Abortion Questions From Pro-Choice Philosopher David Boonin

[Thom18]

So obvious. Let’s play the process in reverse. Take full-blown human. Start to remove the different organs. One can be handicapped if certain organs are removed, for example legs, hands, arms, etc… but the person is essentially the same, without some functionality. The whole circulatory system can be replaced with an artificial heart to circulate the blood. The kidneys can be replaced. The lungs can be substituted with artificial counterparts… As long as there is a functioning brain, the person is the same. Death is defined by the cessation of the brain activity.

For the time being, the electro-chemical activity of the brain is irreplaceable by artificial prosthesis. In theory an artificial brain can be developed, though it is not likely to happen any time soon. We are our thoughts, our personalities. None of the other parts of our body is “necessary”. Simple, eh?

Simple? Sure. I don’t come to the same conclusion that you do, though. What I’m asking for is proof for your claim that the brain is what determines whether or not one is a human being. I didn’t ask if someone can live without an organic or artificial brain, but that’s what you gave me. What you posted shows how crucial the brain is to keeping one alive, and the fact that we haven’t yet been able to “replace” it. But it in no way proves that someone without one isn’t a human being.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Simple? Sure. I don’t come to the same conclusion that you do, though. What I’m asking for is proof for your claim that the brain is what determines whether or not one is a human being. I didn’t ask if someone can live without an organic or artificial brain, but that’s what you gave me. What you posted shows how crucial the brain is to keeping one alive, and the fact that we haven’t yet been able to “replace” it. But it in no way proves that someone without one isn’t a human being.

First of all, the word “prove” is inapplicable outside the deductive (or axiomatic) systems. Second, to paraphrase Forrest Gump: “Human is as human does”. Or we can quote the duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck… it is duck and not a shark”.

 

[Thom18]

First of all, the word “prove” is inapplicable outside the deductive (or axiomatic) systems. Second, to paraphrase Forrest Gump: “Human is as human does”. Or we can quote the duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck… it is duck and not a shark”.

It just sounds to me like you can’t defend your position. I happen to have an anatomy and physiology textbook from my first year of college in front of me. Allow me to cite something:

“Fertilization occurs when a sperm’s chromosomes combine with those of an egg (actually a secondary oocyte) to form a fertilized egg, or zygote (zi’ gōt; “yoked together”), the first cell of the new individual.” (1065) Human Anatomy & Physiology, Elaine N. Marieb and Katja Hoehn

I’ll also use the “Forrest Gump” phrase (even though that isn’t very scientific). The human fetus (or, fetus of a human, as I guess you would call it) has human DNA (which the quote I provided attests to). Both the provider of the sperm and the provider of the egg are human beings as well. Scientifically speaking, even only thus far, “it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.” Or, in this case, a human.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Just about all of those questions presuppose that obligations only arise when one consents. But that assumption is false.

For example, if I am a pedestrian, I had no chance to consent to an obligation to stop before the red light. But I do have an obligation to stop before the red light.

Likewise, mother has an obligation not to murder her child, even if she hasn’t consented to that.

Nevertheless, if one does become pregnant, they may not have consented to pregnancy, or even sex for that matter, but they now have a child growing in their womb and they can’t just murder that child.

Obviously everyone hopes for the best and there is no way of knowing, nobody wishes for those things, but when a child exists, they exist, ‘consent’ is an invalid argument since there are two human lives involved.

I would agree with Boonin that consent is paramount. **Everyone has the right to life, but the right to life is not the same thing as the right to be kept alive using another person’s body. **

I for example, cannot use your body, and extract your bone marrow to save my life, without your consent. In the same way, the unborn must have their mother’s consent to use her body, or one must come up with some other justification for the child being allowed to use her body, because his need is insufficient, just as my need for bone marrow is insufficient to just take it without obtaining consent.

