem that the 'other' family you try to judge over, is facing.
I'm german, unmarried with a girlfriend who wouldn't be able to even deliver a kid if I made her pregnant, so I use every way to stop that from happening.
Is one more valuable as a human being because his skull bones have fused?
What about a brain? That's the defining characteristic of our species.
A zygote has no brain - it is incapable of thinking or feeling. It cannot suffer, it's less intelligent than an ant.
Do you not think that brains are important?
If you will review the post above, the challenge here is for someone to convince me that the unborn human deserves less protection than the born human.
Rather than use vague terms like 'unborn human' let's try to refer to specific stages of development. By suggesting that pro-lifers think that unborn humans deserve no protection you are once again arguing against your own straw-man argument.
Most people eventually learn that morality is not about absolutes. I can sense that you are starting to realize this, that's why you've dodged the very first question I asked - you know deep down that even if you think killing a zygote is wrong you know that it's not as wrong as shooting an adult.
So let's go back to my original question - as you know millions of women of child-bearing age use chemical contraception which works by preventing the implantation of the zygote. The drug induces a miscarriage, intentionally killing the zygote in the process.
Is this murder? If your answer is no then you are admitting that zygotes deserve a different standard of protection to humans post birth. If your answer is yes then you are accusing millions of women of murder!
Please answer my question: Is use of an oral contraceptive murder?
Quintar, thanks for stopping to comment.
"The Problem is that pro-lifers only seem to want to protect the unborn child but after that they are getting less and less protective."
I'm not sure what it's like in Germany, but in this country there is quite a bit of public assistance, and most conservatives give a great deal of money to non-governmental charity. But even if that weren't the case, a life is a life, and it needs to be protected. I'm sorry the woman has an inconvenient pregnancy. She can not get pregnant, or she can give the child up for adoption. (The line to adopt even unhealthy children in this country is very long. I know, I tried.)
The problem is, in this country at least, abortion is basically used as fall-back birth control. It's not treated as a horror to be employed only in the most dire circumstances. For some people, this is their birth control. I'm glad it's not yours.
fake dobson,
The pro-life position has been well and thoroughly documented, but since apparently aren't clear, I'll try to sum it up for you.
A life is a life. A human in the embryonic stage without a brain is no different, morally, than a fully grown human. In fact, maybe it's worth more -- it has more potential and fewer mistakes. That it doesn't have a brain yet doesn't matter -- it is still a human being.
The "brain" argument is bogus anyway. If abortion were only legal in the first month it would be different, but our laws permit abortion up to the moment the head clears the birth canal. However, feel free to argue that any stage of human development is worth less than another.
If it's the brain that troubles you so, does that mean you would support outlawing abortion beyond the first trimester?
I am aware of the thing with the pill. Actually, it's funny that a decade ago the left that claimed the pill prevented implantation, and the right said it prevented ovulation. As more on the right began to believe it prevents implantation, the left started to argue that it really prevents ovulation. I think it's starting to shift the other way again.
Medically, I'm not 100% sure what the situation is (I need to study the science). Because of that question, though, we don't use the pill. But, yes, I believe preventing a zygote from implanting is abortion and murder of a human being.
Again, I'm not trying to defend the pro-life case here. That has been ably done in many, many places. The pro-choice case is the one that has yet to really be made. Are you going to make it?
A life is a life. A human in the embryonic stage without a brain is no different, morally, than a fully grown human. In fact, maybe it's worth more -- it has more potential and fewer mistakes. That it doesn't have a brain yet doesn't matter -- it is still a human being.
I do not really understand this point well enough to develop a counter-argument. Perhaps you could help me understand by answering these questions:
1. What do you mean by moral worth? This does not seem to be a concept from Christianity.
2. You state that an embryonic life is no different in terms of worth than adult life but you also say that that embryonic life might be 'worth more' - which is it? Same or different?
