I'm pro-life...but that's my choice

[Fone_Bone_2001]

You can say that ethics and religion are totally separate, but that does not make it so. I admit that people without religion can and do have ethics. However people derive their ethics from different sources. An atheist might derive his ethics from purely pragmatic considerations of what will make society prosper; or he might derive his ethics from some mystic sense of human dignity. But a Christian informs his sense of ethics from his understanding of God as the author of all ethics. A Christian would never say “I have my ethics and I have my religion and they have nothing to do with each other.”

I don’t claim they’re totally separate - obviously they do influence each other.

(Christians, by the way, almost uniformly reject “divine command theory” on a philosophical level, so I’m not sure it’s accurate to state that we consider God “the author of all ethics” … in a sense that’s true, but not in the “divine command theory” sense.)

In any case, though, it remains true that no religious view whatsoever is necessary in order to justify the claim that the law must prohibit and dissuade me, Fone Bone 2001, from killing you, LeafByNiggle, even if your existence proves greatly inconvenient for me. A variety of religious views - including none whatsoever - is compatible with that legal imperative.

That unborn human beings are just as human as you and I means that the same principle applies. While religion and ethics have a mutual relevance, religion is totally unnecessary to justify the basic principle behind universal human rights.

Another reason I am reluctant to place too much emphasis on secular science as the basis for my opposition to abortion is that science can cut both ways. Today you have some scientific findings that seem to support our ethical and moral beliefs. Tomorrow there may be some results that say the opposite. For example, consider the purely hypothetical case where someone discovers a previously unknown connection between mother and baby where some additional DNA gets incorporated into the fetus 3 weeks after conception. If such a thing were to happen, would you be ready to revise your morality (or ethics, if you will) and say that abortion in the first 3 weeks is OK because the fetus is not yet fully alive? I would not want to leave myself open to having to say that. There are plenty of good moral reasons for opposition abortion. Relying on “science” to be the basis for this opposition is both dangerous and distracting to the effort to convince others of what we believe.

Two clarifications:

(a) I’m not “relying on science.” A pro-choice person like Peter Singer is 100% consistent with the science; his views on abortion do not go against it at all, because he admits that he doesn’t think that all human beings should have a right not to be killed.

So our position relies, really, on two things, not one: the scientific fact that an unborn human being is, in fact, human (this is an undeniable tautology), and the moral/political opinion that what we commonly think of as human rights ought to be protected by law for all human beings. The pro-life argument needs both to work, not just one. We do rely on more than science.

That said, the former (the scientific principle) is materially undeniable, and the latter (the ethical/political principle) is denied by only a few - like Peter Singer.

(b) Concerning your hypothetical question about “DNA incorporation,” I admit I’m not sure where I would stand. Necessarily, more would be different than the one condition you specify, since that’s not how genetics works. So I would need more information about this hypothetical - and an expanded imagination of my own - in order to envision the scenario with enough thoroughness to comment on its moral implications.

I thought an abortionist is a person who performs abortion. We are not talking here of the legality of killing abortionists or doctors (who usually are the ones that perform abortion); we are talking of the legality of killing unborn human beings.

Can you clarify?

The Robert George quote is a satire of the “pro-choice” position.

 

[Nate13]

This is a misreading of the science. The sense in which science declares the zygote to be alive is not the same sense in which moral theology declares that cell to be alive. All the scientific sense means is that if given the proper conditions this cell will develop into a recognizable human being. The same could be said of a sperm and an egg in close proximity but before conception.

A sperm that is about to meet an egg is a potential human being. After the sperm has met the egg you have a human being. That baby needs food, water, breathable air, warmth, shelter, and love just like any other human being to exist. The baby gets these things from his/her mother as he/she will do for at least the first few years of his/her life if not more.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A sperm that is about to meet an egg is a potential human being. After the sperm has met the egg you have a human being. That baby needs food, water, breathable air, warmth, shelter, and love just like any other human being to exist. The baby gets these things from his/her mother as he/she will do for at least the first few years of his/her life if not more.

You will have to explain why this “potential” is qualitatively different than the “potential” human being represented by a zygote, other than just claiming it to be so by definition. For the record, I agree with you, but not because of any finding of science in the last 60 years. I don’t think any recent scientific finding adds to this essentially moral question.

 

[PeterGStanley]

I think we can look at the gospels and see that when the holy spirit over shadowed the virgin Mary that that was the moment the word (Jesus) was made flesh - Am I wrong about this? Or I guess the bible tell me it happened much later in the pregnancy - no - it tells me it happened at that moment.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t claim they’re totally separate - obviously they do influence each other.