Some abortion methods are intrinsically unjustifiable, such as D and E’s, in which the unborn child is dismembered. A woman has no legitimate just war or self-defense claim that would justify dismembering a fetus. But if the woman has not given consent to the pregnancy, it would seem she would be justified, not in attacking the child, but removing the child from her body, surgically or with drugs, without attacking the child’s body, saying the child can no longer use her body. The right to live is not the same thing as the right to be kept alive by using another’s body. So the question becomes, in order to maintain the pro-life position, how does a woman give this consent, or how else does the child come to have the right to use her body?

(And the answer I am seeking here is a secular one, that would suffice as backing for pro-life government legislation.)

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Not sure I understand the question?

The child in the mothers womb has a heartbeat, and brain activity.

the problem with people like the guy asking these questions, is that they do not see that the child in the mothers womb is a human life, once that is established, the rest will follow suit, if this is not established, there is no point answering any of these hypotheticals because they are based on a faulty premise.

Sometimes one sees the right to self-defense overriding responsibilities assumed from consent. For example, if Andy consented to caring for a troubled teen, and that troubled teen started shooting at him, Andy would have the right to shoot back in self-defense. Even if the teen was innocent, because he was mentally ill and did not truly consent to shooting the gun, even though Andy had the responsibility of caring for the teen, Andy’s right to self-defense won out. I think in some pregnancies, such as those which cause a woman to be seriously ill or suffering, a woman might be justified in delivering her baby before viability, in self-defense, even though she consented to the pregnancy.

The heartbeat begins at three weeks, the brain activity at six weeks. So one must justify those embryos younger than 3 weeks being persons on criteria that involves no heartbeat and no brainwaves.

Actually, Boonin presents an argument that grants the premise the unborn are human beings, and for this he must be respected.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Sometimes one sees the right to self-defense overriding responsibilities assumed from consent. For example, if Andy consented to caring for a troubled teen, and that troubled teen started shooting at him, Andy would have the right to shoot back in self-defense. Even if the teen was innocent, because he was mentally ill and did not truly consent to shooting the gun, even though Andy had the responsibility of caring for the teen, Andy’s right to self-defense won out. I think in some pregnancies, such as those which cause a woman to be seriously ill or suffering, a woman might be justified in delivering her baby before viability, in self-defense, even though she consented to the pregnancy.

The heartbeat begins at three weeks, the brain activity at six weeks. So one must justify those embryos younger than 3 weeks being persons on criteria that involves no heartbeat and no brainwaves.

Actually, Boonin presents an argument that grants the premise the unborn are human beings, and for this he must be respected.

The reason why the first scenario is acceptable is the principle of double effect, whereas one must - from a Catholic view - choose that which does the least harm to one’s self and others. In Andy’s case, he should have chosen to defend himself using non-lethal means first, if possible, before resorting to deadly force. However, even if one may, there is no requirement that one must. The same applies regarding medical procedures, one may use medical intervention to prevent serious illness, such as a historectomy, where the secondary unintended effect is the death of the child. However, this is not required, only allowed.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I would agree with Boonin that consent is paramount. **Everyone has the right to life, but the right to life is not the same thing as the right to be kept alive using another person’s body. **

I for example, cannot use your body, and extract your bone marrow to save my life, without your consent. In the same way, the unborn must have their mother’s consent to use her body, or one must come up with some other justification for the child being allowed to use her body, because his need is insufficient, just as my need for bone marrow is insufficient to just take it without obtaining consent.

once the bone marrow is obtained though, whether initially consented, or forceably taken, is it justifiable to tell the reciever to return it? The notion that the individuals right trumps those of the community are not as set in stone as you make it seem. Many societies view communal rights as supreme over individuals, and even the society we know allows for exceptions (see USA PATRIOT Act, forced quarantine, martial law, contemporary views on vaccination, etc)

 

[CrystalMayner66]

The same applies regarding medical procedures, one may use medical intervention to prevent serious illness, such as a historectomy, where the secondary unintended effect is the death of the child. However, this is not required, only allowed.

