This is the second essay in an ongoing short series (first here) to understand and search for a valid argument to support abortion. Below the fold, this search continues.
We make 1st degree murder illegal, one might argue, because there is no valid argument why it might be rationalized. Abortion on the other hand should be legal, the argument goes, because there exist good reasons why it might be allowable. However, in my ignorance or thickness of mind I have been unable to follow the reasoning behind thinking abortion is the best choice in a situation. Many people, for example Peter Wall, allow that they don’t advocate aborion but in their cultural/personal ethical relativism insist that we must not impose our morality on others. However that begs the question, for if there is actually no good reason for abortion then there is also no reason to countenance such relativism. In my previous post, I examined the violinist argument the crux of which argues that my personal comfort is worth more than my neighbors life (another flaw in this argument I missed earlier is that if “personal inconvennce” truly is the crux of why a fetus may be killed how much easier or more willing should we be to kill a 2 month old newborn who’s demands on us for life are far greater). This position, I think, holds little water. So the search goes on.
One of the common arguments made by pro-abortion/pro-choice advocates, as I understand is the “final solution” argument. As this argument goes, the crux is to establish that the fetus lacks some feature; be it mind, soul, consciousness, that divine spark, enough mass, enough days, or whatever to qualify and be thus be considered fully human by the state. And therefore that fetus, not “it”, can be terminated, experimented on, or whatever you might choose because it outside our protection. I’ve termed this the “final solution” argument, but that Nazi classification and enterprise during WWII is not the only place such arguments have been used. From African slavery in the Americas, to more modern genocidal movments. Today’s “other” of choice is the fetus or emergent life. Is this “reasonable”. Can good arguments be made for such classifcation?
The essential flaw which needs to be ovecome in any argument of classification (and indeed in the classification of Black, Jew, or fetus) as “other” lies in our hubris. That is it our pride and arrogance in believing that this classification is so right, so correct that we are willing not to risk our own life to defend this belief but the life of the other. It is one thing for one to lay ones own life down for ones belief. It is anther to condemn others to death or medical experimentatin on the basis of our strongly held beliefs.
First of all, I think it’s disgusting that you compare people who are in favor of legal abortion — more than half of all Americans — to Nazis.
Second, the argument you make is too broad. It could be used, without modification, to argue for vegetarianism, for example. What hubris to differentiate between man and animal! Who are we to say that a man has the right to live and a cow does not? It could also be used against the death penalty. Talk about hubris! And war — how can we have the hubris to decide that these people can be killed and these people can be put at risk?
The burden of proof lies on you who claim that a ball of a few hundred cells with no brain has the same rights as an adult human being. You’re the one making a fantastic claim, you defend it. Prove that a young fetus has a soul, or a mind, or indeed anything which qualifies it as having the same rights as an actual person.
It’s a completely specious argument to try to say that a set of principles about how we value human life has some bearing on cows. Please! If we’re going to bring cows into the argument, let’s not forget mosquitos, ants and bacteria.
The argument made for abortion has nothing to do with non-human animals. It says that the fetus is not fully human in some ill-defined way.
The law doesn’t recognize the existence of the soul, so that can’t be the criterion. Science tells us that the fetus is both genetically distinct from the mother and genetically complete as soon as it has reached the blastomere stage, so biologically it is fully human.
What the fetus lacks is rational thought and will. It is also dependent at this stage on the mother.
Infants and sick people are also dependant, so dependancy alone shouldn’t be the rationale for taking life if we want to think of ourselves as a merciful society.
Rational thinking and self-will have been argued to be two qualities that together make us uniquely human. One or both of these qualities can be missing in the severely brain injured, in the retarded, in Alzheimer’s sufferers, etc.
So if we permit abortion because of such things as dependancy, lack of mind or lack of self-will, we must also permit infanticide (as ethicist Peter Singer suggests) up to the age of about 18 months. And we must permit taking the life of anyone who cannot demonstrate an active life of the mind, or an ability to exert themselves to control their surroundings.
