Abortion Questions From Pro-Choice Philosopher David Boonin

[Vera_Ljuba]

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?

Almost 110% correct.

The only miniscule detail where I disagree is that there is no “right to life”. A very good friend of mine is dying due to multiple myeloma and there is no one to enforce his “right” to live. And without enforcement the “right” is just a pie in the sky. But apart from that, yes I agree completely.

Let me give you a few analogies. An “egg” is not the same as a “chicken”, it is a potential chicken. And “acorn” is not an oak tree, it is a potential oak tree. A “medical student” is not a doctor, he or she is a potential doctor.

The quantitative and qualitative changes during the development of the human embryo or the chicken embryo or growth of the acorn are not to be overlooked. That is why we have different words to describe them. But I am very happily surprised that you understood my point. Happens very rarely.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Almost 110% correct.

The only miniscule detail where I disagree is that there is no “right to life”. A very good friend of mine is dying due to multiple myeloma and there is no one to enforce his “right” to live. And without enforcement the “right” is just a pie in the sky. But apart from that, yes I agree completely.

Let me give you a few analogies. An “egg” is not the same as a “chicken”, it is a potential chicken. And “acorn” is not an oak tree, it is a potential oak tree. A “medical student” is not a doctor, he or she is a potential doctor.

The quantitative and qualitative changes during the development of the human embryo or the chicken embryo or growth of the acorn are not to be overlooked. That is why we have different words to describe them. But I am very happily surprised that you understood my point. Happens very rarely.

The right to live would be defined as the right not to be killed by another person. Do you think individuals have the right not to be killed by other people, as enshrined in the Constitution? I am deeply sorry about your friend.

I see what you mean. Living beings do have different stages of progression, as you point out. If I may add to your comparisons, an infant is not a teenager, and a teenager is not a senior citizen. Each stage has it’s own unique characteristics. But the essence of what they are, a living member of the human species, remains the same in every stage. In the same way, acorns and trees are both living members of the oak tree species. Fertilized eggs and chickens are both living members of the chicken species. Medical students and doctors are both human beings. Biology tells us that fertilization is the moment a new member of a species comes into existence. Yet biology is unable to tell us which species, or at what stage, an individual becomes a person.

An observation about comparing embryos to acorns: One often views acorns as having no value, because tress are commonly viewed as products. Trees are useful to us, acorns are not very useful, so we value trees more. Human beings, however, would you agree, do not gain or lose value based on their productivity and abilities? If human beings became persons from offering valuable contributions, infants would not be persons.

I would like to explain why I believe the unborn are persons. Imagine you are in a large stadium, filled with born humans of all ages. Looking at them all, they are very different. Different races, heights, weights, IQs, levels of development, brain functioning, perhaps consciousness if you see some one napping. I believe all of these born humans are fundamentally equal, that they possess the same basic rights, including the right not be killed by a person. And I think if they all have the same basic rights, they are all equally persons, and that they all equally share what makes one a person. Looking at all the different people, I think the one factor they all equally have in common is being a living human being. Therefore I consider being a living human being sufficient grounds for being a person. Since the unborn (and frozen embryos) are living human beings, I consider them to be persons.

The reason I do not believe brain activity is sufficient grounds for being a person is that many animals have brain activity. If brain activity is what makes one a person, pigs are persons. Pigs are very intelligent, and their brains function at about the same level as a three year old human brain. I am an animal welfare activist, a vegetarian and a believer in animal awesomeness, but I do not think animals have all the same rights as human beings. Also, brain development is something we do not share equally. An adult’s brain is more developed than an infant’s brain, but an adult does not have more claim to living without being attacked than the infant.

I am happy to understand as well. Good communication makes for good discussion! I think prior abortion debate experience and the Equal Rights Institute training session I attended helped me to see where you were coming from.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The right to live would be defined as the right not to be killed by another person. Do you think individuals have the right not to be killed by other people, as enshrined in the Constitution? I am deeply sorry about your friend.