Thanks for making note of that!

 

[CrystalMayner66]

once the bone marrow is obtained though, whether initially consented, or forceably taken, is it justifiable to tell the reciever to return it? The notion that the individuals right trumps those of the community are not as set in stone as you make it seem. Many societies view communal rights as supreme over individuals, and even the society we know allows for exceptions (see USA PATRIOT Act, forced quarantine, martial law, contemporary views on vaccination, etc)

If a person took bone marrow without consent, and had already placed it inside his body, it would be impossible to return, so no I do not think he should be forced to attempt to obtain it. Neither would I say a fetus must return any nutrients it has taken and digested from it’s mother.

What I am saying, is that if someone stabbed your hip and began extracting bone marrow without your permission, you have the right to remove that needle at any time–you do not have to wait for the person who stabbed you to remove it. And it would seem if a woman did not consent to a pregnancy, she would have the right to withdraw the fetus/umbilical cord from feeding on her bloodstream at any time–she would not have to wait for the child to spontaneously leave by itself.

Your examples are good food for thought, although I wouldn’t necessarily call all those things just either. I agree, individual rights do not always trump society rights. But I do believe an individual’s right to control what happens to their own body trumps societal rights to use their body without permission. I distinguish controlling what happens to your own body from being told what to do with your body, although granted there can be times of overlap. I can think of no example where it is commonly accepted for a person to use another’s person’s body without their consent that I wouldn’t consider an injustice, except perhaps pregnancy, if there was some logical justification to be found for the child using her body without her consent.

Granted, I want to believe women do give consent to being pregnant, or the child otherwise has some justification for being able to reside in the womb until viability, and therefore be able to hold the pro-life view, but I have to put the puzzle pieces together.

 

[SyroMalankara]

What I am saying, is that if someone stabbed your hip and began extracting bone marrow without your permission, you have the right to remove that needle at any time–you do not have to wait for the person who stabbed you to remove it.

By the same token, once I give consent to have my bone marrow extracted, my consent is virtually not able to be withdrawn during the operation, or after extraction - before implantation to the receiver.

And it would seem if a woman did not consent to a pregnancy, she would have the right to withdraw the fetus/umbilical cord from feeding on her bloodstream at any time–she would not have to wait for the child to spontaneously leave by itself.

I’m not so sure about that fully - still working it out. One thing if the child/fetus is thought to be a cancer or a disease and not a person, entirely different perspective if thought of as a person.

 

[mikekle]

Which I mentioned. And as I said, I doubt they do it because they want to separate the pleasure of sex from the “consequences” of having offspring.

Ive always thought it odd that many animal species, procreation/ sex, is not a pleasurable thing at all, its strange to me, it would be such a pleasurable experience with humans, since we are basically hardwired for sin in the first place.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It just sounds to me like you can’t defend your position.

How does something sound to you is your own personal problem.

 

[MPat]

I would agree with Boonin that consent is paramount.

And? That’s it?

That has some major problems.

First, it is not clear what exactly do you mean by “consent is paramount”. Do you mean that sometimes consent can make things moral? That would be true, but insufficient for your case. Or do you mean that obligations only arise with consent? That would be false (I have given one example).

Second, it is not clear why you think so.

Third, it seems to point to a wrong political approach given this:

(And the answer I am seeking here is a secular one, that would suffice as backing for pro-life government legislation.)

Once again, laws arise because some sort of lawgiver passes them.

If you look at this statement, you will notice that there is no word “secular” in it. In fact, no arguments are required, neither “secular” nor “religious”. Nor is popularity really required. And it is not necessary to persuade anyone.

After all, “Roe vs. Wade” is not a name of a referendum, nor is it a name of a philosophical treatise, nor of a speech.

And if you ignore that, you end up trying to trick worldly atheists into thinking that they want children they didn’t plan for. I don’t think that is going to be successful - they have already told you they want pleasure, not cross. They are not going to just forget that.