(Christians, by the way, almost uniformly reject “divine command theory” on a philosophical level, so I’m not sure it’s accurate to state that we consider God “the author of all ethics” … in a sense that’s true, but not in the “divine command theory” sense.)

I’m not sure what divine command theory is, but I am pretty sure I am not saying God is the author of all ethics in that sense. I simply mean that God as the creator of all is also the source of our sense of ethics, even in the atheist, even though he doesn’t realize it.

In any case, though, it remains true that no religious view whatsoever is necessary in order to justify the claim that the law must prohibit and dissuade me, Fone Bone 2001, from killing you, LeafByNiggle, even if your existence proves greatly inconvenient for me. A variety of religious views - including none whatsoever - is compatible with that legal imperative.

Possibly compatible, yes. Mandated, no. There were systems of thought in Nazi Germany that held that it was desirable to kills Jews simply for being Jews. What totally non-religious argument could you have given to a Nazi intellectual that would convince him that his ethical position was wrong?

That unborn human beings are just as human as you and I means that the same principle applies. While religion and ethics have a mutual relevance, religion is totally unnecessary to justify the basic principle behind universal human rights.

If so, then show me that totally non-religious argument.

Two clarifications:

(a) I’m not “relying on science.” A pro-choice person like Peter Singer is 100% consistent with the science; his views on abortion do not go against it at all, because he admits that he doesn’t think that all human beings should have a right not to be killed.

So our position relies, really, on two things, not one: the scientific fact that an unborn human being is, in fact, human (this is an undeniable tautology)

But that isn’t the question. The question is whether a zygote is an “unborn human being”. You are going to have to address that question head on, not side-stepping it by circular reasoning.

…and the moral/political opinion that what we commonly think of as human rights ought to be protected by law for all human beings. The pro-life argument needs both to work, not just one. We do rely on more than science.

I am still waiting to see this “new” scientific discovery that affects the ethical standing of a zygote.

 

[preferanonymous]

Hey LeafByNiggle,

Have you considered that the difficulty that one might have in giving a reason as to why the unborn child has a right to life might not be based on the weakness of the position that the unborn child has a right to life, but because it is simply a non-sensical question to even ask whether or not the unborn child has a right to life? For, it might be argued that if the question ‘Does the unborn child have a right to life?’ is to be meaningful or a question even worth a response, it would have to be possible to conceive of a standard of moral personhood that did not entail that the unborn child- a human entity with inherent rational capacities- had a right to life.

Hence, the problem with arguing that the unborn child has a right to life might not be due to a failure of the view that the unborn child has a right to life, but due to the fact that one is responding to a bogus question. What does moral personhood even mean if all human entities with the inherent capacity to act rationally are not included? I might ask, therefore, to explain the standard of personhood to which you refer when you claim that being a human entity is not sufficient to obtain the status of person?

 

[Nate13]

You will have to explain why this “potential” is qualitatively different than the “potential” human being represented by a zygote, other than just claiming it to be so by definition. For the record, I agree with you, but not because of any finding of science in the last 60 years. I don’t think any recent scientific finding adds to this essentially moral question.

You are asking about my use of “potential”. There is a difference between saying “a potential human being” and “a human being with potential” A zygote is the later. A sperm or egg separately is the former.

I’d also agree that we don’t really need and recent scientific findings to know this. I think our recent scientific knowledge does help clarify it though in some cases and rule out alternative theories.

 

[sw85]

I just read a post entitled “Pro-Choice need not apply?” and started to have some questions of my own. The person who asked the questions referred to stuggling with pro-life politics and how that comes into contact with our faith as Catholics, and I find myself in the same boat.

I have long described my pro-life/pro-choice politics with this phrase: “I’m pro-life, but that’s my choice.” As an American Catholic, I have never been able to reconcile legislating any issue with only my faith as at the root of why. Personally, I can’t stomach the idea of abortion, and as a few my friends from high school and college who have come to me in crisis to tell me that they were pregnant, I have strongly asserted the baby’s right to live when I encouraged them to carry the child to term and–if they did not have to raise the child themselves–to find a family who would be able to.

But, as an American, I also know and understand that my values are not the same values that everyone else has. God gave us the freedom of choice–and the responsibility of the consequences that go with those choices. Not everyone feels that abortion is morally objectionable; for example, my athiest brother; Islam even recognizes circumstances in which abortion is–to them, at least–permissible. So, how can we legislate our faith, codify it into law?

I’m sorry but this worldview is completely alien to me.

You believe abortion is murder, but that murder ought to be allowed, because some people disagree?

Those people are apologizing for murder. You should not be concerned with how they feel or what they want. What they want is legalized murder. To Hell with them (and to Hell they will go if they do not repent of their errors and sins).

We have the right to legislate on our faith because our faith is objectively true.