Actually, the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” does not appear in the constitution, that phrase is part of the Declaration of Independence, which is NOT a legal document. But that is not the central point.

I see what you mean. Living beings do have different stages of progression, as you point out. If I may add to your comparisons, an infant is not a teenager, and a teenager is not a senior citizen. Each stage has it’s own unique characteristics. But the essence of what they are, a living member of the human species, remains the same in every stage. In the same way, acorns and trees are both living members of the oak tree species. Fertilized eggs and chickens are both living members of the chicken species. Medical students and doctors are both human beings. Biology tells us that fertilization is the moment a new member of a species comes into existence. Yet biology is unable to tell us which species, or at what stage, an individual becomes a person.

The important point is the qualitative differences. When you eat an omelette, you do not think that you just have been served a “fried chicken”.

An observation about comparing embryos to acorns: One often views acorns as having no value, because tress are commonly viewed as products. Trees are useful to us, acorns are not very useful, so we value trees more. Human beings, however, would you agree, do not gain or lose value based on their productivity and abilities? If human beings became persons from offering valuable contributions, infants would not be persons.

There is no “value” judgment here.

If brain activity is what makes one a person, pigs are persons. Pigs are very intelligent, and their brains function at about the same level as a three year old human brain. I am an animal welfare activist, a vegetarian and a believer in animal awesomeness, but I do not think animals have all the same rights as human beings. Also, brain development is something we do not share equally. An adult’s brain is more developed than an infant’s brain, but an adult does not have more claim to living without being attacked than the infant.

Well, there is a question here: IF an animal (for example an ape, or a dolphin or even a cockroach) would exhibit the attributes of a human and would conduct a conversation via some common interface, I would have no problem with accepting it as an “honorary human”. Going even one step further, if a fully artificial being would pass the Turing test, I would also be willing to accept it an “honorary human”, and would not support to dismantle it for spare parts. To sum it up: I value sapience, no matter what form it takes.

But there is one more important question to consider. The zygote/fetus/embryo uses the woman’s bodily resources without her permission. And that is where the major conflict occurs. We have dominion over our body. No one is allowed to “leech” our bodily resources without prior permission. Not even our blood, or plasma, which are renewable bodily resources. As a matter of fact, today our ownership is so strong, that it extends onto our corpses. For the time being - and that could change with the stroke of a pen - no one is allowed to harvest our organs after our death without prior written permission.

And that is the basis of the problem. If we are allowed to deny our bodily resources to another full-blown, obvious human being, why should we be forced to share them with an organism composed of a few cells?

I have no information about some woman who became pregnant for the sole purpose to abort. It is a traumatic experience, not to undertake lightly. I am sure everyone would be happy, if there were no abortions ever. The best way to achieve that goal would be a 100% foolproof prevention, which would allow to have the pleasure of sex without the unwanted side effect of conception. Of course such methods are available today, in the shape of the non-vaginal intercourses. Unfortunately there is this totally irrational approach that one “must” be open to the possibility of conception… how ridiculous. Until that requirement is dropped, there can be no consensus - and that is quite sad.

 

[MPat]

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.

So, it’s a claim for this one case? OK, let’s look how you are going to support it.

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.

That just won’t do. At most, you have established that consent is required in that specific case. But if you want to get to your claim, you have to establish that consent is required in all cases. In fact, unless proof will be perfect, even that won’t be sufficient - pregnancy is pretty obviously a special case and you would have to prove that it is not an exception.

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.

That’s wrong in so many ways!

First, “based purely on the fact that a religious book or other religious source speaks out against something” is hopelessly vague. That easily becomes “based on arguments I don’t like”. For example, do you count as a “religious source”? Does Natural law theory count as “religious source”? Atheists will happily assert that it does, even if Aristotle was not a Catholic.

Second, “freedom of religion” has little to do with “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.”. Freedom of religion means that the State is not to interfere with people trying to follow their religion. If your religion demands that you would try to support Catholic social teaching and to get abortion banned, freedom of religion not only does not prevent you form trying to do so, it demands that you would be allowed to try to achieve that.