Persuading them that they have to follow Natural law is unlikely to be much harder.

Or are you afraid that they will “complain” about “religious arguments”?

First, who cares. You do not have to consent to any arbitrary rule against any arguments that are honest, valid and sound. If they are unhappy about that, that’s their problem.

Second, it’s not like they do not, um, “complain” otherwise. For example:

If you believe that a zygote is a human “being”, your are irrational to be taken seriously. Without a working brain there cannot be a human “being”.

 

[Thom18]

How does something sound to you is your own personal problem.

I’m sorry if I came off as snobbish. If you have a more convincing argument, I’m happy to hear it, but I’m looking for something scientific. I provided proof that an individual human being is created at conception, and I dissected the tissue argument (no pun intended). If I could download my kindle app on my new computer, I have a resource that lists several criteria scientists use to determine whether something is living or not. I would also be able to more thoroughly address your brain argument if I had it. I’ll be happy to go to the effort if you can cite a scientific study that backs the claim you’re making about the presence of a brain being necessary to call something “living” or a human being.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

…lists several criteria scientists use to determine whether something is living or not.

No one denies that the zygote is alive. Of course the sperm cell and the ovum are also alive. A tumor is also a living tissue. Taking a sample from human will also be a “living” tissue. The question is: “at which point do we consider the living tissue to become a being”? What is a “being” is a matter of definition. I gave you a thought experiment to show that as long as the human brain is functioning, we have someone who is considered human, because it has the most important attributes of a human. None of the other organs are necessary, though without them all you have is a seriously impaired human. Without a working brain all you have is a corpse… on the way to decomposition. There is nothing to “prove” here.

The DNA approach is incorrect, because there is no human DNA. The DNA which we consider “human” is wide range of molecules. Someone who has a DNA which is very “far-out” would be a mutant. How far could we allow to deviate from the undefined human DNA, before it will NOT be considered a human?

 

[Thom18]

No one denies that the zygote is alive. Of course the sperm cell and the ovum are also alive. A tumor is also a living tissue. Taking a sample from human will also be a “living” tissue. The question is: “at which point do we consider the living tissue to become a being”? What is a “being” is a matter of definition. I gave you a thought experiment to show that as long as the human brain is functioning, we have someone who is considered human, because it has the most important attributes of a human. None of the other organs are necessary, though without them all you have is a seriously impaired human. Without a working brain all you have is a corpse… on the way to decomposition. There is nothing to “prove” here.

The DNA approach is incorrect, because there is no human DNA. The DNA which we consider “human” is wide range of molecules. Someone who has a DNA which is very “far-out” would be a mutant. How far could we allow to deviate from the undefined human DNA, before it will NOT be considered a human?

You saying that you have nothing to prove doesn’t make it so. I repeat myself: you’re showing how crucial the brain is to keeping one alive. It doesn’t follow that that’s what makes one human. You’re going to have to do more than prove how critical the brain is in keeping one alive to prove your position right.

And I already disproved your whole “tissue” argument. I’ll take it a different direction this time by quoting “An embryo is an organism, not merely a tissue. A human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, like a rock, or a potato, or a rhinoceros. A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stages of his or her natural development. Unless severely damaged or denied or deprived of a suitable environment, an embryonic human being will, by directing its own internal organic functioning, develop himself or herself into the next more mature developmental stage, i.e. the fetal stage. The embryonic, fetal, child, and adolescent stages are stages in the development of a determinate and enduring entity- a human being- who comes into existence as a single-celled organism (a zygote) and develops, if all goes well, into adulthood many years later.” (Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life.)

An embryo is not merely a tissue, but an organism. Here’s a quote from Peter Singer, a pro-choice bioethicist as well (emphasis mine): “there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being, and the same is true of the most profoundly and irreparably intellectually disabled human being, even of an anencephalic infant—that is, an infant that, as a result of a defect in the formation of the neural tube, has no brain."