In fact, society is beginning to grant itself the power to end the lives of the weak, the infirm and the brain damaged. Terry Schiavo is an example, but there are hundreds of others.
What abortion is doing is granting us permission to judge when a life is worth living, and when life should not be permitted. (Which, after all, is what capital punishment is all about.)
My problem is that I don’t think we’re wise enough to make those decisions. If the law recognizes a basic right to judge the value of human life, what is to prevent a corrupt government from adding additional classes to the list of undesireables? Republicans, for instance. Jews. Blacks.
Either all human life is intrinsically valuable on its face, or we end up with the powerful determining the fate of the weak.
More than half of all conceptions end in abortion — spontaneous abortion. God-caused abortion, if you will.
If we grant that the fertilized egg is a human with rights, must we not invade the womb of every fertile woman, every month, to try to assure that all fertilized eggs are saved?
At what point does sanity come into your proposal to invade the wombs of women? At what point do we say the state has no overarching reason to get involved?
JA,
I’m not comparing half of those defend abortion with Nazis … only those who use this argument to defend it. Classifying one part of us as non or sub-human is precisely the argument used by the Nazis to justify Dachau, Treblinka, Auschwitz et al. If that causes distaste in those who use this argument to defend abortion, well it should.
As I said in my previous abortion post, regarding life, I’m a self admitted bigot. It’s only human life that I defend must needs defend (and innocent at that). The rest is sub-human.
Oh, and just to be clear, currently I only would support the death penalty for confessed believers but I also think the state has the right to execute those it chooses by due process.
Ed,
First, I don’t propose we must necessarily use every means at our disposal to save the life of every dying elderly, their dignity is important. Likewise for the unborn (and the mother) dignity is also important. Second, to be blunt, it is God’s right to take back from life at at time of his choosing whomever he will. That is different from man playing God, with as noted above, the hubris to think his perception of whom should die is clear. Just curious, where do you stand therefore for or against procedures such as pre-natal open-heart surgery as has been performed in the past?
Classifying one part of us as non or sub-human is precisely the argument used by the Nazis to justify Dachau, Treblinka, Auschwitz et al. If that causes distaste in those who use this argument to defend abortion, well it should.
The Nazis classified (actual) humans — people with brains and hearts and feelings and thoughts — as nonhuman. I’m pointing out that a clump of mostly undifferentiated cells is not the same thing as an actual person. See the difference?
Nowhere in your post or comment do you explain what it is that makes a young fetus a legal person with the same rights as an actual person. You want to outlaw a practice which is currently (1) legal and (2) supported by the majority of Americans — all based on a rationale you have yet to articulate. I’d say the burden of proof is on you.
JA,
I never said (read above) that a fetus at any stage is “the same thing” as an adult. You in your confidence (and I claim hubris) claim to be “sure” that it is not. I say that we are not wise enough to decide such things and therefore ought err on the side of life. The Nazi’s were sure that they were right on their classification, just as you seem sure of yours.
As you claim that the lack of heart and mind makes one non-human, then a patient undergoing heart transplant is not human when sustained by machine and anesthetized for at that time, they lack both. If you point out that very soon that patient will have both … so will that clump of cells, no?
The crux of this essay series is to confront the “legal” aspect of abortion in that you (and other abortion) supporters partially support abortion because normally it is argued that (1) abortion is not a good thing and (2) but some people have good reason to seek it. Yet, I fail to see any good reasons and in it’s absence don’t see why it should be legal. What I’m seeking is a good reason to abort. I don’t know any. Do you? If you do not, then why might you support abortion yourself and why might anyone who cannot state one (!) good reason. If that reason is one I haven’t articulated, please help me. I am honestly seeking that reason for I do not know one.
What I’m seeking is a good reason to abort.
You’re trying to avoid the burden of proof. In this country, we need a reason for something to be criminalized, not a reason for it to be legal.
You in your confidence (and I claim hubris) claim to be “sure” that it is not
It’s not a factual question we’re debating here — confidence isn’t relevant. Unless you’re basing law on whether a fetus objectively has a soul, the facts aren’t in question. What’s in question is what rights we impute to clumps of undifferentiated cells, some of which will, if nurtured properly and not spontaneously aborted by God, grow into actual persons.