Third, as far as I know, there is nothing in American law nor customs that would demand anything similar to what you claim. For example, slavery was abolished based on religious reasons. Even Democrats will happily claim support by their religion when that is convenient.

Fourth, even if that was the case, Catholic social doctrine “outranks” all American law. It would simply mean that we should try to change American law. “I believe in the system of separation of Church and State, and that is the system of American Government.” sounds uncomfortably close to idolatry to me…

Fifth, why should you accept such a handicap? It gives the atheists an advantage right away. If you accept it and allow your arguments to be disqualified for no good reason, you should at least try to look for ways to disqualify the contrary arguments as well. For example, look for “worship of self” - and demand proof that it is not religious.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That just won’t do. At most, you have established that consent is required in that specific case.

Actually, it is a generic principle. Read the last few paragraphs in my previous post.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Let me give you a few analogies. An “egg” is not the same as a “chicken”, it is a potential chicken. And “acorn” is not an oak tree, it is a potential oak tree. A “medical student” is not a doctor, he or she is a potential doctor.

Strange analogy here.

Are you saying that if you were pregnant you would have no more compunction about killing your unborn child than about breaking an egg?

 

[Wesrock]

**I. Is consent to sex consent to pregnancy?
**
Yes, it should be. Not that it must result, but that the person shpupd be open to the possibility.

II. Is general consent to a pregnancy consent to undergo a pregnancy which turns out to be unexpectedly abnormal, dangerous or painful?

Yes, in that the person should be open to the risks of pregnancy

III. Is consent to pregnancy irreversible or ongoing?

Yes. Not that it requires having sex in the future, but that, once the act ia done, the openness to the results of that act can’t be revoked and certainly once a pregnancy occurs it cannot be revoked for the same reason and in addition to that, a new human life is involved, that being the person’s child.

**IIII. In what situations does consent become overruled by self-defense? **

Let me back up here. If a partner in a willing couple wishes to stop sex mid act, there may be prudential reasons for doing so in limited circumstances. Certainly in rape, the person is not to consent to the sex act itself, and may attempt to remove the aggressor’s seed, if possible. Once a new person is involved, that being a child who is not an aggressor, the child’s death cannot be considered as self-defense. The direct killing of a child is never acceptable. If the mother has complications or medical issues, and treatment of those issues (that don’t consider murder as treatment) can or do result in the loss of the child’s life, that is permissible.

V. When pregnancy is not consented to (rape, ignorance, impaired judgement, coercion, etc.), acknowledging the right to live is not the same thing as the right to be kept alive by another person, does a woman have the right to unplug the child from her body without causing him any intentional harm?

No. The parent has a responsibility to provide for the security of her child, and the child has done no wrong. The father does, too, but two wrongs don’t make a right. That the child was not willed does not absolve the parent of responsibility.

VI. What is the method for establishing the value of a human being without a heartbeat or brain activity on a secular, political level?

I don’t want to say that all human beings must have the same legal rights (voting, driving, drinking, and perhaps more), but it is never right to murder another person. The embryo is a person, dependent on the mother for nutrients, but still a whole being in himself, with his own cells, his own DNA, he’s begun developing as an individual towards adulthood.

**VII. In America, parents have the luxury of adoption. Do the ethics change when mothers are forced to literally abandon their careers, passions and dreams after giving birth? **

Parents have a responsibility to care and provide for their children, whether that means both spouse’s working, one spouse working, or giving a child up for adoption. Adoption should ve done in the best interests of the child, never as a matter of material convenience or comfort.

VIII. How does the concept of bodily autonomy apply after birth? Does a child ever have the right to use his mother’s body then? For example, would a woman have the right to refuse to breastfeed her child if there were no breast milk alternatives available?