3. What are these 'mistakes' you refer to. Why is it that making mistakes reduce the 'worth' of life?
4. You refer to the embryo as having 'potential' - but you also suggest that it's potential is to become something of morally lower-value than the embryo. If you really believe that then why is this even an argument against abortion?
5. You are suggesting that having a brain is an unimportant feature of humanity. Can you name some other features of humanity which you regard as being more important than having a functioning, mindful brain?
6. If you are concerned about the 'potential' of a zygote, why are you not concerned about the 'potential' of an unfertilized human ovum?
7. Bonus question: If I had a cell-culture of human cells does it count as a human being, lots of human beings or not a human being? I'm interested in your reasoning here.
I honestly really did spend a week trying to parse your that one paragraph. I came to the conclusion that this one paragraph is so full of contradictions that it couldn't possibly be what you believe. I think you are trying to translate what you really believe into secular-speak and doing a bad job of it.
I think what you really believe is that in the instant of conception a 'soul' is created. You view the existence of this 'soul' as being more important than the biology of life, more important than the existence of a brain. Hence your belief that the distinction between a single-celled zygote and a billion-cell adult is unimportant.
If it's the brain that troubles you so, does that mean you would support outlawing abortion beyond the first trimester?
I'm broadly in favour of most European abortion laws which are very permissive in the first trimester but towards the end of the gestation can only be justified in the case of a dire medical emergency. I do not support 'outlawing' because I recognize that medicine is a complex business and that mothers, doctors and their families will be in a better position to determine what is morally appropriate than a bunch of guys arguing on the Internet.
I believe preventing a zygote from implanting is abortion and murder of a human being.
By this definition, every woman who has used this kind of pill while sexually active is a worse mass-murderer than Charles Manson!
It would be great if you answered those questions. Perhaps you might end up convincing me if you come up with some good answers!
Just a reminder: I'm still interested in hearing your response to my questions. Thanks!
And I'm still waiting for you to respond to mine.
Please accept my apology - would you mind re-stating which questions you want me to answer. Can I presume that if I answer yours you will answer mine?
Previously you sasked "If it's the brain that troubles you so, does that mean you would support outlawing abortion beyond the first trimester?
" - I already gave my answer above, but let me put it another way...
While very late term abortions are personally troubling for me, I find the idea of banning stuff even more troubling. I believe women should be allowed to rule over what happens within their own skin. Women are not stupid - they can judge what is right for themselves. They do not need your help, my help or the government's help to know right from wrong.
If you find this idea difficult to grasp, consider that it's a bit like answering why the UN shouldn't be allowed to dictate what happens in the USA. It's why Federal government should not be allowed to dictate what happens in your state. It's why state government shouldn't rule over your home. The irony here is that it took a federal case to tell the states that they have no right to legislate what goes on in women's reproductive systems.
Prior to Roe v Wade, back-street abortions were the single greatest cause of death amongst women of child-bearing age. The uncomfortable truth is that the ban you'd love to see out of your own sense of Christian compassion would end up creating more death, injury and suffering - just like it did before the early 70s.
If you banned abortion it would not stop abortion, it would force abortion underground. If that seems unlikely to you - consider that drugs have been illegal for a very long time and yet drug consumption and addiction is as popular as ever. Banning things that people want usually results in this kind of legislative failure.
I'd ask you to consider yet one more irony:
The point of my questions was to show that your argument is not based on any kind logic, concern for women or even concern for babies, but it's purely an expression of a particular kind of authoritarian belief system.
The Christian bible says nothing at all about abortion and many of the other difficult moral issues we face today. Your views on the subject of abortion are not informed by the teachings of Jesus but the interpolations of late 20th century preachers who imagined what Jesus might have though of a whole bunch of things that did not exist 2000 years ago.
D.
Sorry, my free time of late has been consumed by another project. My request is still this: Make a positive case for whatever abortion right(s) you feel is appropriate.