Erring on the side of caution as a way of making law is way too broad. That line of argument could be used against prisons — how can we in our hubris claim to be “sure” that someone is guilty? Or banning television — can we be “sure” it’s not poisoning our children? Or books — can we be “sure” they aren’t turning our kids into criminals? You know who else was “sure” about stuff? The Nazis!
It appears that you’re against abortion either because it feels wrong to you or because your religion says so. Neither one is sufficient basis for criminalizing it. We don’t have to explain why it should be legal; you have to explain why it shouldn’t be.
JA. You keep using the phrase “undifferentiated cells” as if it is proof that an early-stage human being is not human. Which isn’t obvious to me, at least.
Perhaps you don’t know that most abortions take place when those cells are quite visibly differentiated, at 6 to 12 weeks. And abortion is legal right up to the point of birth, when those cells are fully differentiated.
I fail to see any scientific or moral basis for your claim that a human being should have no rights at all while in the uterus, especially well past the point where its cells are “differentiated.”
But I’ll make you a deal. Let’s keep abortion legal in all cases where we are truly dealing with an organism composed only of “undifferentiated cells,” since that seems to be your argument.
Let’s make abortion illegal once cell differentiation begins in force, at about 2 weeks.
Ok with you?
Charlie:
I’m purposely limiting the scope of my argument to whether abortion should ever be legal, not as to where we draw the line. That’s a completely separate argument and it’s useless to have that one when we can’t even agree on the first. (Well, it seems you and I may agree on the first, but Pseudo-Polymath does not.)
I fail to see any scientific or moral basis for your claim that a human being should have no rights at all while in the uterus, especially well past the point where its cells are “differentiated.”
I made no such claim. I’m claiming that before a certain (as-of-yet undefined) point, there is no reason to grant a fetus the *same* rights as an actual human being. I argue that those of you who wish to restrict actual human beings’ rights to not be pregnant are required to support your claim with a decent argument, which as of yet, neither you nor Pseudo-Polymath seems to have even attempted.
JA: It seems like we’re talking past each other, and we may not be able to rectify that. From conception until death, there is no genetic distinction. It is all human all the time. So it seems to me that you’re the one making the claim for exceptionalism. You want to say that the fetus doesn’t deserve the same rights as an “actual human being.” But the fetus *is* an actual human being. So on what grounds do you claim an exception for the normal human standard of a right to life?
Put differently, at no time in human development do we question an individual’s right to live. We restrict the rights of children, we restrict the rights of teens, but we never call into question their right to live. Why is the fetus a special class of human whose right to live is delegated to its mother alone?
JA,
When the question involved means erring on the side of caution when killing or not does not necessarily seem to broad to me. Watching TV, reading books, are not mortal if we err, unlike abortion is final for the pre-natal life.
You write:
uhm, that’s my argument. You are sure it’s ok to kill which is why the burden of proof is on you, because killing is on that side. We don’t put the burden of proof on the Jew, Croat, or unborn to show that they belong in the class of human. The burden is on those who wish to declassify and thereby turn over to death or medical experimentation.
Confidence is relevant because that’s my argument. This argument is invalidating all “line-drawing” arguments (pro-life and not) as missing the point. There is no consensus, no method, and no reason to have faith in our human wisdom and therefore we should not kill.
And I’m not actually arguing why I’m against abortion (I guess that could be a second essay series). My claim on the legal side is that if there is no sustainable argument for abortion then there is no reason to make it legal. The last two posts have (in my view) dismissed the claims that rely on convenience (Violin) and now all of the “final solution/line drawing” arguments. I know of only one other argument, that of the “nerf world” argument, aka “I didn’t ‘intend’ this pregnancy, may I have a do-over please” which I will address next. If you know of any other arguments I’m missing, please let me know post haste. (I think the “right not to be pregnant is a sub-set of the “inconvenience/violin” argument).