The parents have a responsibility to feed their child. If in the unlikely circumstances there literally were no alternatives, yes, the mother would be responsible for breast feeding. But allowing ome’s own child to starve when one is caoable of feeding them in the name of personal autonomy is horrendous. That does not obligate a parent to donate their heart and such for a child, though, if their child needs one.

 

[goout]

**I. Is consent to sex consent to pregnancy?
**
Yes, it should be. Not that it must result, but that the person shpupd be open to the possibility.

II. Is general consent to a pregnancy consent to undergo a pregnancy which turns out to be unexpectedly abnormal, dangerous or painful?

Yes, in that the person should be open to the risks of pregnancy

III. Is consent to pregnancy irreversible or ongoing?

Yes. Not that it requires having sex in the future, but that, once the act ia done, the openness to the results of that act can’t be revoked and certainly once a pregnancy occurs it cannot be revoked for the same reason and in addition to that, a new human life is involved, that being the person’s child.

**IIII. In what situations does consent become overruled by self-defense? **

Let me back up here. If a partner in a willing couple wishes to stop sex mid act, there may be prudential reasons for doing so in limited circumstances. Certainly in rape, the person is not to consent to the sex act itself, and may attempt to remove the aggressor’s seed, if possible. Once a new person is involved, that being a child who is not an aggressor, the child’s death cannot be considered as self-defense. The direct killing of a child is never acceptable. If the mother has complications or medical issues, and treatment of those issues (that don’t consider murder as treatment) can or do result in the loss of the child’s life, that is permissible.

V. When pregnancy is not consented to (rape, ignorance, impaired judgement, coercion, etc.), acknowledging the right to live is not the same thing as the right to be kept alive by another person, does a woman have the right to unplug the child from her body without causing him any intentional harm?

No. The parent has a responsibility to provide for the security of her child, and the child has done no wrong. The father does, too, but two wrongs don’t make a right. That the child was not willed does not absolve the parent of responsibility.

VI. What is the method for establishing the value of a human being without a heartbeat or brain activity on a secular, political level?

I don’t want to say that all human beings must have the same legal rights (voting, driving, drinking, and perhaps more), but it is never right to murder another person. The embryo is a person, dependent on the mother for nutrients, but still a whole being in himself, with his own cells, his own DNA, he’s begun developing as an individual towards adulthood.

**VII. In America, parents have the luxury of adoption. Do the ethics change when mothers are forced to literally abandon their careers, passions and dreams after giving birth? **

Parents have a responsibility to care and provide for their children, whether that means both spouse’s working, one spouse working, or giving a child up for adoption. Adoption should ve done in the best interests of the child, never as a matter of material convenience or comfort.

VIII. How does the concept of bodily autonomy apply after birth? Does a child ever have the right to use his mother’s body then? For example, would a woman have the right to refuse to breastfeed her child if there were no breast milk alternatives available?

The parents have a responsibility to feed their child. If in the unlikely circumstances there literally were no alternatives, yes, the mother would be responsible for breast feeding. But allowing ome’s own child to starve when one is caoable of feeding them in the name of personal autonomy is horrendous. That does not obligate a parent to donate their heart and such for a child, though, if their child needs one.

Here are the realities that are inescapable.
A human being exists: he or she has being.
A human being can be seen. He/she has definable human attributes (dna, arms legs organs, all of those or some of those… etc).
An existing human being has rights, whether you want to call them “natural”, or “in the eyes of God”, or both.
the rights of a human being to exist are “a priori” to the suffering of others, or the convenience of others, or the flourishing of others, or the evil others commit, or any other consideration. (the death penalty introduces “innocence”)

The sexual faculty obviously has a material and spiritual design, a material and spiritual end to which it is ordered. These ends, or rather this unified end, are inseparable, one from the other. Sex is…is, the entrance into procreation, whether willed or not.

All these items proposed by the philosopher are weak justifications for the exaltation of self.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Actually, the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” does not appear in the constitution, that phrase is part of the Declaration of Independence, which is NOT a legal document. But that is not the central point.

I can’t believe I mis-wrote that, I meant to say the Declaration of Independence. Thank you for pointing that out.