If you don’t believe it is objectively true, then what you have is not really faith – it is a thing you choose irrationally to say you believe, even though you really don’t.

There is no human right to choose abortion. There is no right to evil at all. Because a right is simply the inverse of a duty, and you have the duty to avoid evil. Any society that asserts a right to do evil is grossly deficient. And yes, that includes American society. American society is grossly deficient. And the fact that we sacrifice a million-plus children a year so that society can continue to satisfy its obscene lusts without consequence is evidence of this.

Are you wrong morally to disagree with this? I don’t know; but it seems to me you are very wrong on the facts. You are simply saying that the truths revealed to us by reason, by the word of God, and by the Church which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit are somehow deficient or not worthy of consideration on the public stage. I disagree with this fervently. I think you have completely internalized the leftist creed that sees the state as godly and God as dead. I think it is deadening your moral sensibilities.

Please reconsider your stance.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hey LeafByNiggle,

Have you considered that the difficulty that one might have in giving a reason as to why the unborn child has a right to life might not be based on the weakness of the position that the unborn child has a right to life, but because it is simply a non-sensical question to even ask whether or not the unborn child has a right to life? For, it might be argued that if the question ‘Does the unborn child have a right to life?’ is to be meaningful or a question even worth a response, it would have to be possible to conceive of a standard of moral personhood that did not entail that the unborn child- a human entity with inherent rational capacities- had a right to life.

Hence, the problem with arguing that the unborn child has a right to life might not be due to a failure of the view that the unborn child has a right to life, but due to the fact that one is responding to a bogus question. What does moral personhood even mean if all human entities with the inherent capacity to act rationally are not included? I might ask, therefore, to explain the standard of personhood to which you refer when you claim that being a human entity is not sufficient to obtain the status of person?

The pro-life position is not weak. And it doesn’t need any bogus science to back it up. Nor is it a trivial question that should be dismissed as non-sensical. After all, you will probably agree that unborn chicken eggs do not enjoy the automatic right to life. So the belief that unborn humans do have this right must stem from some consideration of the uniqueness of being human.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You are asking about my use of “potential”. There is a difference between saying “a potential human being” and “a human being with potential” A zygote is the later. A sperm or egg separately is the former…

I said a sperm and an egg considered as a pair, and not yet fused. But you have not yet explained why a zygote and a sperm-egg pair, not fused, are different with regard to the term “potential human”. Both, if left alone with the proper nutrients in the mother’s womb will develop into a fetus that can implant in the uterus and develop to a baby. The unfused sperm-egg pair needs nothing more than the zygote needs. In what sense are they not equally qualified or disqualified to be called “potential human”?

 

[preferanonymous]

The pro-life position is not weak. And it doesn’t need any bogus science to back it up. Nor is it a trivial question that should be dismissed as non-sensical. After all, you will probably agree that unborn chicken eggs do not enjoy the automatic right to life. So the belief that unborn humans do have this right must stem from some consideration of the uniqueness of being human.

I do not think the argument stems from the uniqueness of being human if you mean by this that humanity is a necessary condition of personhood. The claim ‘If person, then human’ is false. It is because unborn human beings have an inherent rational capacity that they are persons. Unborn chicken eggs lack this capacity so a question asked about their personhood is not equally non-sensical.

 

[rom422]

I said a sperm and an egg considered as a pair, and not yet fused. But you have not yet explained why a zygote and a sperm-egg pair, not fused, are different with regard to the term “potential human”. Both, if left alone with the proper nutrients in the mother’s womb will develop into a fetus that can implant in the uterus and develop to a baby. The unfused sperm-egg pair needs nothing more than the zygote needs. In what sense are they not equally qualified or disqualified to be called “potential human”?

Sodium is potentially salt (NaCl). Chlorine is potentially salt. But until they are united chemically, they do not become actual salt.

A sperm is potentially human. An egg is potentially human. But until they are fused, they do not (even as a pair) constitute an actual human being.

A zygote is different. It is not just a potential human being. It is already an actual human being. It is just potentially an adult.

 

[Nate13]

Sodium is potentially salt (NaCl). Chlorine is potentially salt. But until they are united chemically, they do not become actual salt.

A sperm is potentially human. An egg is potentially human. But until they are fused, they do not (even as a pair) constitute an actual human being.

A zygote is different. It is not just a potential human being. It is already an actual human being. It is just potentially an adult.

Yeah I agree. LeafByNiggle’s point here seems like its just going to lead the discussion into obscurity real quick.

 

[Nate13]

I said a sperm and an egg considered as a pair, and not yet fused. But you have not yet explained why a zygote and a sperm-egg pair, not fused, are different with regard to the term “potential human”. Both, if left alone with the proper nutrients in the mother’s womb will develop into a fetus that can implant in the uterus and develop to a baby. The unfused sperm-egg pair needs nothing more than the zygote needs. In what sense are they not equally qualified or disqualified to be called “potential human”?