You write:
This is separate from the argument at hand, but was mentioned somewhat in the outset. As you point out, half the country thinks it’s ok (allegedly) and half the country thinks it’s murder. My contention is that if I fail to find any reasonable argument for why then do we make it legal? We live in a country that has made hay rides illegal for heaven’s sake because “they’re too dangerous”, but we can’t make abortion illegal on libertarian grounds?
Why cannot due process of some sort required to insure that if it is done for it is for good cause at the very least (supposing such good cause might be found to exist).
JA,
Oh, and my name is Mark Olson, my blog title is Pseudo-Polymath.
Charlie:
From conception until death, there is no genetic distinction
Why should morality be based on genetics? A human cheek cell has a full set of human DNA — does it have the same rights as a whole person? Is a person who scratches his cheek a murderer? Clearly, having a set of human DNA is insufficient by itself. You need to articulate other criteria for human status.
Mark:
Sorry about referring to you by your blog name.
For me, they’re the same, so sometimes I get confused.
When the question involved means erring on the side of caution when killing or not does not necessarily seem to broad to me.
Surely you must draw the line somewhere for medical care, for example. When someone is completely, 100% brain dead, do you support keeping them alive forever? Why not err on the side of caution with regard to automobiles? They cause far more deaths than terrorism every year, yet we allow people to drive them!
This argument is invalidating all “line-drawing” arguments (pro-life and not) as missing the point.
You’re drawing the line at conception, right? Why not order everybody to have sex as often as possible to prevent the senseless murder of millions of sperm and eggs every day?! Should a woman have to do everything in her power to make sure any fertilized eggs successfully implant?
We live in a country that has made hay rides illegal for heaven’s sake because “they’re too dangerous”, but we can’t make abortion illegal on libertarian grounds?
Hay rides aren’t a medical procedure as is abortion, although I agree they shouldn’t be illegal!
JA,
And I did in an earlier comment. Dignity of the patient is important. On automobiles we are given choice to ride (or not) and death is not certain unlike abortion.
On the second point, which I think impacts my invalidation of the line drawing argument directly. That is you accuse me of invalidating line drawing, yet still drawing lines. But I’m not. I’m saying the practice of line drawing is besides the point. A sperm (or egg) absent fertilization will not by itself under any circumstances develop into an adult human. A fetus, absent D&C, will.
Your argument on sperm/egg death is (intentionally) ludicrous. But there is a raging debate of when hearts develop, when brain activity does, pain felt, and so on not to speak of spirit or soul. My point is that in the presence of such a debate, your selection of a point and the willingness to insist that killing at that point and before is “ok” requires confidence in your judgment. Such confidence in the judgment of men, in the light of such egregious errors like the Nazis mentioned above, should give you pause in making such pronouncements, I’d think. Which is why I’d think that methods which use “line drawing” as their foundation set their foundations in sand.
A sperm (or egg) absent fertilization will not by itself under any circumstances develop into an adult human.
But what is it about something that will in the future develop into an adult human that necessarily grants it the rights of an existing adult human?
But there is a raging debate of when hearts develop, when brain activity does, pain felt, and so on not to speak of spirit or soul.
Surely we can agree that there is no heart, brain, or pain when the cells are mostly undifferentiated, right? Will you join Charlie in agreeing that abortion is okay before that point?
Such confidence in the judgment of men, in the light of such egregious errors like the Nazis mentioned above, should give you pause in making such pronouncements, I’d think
I understand your point about erring on the side of caution. But there’s the side of caution and then there’s way over there past the side of caution. Outlawing abortion past the first trimester could be argued as erring on the side of caution. Outlawing it starting at conception is going too far.
JA,
You’re sure of yourself … I’m not.
However, I will go so far as to admit that I understand your argument even though I don’t share your confidence in its correctness (or necessity). That is to say, in my search for arguments I at least understand this one and how it is made, which is what I’m seeking.
On the other hand, I am not “granting” to the pre-natal life the “rights of an existing human adult”. Just the right to life … not all the rights. Fetal life for example does not get a right to vote.