But the central point: Do you believe persons have a right not to be attacked and killed by other persons? Should this right be protected by law?

The important point is the qualitative differences. When you eat an omelette, you do not think that you just have been served a “fried chicken”.

And when you see a toddler, you do not think you have seen a senior citizen.

The differences between toddlers and senior citizens do not equate to one being a person and the other being a non-person. Biology is unable to tell us who is a person.

The fact that an omelette is not a fried chicken tells us nothing about the moral standing or rights of the omelette or the fried chicken. (Although, for the record, I consider fried chicken and omelettes to land squarely in the non-person, no-rights category.)

There is no “value” judgment here.

I realize you were not making a value judgement, but many others use the acorn/tree analogy to do so, and I wanted to make that point for the benefit of other readers who may have come across that comparison.

Well, there is a question here: IF an animal (for example an ape, or a dolphin or even a cockroach) would exhibit the attributes of a human and would conduct a conversation via some common interface, I would have no problem with accepting it as an “honorary human”. Going even one step further, if a fully artificial being would pass the Turing test, I would also be willing to accept it an “honorary human”, and would not support to dismantle it for spare parts. To sum it up: I value sapience, no matter what form it takes.

Originally you were saying brain function is the requirement for personhood. Now you are speaking of “the attributes of a human”, “sapience” and the ability to “conduct a conversation via some common interface” as requirements for personhood. If sapience makes one a person, no infant is a person. If high functioning communication makes one a person, again, infants are not people. If low functioning communication makes one a person, some fetuses are persons (twins display some communication in the womb, albeit the non-verbal kind, as early as 14 weeks scientificamerican.com/article/social-before-birth/) and so are bees, parrots, dogs, pigs, and many other animals. I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “the attributes of a human”. If you are willing to grant animals the full status of personhood, that is something I simply disagree with you on, and something the general populous would disagree with you on.

Please clarify for us. In your view Vera, personhood comes from what attribute? Is it brain functioning, sapience, communication, or something else?

 

[CrystalMayner66]

But there is one more important question to consider. The zygote/fetus/embryo uses the woman’s bodily resources without her permission. And that is where the major conflict occurs. We have dominion over our body. No one is allowed to “leech” our bodily resources without prior permission. Not even our blood, or plasma, which are renewable bodily resources. As a matter of fact, today our ownership is so strong, that it extends onto our corpses. For the time being - and that could change with the stroke of a pen - no one is allowed to harvest our organs after our death without prior written permission.

And that is the basis of the problem. If we are allowed to deny our bodily resources to another full-blown, obvious human being, why should we be forced to share them with an organism composed of a few cells?

A minor correction: zygotes don’t feed off their mother’s resources, they have not implanted. They merely reside in her body (or in a lab).

Now we’ve reached the conflict I created this thread to discus. I couldn’t agree more Vera, that it is wrong for a person to use another person’s body without permission, and one has the right to remove from one’s body an organism feeding on one’s body without permission. Perhaps you are familiar with the famous Violinist analogy?

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Surely one would have the right to unplug the Violinist from one’s body. Now this analogy has some major differences from pregnancy, but one thing I believe it illustrates well: While we have the right to unplug from the Violinist, we do not have the right to purposefully attack or kill the Violinist before, during or after the unplugging. In the same way, even if a woman has the right to unplug from her unborn child, the mother has no right to purposefully attack or kill the child before, during or after the unplugging. Most surgical abortion methods today involve attacking the child–shredding the body, dismembering, poisoning, etc. --and these methods are always wrong. A woman never has the right to attack her unborn child. So if a woman does have the right to unplug, only methods which do not attack the child are ethical and acceptable.