The ball is in your court. If you have sources that can disprove mine, provide them. I have been very generous with citing my sources.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You saying that you have nothing to prove doesn’t make it so. I repeat myself: you’re showing how crucial the brain is to keeping one alive. It doesn’t follow that that’s what makes one human. You’re going to have to do more than prove how critical the brain is in keeping one alive to prove your position right.

Remove the brain, and you will get a corpse. That is all we need.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

No one denies that the zygote is alive. Of course the sperm cell and the ovum are also alive. A tumor is also a living tissue. Taking a sample from human will also be a “living” tissue. The question is: “at which point do we consider the living tissue to become a being”? What is a “being” is a matter of definition.

I think I understand your point Vera, but I want to make sure I understand correctly.

You recognize the zygote is biologically human, even a biologically distinct human organism, but you consider merely being a human organism insufficient grounds for being a person, or “being”, as you said. You consider the criteria for being a person, or “being”, with rights like the right to live, higher, and as you pointed out, who constitutes a person is an entirely separate question from whether a zygote is a biological human. You are proposing that a functioning brain is a necessary perquisite for an organism to be a person.

Is that correct?

 

[CrystalMayner66]

First, it is not clear what exactly do you mean by “consent is paramount”.

Second, it is not clear why you think so.

Third, it seems to point to a wrong political approach

By “consent is paramount” I mean that it seems to me that if a mother does not consent to being pregnant, she is justified in removing the pregnancy from her body without directly attacking the child (poisoning, dismembering, etc.) before viability. Therefore, in order for the pro-life position to be justly enforced on a secular government level, it must be demonstrated that all women have consented to being pregnant, or demonstrated that the child has a right to use the mother’s body without her consent.

Why do I think it is unjust for a person to use anther’s body without their consent? Because to use another person’s body without their consent is an assault on their right to bodily autonomy. It would be fundamentally wrong for me to stick a needle into your hip and start extracting your bone marrow, for example, if you did not give me permission. It seems a fetus must also get the mother’s consent before feeding off her bloodstream.

I believe in the system of separation of Church and State, and that is the system of American Government. So I believe it would be wrong for the U.S. government to make federal bans based purely on the fact that a religious book or other religious source speaks out against something. If there are religious and secular reasons, that is fine, but Catholic laws should not be federally enforced on non-Catholics, Islamic laws should not be federally enforced on non-Muslims, etc. Freedom of religion is a precious gift. Therefore, unless a secular justification can be found for the unborn child being justified in using the mother’s body, I don’t believe the U.S. government can justly ban abortion. So again, it is paramount to the pro-life position that it be demonstrated women give consent to being pregnant or that the child otherwise has the right to his mother’s body.

 

[goout]

No one denies that the zygote is alive. Of course the sperm cell and the ovum are also alive. A tumor is also a living tissue. Taking a sample from human will also be a “living” tissue. The question is: “at which point do we consider the living tissue to become a being”? What is a “being” is a matter of definition. I gave you a thought experiment to show that as long as the human brain is functioning, we have someone who is considered human, because it has the most important attributes of a human. None of the other organs are necessary, though without them all you have is a seriously impaired human. Without a working brain all you have is a corpse… on the way to decomposition. There is nothing to “prove” here.

The DNA approach is incorrect, because there is no human DNA. The DNA which we consider “human” is wide range of molecules. Someone who has a DNA which is very “far-out” would be a mutant. How far could we allow to deviate from the undefined human DNA, before it will NOT be considered a human?

Definitions are human attempts to explain things. “Being” is not fully explainable and so your words are going to fail. It’s good to try and use words to reason things out and make definitions, but if something is demonstrably human and you are parsing that humanity with words, you open the way for horrifying injustices. (injustices like abortion and other genocides always have the redefinition and de-valuation of humanity as their source)
Are you sure you intend to do that?