As for your last comment, the federal government does tell states what to do about some things. The government protects the weak from the strong, and no one is weaker than an unborn human being. It's not just about the woman anymore. I'm sorry she's going to be inconvenienced, but she helped create another person and has a responsibility to that person at least for the next nine months. After that, if she doesn't want to be a mother, someone will be glad to take her place (that line forms around the block), but no one can let her out of the initial commitment.
You ask me again to make a positive case - I thought I just did but let me highlight one section from the previous reply:
"Prior to Roe v Wade, back-street abortions were the single greatest cause of death amongst women of child-bearing age. The uncomfortable truth is that the ban you'd love to see out of your own sense of Christian compassion would end up creating more death, injury and suffering - just like it did before the early 70s."
So for the reason of practicality alone - wherever you ban abortion you create a market for illegal abortions which are much more likely to kill mother and uborn child. Two deaths are definitely worse than one in my book. That's my first reason.
Let me put it another way: Even if you don't like the idea of an abortion the fact that people want abortions means that people are going to find a way to have abortions. If legitimate medical business cannot do this then a black-market or criminal groups will fill this niche.
I'm sorry she's going to be inconvenienced, but she helped create another person and has a responsibility to that person at least for the next nine months.
Not all sex is consensual you know. The above argument is obviously nonsense since it assumes that being forced to be pregnant is merely an inconvenience. But I like it when Christians make this kind of argument because it says to the mainstream world how unworldly this group really is.
The government protects the weak from the strong, and no one is weaker than an unborn human being.
I think my point before which you did not respond to was that it makes little sense to give a tiny clump of cells the exact same set of human and legal rights as an adult human. As I mentioned before, a 1st trimester foetus lacks a brain. It cannot think, feel or suffer. It's less concious than the fish you had for dinner. That's yet another reason why most people think that a 1st trimester abortion is really not such a big deal.
Okay - I've answered your question three times in three different ways. How about you answer my questions. To make it easy, I will quote the entire section:
In response to your statement: A life is a life. A human in the embryonic stage without a brain is no different, morally, than a fully grown human. In fact, maybe it's worth more -- it has more potential and fewer mistakes. That it doesn't have a brain yet doesn't matter -- it is still a human being.
1. What do you mean by moral worth? This does not seem to be a concept from Christianity.
2. You state that an embryonic life is no different in terms of worth than adult life but you also say that that embryonic life might be 'worth more' - which is it? Same or different?
3. What are these 'mistakes' you refer to. Why is it that making mistakes reduce the 'worth' of life?
4. You refer to the embryo as having 'potential' - but you also suggest that it's potential is to become something of morally lower-value than the embryo. If you really believe that then why is this even an argument against abortion?
5. You are suggesting that having a brain is an unimportant feature of humanity. Can you name some other features of humanity which you regard as being more important than having a functioning, mindful brain?
6. If you are concerned about the 'potential' of a zygote, why are you not concerned about the 'potential' of an unfertilized human ovum?
7. Bonus question: If I had a cell-culture of human cells does it count as a human being, lots of human beings or not a human being? I'm interested in your reasoning here.
So that's your argument? Killing your child might kill you, too, so we should make it legal to kill your child. That's not going to change many minds.
You seem to start from the premise that the mother is more important than the unborn child. That's what you should be defending.
If the brain is the thing that makes the child valuable, what is it about the brain that's so valuable? How much development is necessary? What if it turns out (as it has in the past) that we're wrong about when fetuses can feel pain? What happens to people born without a complete brain or those who get brain damage?
You've latched onto what was an off-hand comment about "value." What I was getting at is that an adult has done lots of things he shouldn't have done. He hasn't done lots of things he should have. He's got lots of black marks and wasted potential.
The unborn child has not wasted any potential. He hasn't committed any crimes or offended anyone -- he's as morally pure as a human can be. In that sense, one might almost prefer the unborn child to the adult. And, frankly, most people would choose a born child over an adult in a heartbeat.
Post a Comment