But does she actually have the right to unplug? I know we discussed this earlier on, but I do believe consent to sex is consent to pregnancy in the case that it occurs. Sure, a woman may use contraception to reduce the chance she will get pregnant, but she still must accept the 5%, 3%, etc. chance of pregnancy, and thereby consents to pregnancy should it occur. Now not all pregnancies involve consensual sex, and I am still figuring those out. But I do believe, that at least, informed consent to sex is consent to a normal resulting pregnancy. Consider this analogy:

Suppose you come up to a wall with a button on it and a sign that says: BABY-MAKING MACHINE on it. There is a chute on the bottom, and once you press the button you will receive a pleasurable experience but there is a 1/100 chance of a baby coming out the chute in the bottom. You press the button and receive your experience, but the odds are not in your favor and a baby comes out the chute in the bottom. You now bear responsibility for this child. You can’t just leave him to die, or strangle him to avoid taking responsibility. You must either take him home and raise him, or take him to an adoption agency, police department, or wherever to make sure the child is taken care of.

prolifephilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/09/is-pregnancy-like-getting-into-car.html

 

[Wesrock]

In regards to the violinist analogy, a person does not have the same natural obligations to an adult stranger (or even just adult) that she (or he) does have to her non-adult child, and such natural obligations do vary according to the child’s stage of development.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

I have no information about some woman who became pregnant for the sole purpose to abort. It is a traumatic experience, not to undertake lightly. I am sure everyone would be happy, if there were no abortions ever. The best way to achieve that goal would be a 100% foolproof prevention, which would allow to have the pleasure of sex without the unwanted side effect of conception. Of course such methods are available today, in the shape of the non-vaginal intercourses. Unfortunately there is this totally irrational approach that one “must” be open to the possibility of conception… how ridiculous. Until that requirement is dropped, there can be no consensus - and that is quite sad.

100% effective contraceptives do not exist, and I don’t believe they ever will. Even if they did, people would forget to use them, or use them wrong, etc.

The idea sex acts must remain open to life is not irrational; it is based on complex theological dogma. And I don’t believe ridiculing other people’s religious beliefs is called for. Those religious beliefs should not be forced onto everyone, but everyone should be free to chose to live according to their religious beliefs.

Everyone taking your position is not the only way there could be consensus. There would also be consensus if everyone agreed sex acts should be open to life and everyone welcomed the resulting pregnancies. Yet we both know such consensus, in either form, will never exist in our lifetimes. Which is beside the question at hand: do unborn children have the right to resume in the uterus until viability?

 

[MPat]

Actually, it is a generic principle.

Actually, that’s just an assertion.

If you want it to be taken seriously, you have to prove it (as I have noted, nothing less than that is good enough, as pregnancy is a pretty obvious special case - and it is likely to be an exception, unless the general principle has a watertight proof). Let’s see if you will do so.

Read the last few paragraphs in my previous post.

So, presumably, the proof is supposed to be here:

Well, there is a question here: IF an animal (for example an ape, or a dolphin or even a cockroach) would exhibit the attributes of a human and would conduct a conversation via some common interface, I would have no problem with accepting it as an “honorary human”. Going even one step further, if a fully artificial being would pass the Turing test, I would also be willing to accept it an “honorary human”, and would not support to dismantle it for spare parts. To sum it up: I value sapience, no matter what form it takes.

But there is one more important question to consider. The zygote/fetus/embryo uses the woman’s bodily resources without her permission. And that is where the major conflict occurs. We have dominion over our body. No one is allowed to “leech” our bodily resources without prior permission. Not even our blood, or plasma, which are renewable bodily resources. As a matter of fact, today our ownership is so strong, that it extends onto our corpses. For the time being - and that could change with the stroke of a pen - no one is allowed to harvest our organs after our death without prior written permission.

And that is the basis of the problem. If we are allowed to deny our bodily resources to another full-blown, obvious human being, why should we be forced to share them with an organism composed of a few cells?

I have no information about some woman who became pregnant for the sole purpose to abort. It is a traumatic experience, not to undertake lightly. I am sure everyone would be happy, if there were no abortions ever. The best way to achieve that goal would be a 100% foolproof prevention, which would allow to have the pleasure of sex without the unwanted side effect of conception. Of course such methods are available today, in the shape of the non-vaginal intercourses. Unfortunately there is this totally irrational approach that one “must” be open to the possibility of conception… how ridiculous. Until that requirement is dropped, there can be no consensus - and that is quite sad.