However, I will go so far as to admit that I understand your argument even though I don’t share your confidence in its correctness (or necessity).
Hey, I can’t ask for more than that.
On the other hand, I am not “granting” to the pre-natal life the “rights of an existing human adult”.
Understood. But you are giving the (early) fetus’s right to life as much weight as the mother’s right to control her own body. That’s where we differ.
JA,
“Control her own body”, is that not the violinist’s argument, “her inconvenience” or is the argument different? Is there a facet to that “control my body” that I’m missing in assuming it’s equivalence. If so, I’ll split that out to another post, but I’ve been lumping those arguments together.
Just curious, would opt to kill the violinist?
I guess it’s more-or-less the violinist’s argument. The fact is the fetus is basically a parasite from one way of looking at it.
JA,
It also might tie into the “do-over” argument which will be the topic of my next and penulitimate essay in this series. Accordinly I’ll mention it as well there.
The “do-over” argument, as you put it, sounds suspiciously like a straw-man. But I’ll wait until you write it to judge it.
BTW, you called my point about sperm and eggs above intentionally ridiculous, which it was, but there are those who take it seriously:
“The Hebrew word for semen is zera, which means seed. This seed contains not only the physical and spiritual blueprints of life, but also the life force itself. Each discharge of semen contains hundreds of thousands of souls. Each microscopic drop is more than a potential life. It is already a living soul. For this reason, the sin of spilling semen in vain is considered like the spilling of blood – like taking the life of a person. Not just the life of any person, but the life of the child of the man who commits the sin. (Niddah 13A; Even HaEzer, 23:2)”
http://www.jewishsexuality.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=42
Shouldn’t you “err on the side of caution” by making masturbation, anal sex, oral sex, the rythm method, or any other form of “wasted” sperm illegal, too? Think of the millions of souls’ murders that you’re condoning!
Hi Jewish Atheist! I just want to copy something that was said by a pro-life speak, Jonathan Krive. This may clear things up for you and help you to understand that there is no difference between a child in the womb and a child outside of the womb.
“The unborn differ from the newborn in only four ways, none of which are relevant to its status as a human: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.
Size: The unborn are smaller than the newborn, but does size have anything to do with the right to life? If so, then men have more rights than women because they are generally bigger, and pro-basketball players like Shaquille o’ Neil have the most right of all.
Level of Development: The unborn are less developed than the newborn, but aren’t the newborn less developed than a child, and children are less developed than adults. You don’t reach your peak of mental development until age 40, so if level of development is a criteria for being human, most of you haven’t become even half way human yet. Just because you aren’t fully developed does not mean you are less human.
Environment: Again, the unborn is located in a different place, but how does location suddenly change you into a non-human? You all agreed that a newborn baby is human. Well the only difference between the newborn, and the unborn, is 8 inches of birth canal. So we are saying because the fetus moves 8 inches, it suddenly becomes human. Environment is not a criteria for being a human.
Degree of Dependency: It is true that in the first two trimesters, an unborn child is not viable on its own. But if viability is what makes one human, then everyone who is dependent on a pace maker, or some form of medication would have to be declared less human. A few months ago, two Siamese twins from Egypt were in the news. Even though one of the twins was physically dependent on the other twin, you would all agree that both of them are human. Could we have killed one of the twins simply because he was dependent on the other twin?”
I hope that helps!
P.S. “Wasted sperm” is not the problem – Neither is a wasted egg. The problem comes when the sperm and egg meet to create a child and someone knowingly terminates that. Once the sperm and egg meet that is all that is needed to create the child (besides the surrounding conditions of course). At that point there are 46 chromosomes and THAT is a human being…nothing else besides a human has those 46 chromosomes.
Also, just to refute a point you are probably already thinking of…the conditions the fertilized egg needs does not make it “non-human”. ALL humans need certain conditions in order to live and that is a fact. For example, just as the fertilized egg could not live without the environment implantation creates, neither could you or I live without air, water, and food. It is a child.