Are you not a human being then because you still need nutrients? You are not self-sustaining either. The DNA of both the mother and father are combined in the zygote. Is that not an important distinction?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I do not think the argument stems from the uniqueness of being human if you mean by this that humanity is a necessary condition of personhood. The claim ‘If person, then human’ is false. It is because unborn human beings have an inherent rational capacity that they are persons. Unborn chicken eggs lack this capacity so a question asked about their personhood is not equally non-sensical.

Are you talking about asking the chicken? That is nonsensical. But it is not nonsensical to ask a human about the rights of a chicken. In fact, given organizations like PETA, you may actually get a divergence of opinion on the question of chickens’ rights. I mention this only to show that the question of right to life for a living thing is not a trivial one. Therefore any answer to this question must rely on how a human is special.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sodium is potentially salt (NaCl). Chlorine is potentially salt. But until they are united chemically, they do not become actual salt.

A sperm is potentially human. An egg is potentially human. But until they are fused, they do not (even as a pair) constitute an actual human being.

A zygote is different. It is not just a potential human being. It is already an actual human being. It is just potentially an adult.

Your analogy of sodium chloride is not apt. The distinction between Sodium and Chlorine, and NaCl is immediately testable after the formation of NaCl. In the case of a sperm and an egg uniting, there is no immediately testable distinction. They both have the potential to develop into a baby. They both might not develop into a baby is something goes wrong. The united sperm and egg are just a little further along in the process of becoming a baby.

 

[Nate13]

Your analogy of sodium chloride is not apt. The distinction between Sodium and Chlorine, and NaCl is immediately testable after the formation of NaCl. In the case of a sperm and an egg uniting, there is no immediately testable distinction. They both have the potential to develop into a baby. They both might not develop into a baby is something goes wrong. The united sperm and egg are just a little further along in the process of becoming a baby.

What do you mean by “develop into a baby”? You already have a baby and you can test and see that a sperm has met the egg and that the zygote has the complete DNA set that gives you a unique human being.

Also, you might not live to be 90 years old, but you have the potential to live to 90 years old… How do I know your going to live long enough to fit my definition of a human being? Your just a little farther along on your process to becoming a “full” human being as I have defined it.

 

[rom422]

Your analogy of sodium chloride is not apt. The distinction between Sodium and Chlorine, and NaCl is immediately testable after the formation of NaCl. In the case of a sperm and an egg uniting, there is no immediately testable distinction. They both have the potential to develop into a baby. They both might not develop into a baby is something goes wrong. The united sperm and egg are just a little further along in the process of becoming a baby.

Of course, the sperm and the egg both have the potential to become a human being. But what is relevant in a discussion on abortion is not what is potentially, but what is actually, a human being. I will not say that it is murder to kill a potential human being like a sperm, just as I will not charge you of crime if you steal a piece of paper that is “potentially a $1M bill.” The reason we are against the destruction of the zygote, the embryo, or the fetus, is because it is already actually a human being, and destroying it amounts to murder.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What do you mean by “develop into a baby”? You already have a baby and you can test and see that a sperm has met the egg and that the zygote has the complete DNA set that gives you a unique human being.

I mean an outside-the-womb baby. And you can also test a sperm and egg pair before they have fused to see that it also has the complete DNA set to specify a unique human being.

Also, you might not live to be 90 years old, but you have the potential to live to 90 years old… How do I know your going to live long enough to fit my definition of a human being? Your just a little farther along on your process to becoming a “full” human being as I have defined it.

I am not proposing any definition of what it means to be fully human. I am merely questioning your definition. You have chosen to make the threshold the point at which the egg and the sperm combine to form a single diploid cell. And for the record, that is also where I would set the threshold. But I don’t see that point as being in some sense “scientifically inevitable” for the purposes of deciding the right to life.

 

[Nate13]

I mean an outside-the-womb baby. And you can also test a sperm and egg pair before they have fused to see that it also has the complete DNA set to specify a unique human being.

I am not proposing any definition of what it means to be fully human. I am merely questioning your definition. You have chosen to make the threshold the point at which the egg and the sperm combine to form a single diploid cell. And for the record, that is also where I would set the threshold. But I don’t see that point as being in some sense “scientifically inevitable” for the purposes of deciding the right to life.

Actually a sperm or egg does not have a complete set of DNA by itself. That’s why you need both a sperm and egg to form a new human life. When combined you have a complete set of DNA and from that point on the human being only requires the basic necessities of life that any other human being requires. Ball’s back in your court.