Nope, no proof here.

The only argument here is based on existing positive law. And, of course, such law can be changed (as you yourself note). Thus this argument can’t possibly support what it is supposed to (after all, we are also discussing a change in a law).

In fact, it is not the only problem. Even if it was corrected, the argument still only gives one example where the supposed “generic principle” holds. And you have to show that it holds in all possible cases. Otherwise, as noted, nothing prevents pregnancy from being an exception.

You would do better (and have a more rational position) if you would proclaim that assertion after praising blind faith.

At least that would give us a reason to move on to investigating how your “generic principle” fits with other beliefs you hold (for example, you’d better be found to believe that there are objective and unchanging moral laws, since in this case that is what you need that “generic principle” to be).

 

[goout]

…
The only miniscule detail where I disagree is that there is no “right to life”.

And there you have it. The horror of relativism in your own words.

A very good friend of mine is dying due to multiple myeloma and there is no one to enforce his “right” to live. And without enforcement the “right” is just a pie in the sky.

Rights are not rights because they are enforced or claimed. Rights are because they objectively are. Rights might be claimed and or enforced (they usually are) but the right is independent of assertions.
If it were as you say, then one can assert that Jews or the unborn for instance, are not really human. Your assertion would make for fact, and would also make for just policies.
Oh, wait…that’s been tried.

But apart from that, yes I agree completely.

Let me give you a few analogies. An “egg” is not the same as a “chicken”, it is a potential chicken. And “acorn” is not an oak tree, it is a potential oak tree. A “medical student” is not a doctor, he or she is a potential doctor.

Another distinction between humans and less than humans.
"You’re not quite what I thought you would become. Sorry for your luck. Shoulda worked on your potential before I killed you. "

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Strange analogy here.

Nothing “strange” about them. All they say that during the development the organism undergoes both quantitative an qualitative changes - egg to chicken, acorn to oak tree, medical student to doctor, zygote to fetus, etc… The rest you wrote are simply a figment of your imagination.

 

[Wesrock]

Nothing “strange” about them. All they say that during the development the organism undergoes both quantitative an qualitative changes - egg to chicken, acorn to oak tree, medical student to doctor, zygote to fetus, etc… The rest you wrote are simply a figment of your imagination.

The egg is the same being as the hen, considering an individual hen who progresses from one to the other, just at a different stage of development. This does not refer to the shell, white, or yolk, but to the fertilized cell inside that uses everything else as food. Same for the acorn, same for the zygote to adult. Really, unless you’re going to go so far as to claim that the you when reading THIS and the you when reading THIS are entirely different beings, your statement isn’t tenable.

Medical student to doctor is different. These are accidental qualities being attributed to one being, who is one and the same human being as a medical student as she is when she becomes a doctor.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

But the central point: Do you believe persons have a right not to be attacked and killed by other persons? Should this right be protected by law?

First of all: “rights are social constructs, which are dependent upon the society that enacts them”. Next: “I support the principle that one should only perform violence in defense”. In some societies the wanton killing was accepted. In others it is not. Now whether the removal of the fetus is “defense”, there can be a disagreement. The existence of the fetus causes a major disruption in the woman’s normal physiology and it is not healthy.

Biology is unable to tell us who is a person.

Agreed. So the question is: how do we declare who is considered to be a person?

Originally you were saying brain function is the requirement for personhood.

Correct. I did not go into the details. However, it is the necessary (but not sufficient) prerequisite for personhood. Before a working brain develops, it is impossible to speak of a person. Again, I do not try to establish when the “personhood” develops, I only want to establish when there is no person to speak about. If we can agree on that, it would remove a major obstacle in the conversation.

Please clarify for us. In your view Vera, personhood comes from what attribute? Is it brain functioning, sapience, communication, or something else?

The best I can offer is the Forrest Gump “definition”: “person is as person does”.

A minor correction: zygotes don’t feed off their mother’s resources, they have not implanted. They merely reside in her body (or in a lab).

Accepted. Once they get implanted, the situation changes. So, in order to create a possible point of agreement: should it be “allowed” to use the morning-after-pill, which simply disallows the implantation of the zygote?

Now we’ve reached the conflict I created this thread to discus. I couldn’t agree more Vera, that it is wrong for a person to use another person’s body without permission, and one has the right to remove from one’s body an organism feeding on one’s body without permission. Perhaps you are familiar with the famous Violinist analogy?

I certainly am and was. It is not really adequate, since the Violinist is a full-blown human. A fetus is in the earliest stage of becoming a full-blown human.

Surely one would have the right to unplug the Violinist from one’s body. Now this analogy has some major differences from pregnancy, but one thing I believe it illustrates well: While we have the right to unplug from the Violinist, we do not have the right to purposefully attack or kill the Violinist before, during or after the unplugging. In the same way, even if a woman has the right to unplug from her unborn child, the mother has no right to purposefully attack or kill the child before, during or after the unplugging.

Well, since the connection between the mother-fetus is very much like a parasitic relationship (I use the word parasitic in the same sense as the Violinist is “parasitic” to the “donor” - there is nothing pejorative about it) I would suggest that the same principle should be used.

But does she actually have the right to unplug? I know we discussed this earlier on, but I do believe consent to sex is consent to pregnancy in the case that it occurs.

No. Vaginal intercourse can be said to be a consent to the possibility of conception. Just like getting into a car is a consent to the possibility of an accident.

100% effective contraceptives do not exist, and I don’t believe they ever will. Even if they did, people would forget to use them, or use them wrong, etc.

Sure they do. Non-vaginal intercourse, tubal ligation, hysterectomy all guarantee that conception will not happen. And the latter two are performed only to prevent conception, not for some medical necessity.

The idea sex acts must remain open to life is not irrational; it is based on complex theological dogma.

Unfortunately, theological dogma is irrational, unless it can be supported by fully secular arguments. But if they could, the dogma would be unnecessary.

Everyone taking your position is not the only way there could be consensus. There would also be consensus if everyone agreed sex acts should be open to life and everyone welcomed the resulting pregnancies. Yet we both know such consensus, in either form, will never exist in our lifetimes.

Indeed. Which one is more likely to happen… eventually?

Which is beside the question at hand: do unborn children have the right to resume in the uterus until viability?

Again… there are no “rights” outside a legal system.

I will summarize my stance. I consider abortion “undesirable”. I would prefer if every pregnancy would be a welcome event. As I said before, I never heard of a woman who wanted to get pregnant, just so she could have an abortion.

To reach this ideal state of affairs, one should approach the question from all different angles. Sex is “here to stay”. To decrease the possibility of pregnancies is not an impossible task, unlike to convince everyone to abstain if they want to avoid conception. Can we go from here?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If you want it to be taken seriously, you have to prove it (as I have noted, nothing less than that is good enough, as pregnancy is a pretty obvious special case - and it is likely to be an exception, unless the general principle has a watertight proof). Let’s see if you will do so.

A “proof” is restricted to an axiomatic system. Not all societies subscribe to the principle of “having dominion over our bodies”, but most Western societies do. You are not allowed to use the body parts of a freshly diseased person, unless there was a prior consent. And there is no “general principle” across all societies and across all ages… but there is here and now.

And I am sure that you would object very strenuously if some would want to take your kidney against your will.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Nothing “strange” about them. All they say that during the development the organism undergoes both quantitative an qualitative changes - egg to chicken, acorn to oak tree, medical student to doctor, zygote to fetus, etc… The rest you wrote are simply a figment of your imagination.

It wasn’t a figment. It was a question, which apparently you are unwilling to answer.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

As if there would be any connection between “sex AND violence”.

Uh, it’s called “rape”.