Interacting with a pro-choice individual on their terms

[Innoruk]

Killing is a pretty standard term for the ending of something’s life, and a zygote/fetus is a living thing. One may argue that it does not have legal or moral rights, but one cannot soundly argue that it is not alive.

I did not deny that it is “alive”. A bunch of cancerous cells are also “alive”, but no one would argue that they should not be “killed”. So it is not enough to point out that the zygote/fetus is “alive”.

Naturally, I disagree with your terminology.

That is perfectly fine. But I wanted to point out that an undoubtedly “human” being cannot claim “ownership” on another human’s body… which is a much stronger case than the “claim” of a few cells.

You are essentially drawing the famous violinist analogy, ie. even if a fetus is a person, the woman’s right to bodily autonomy entitles her to kill it.

I never said that the zygote/fetus is a “person”.

A few comments:

• This still is not a proper analogy. In the case of organ donation, the woman is not obligated to act to save the other victim; she does not have to give up even any of her extra organs. But the parallel of inaction in the abortion case is not to have an abortion.
• Again, the woman is not obligated to take action. What she cannot do is take positive action to kill the other person; her action cannot cause the other victim’s death. In the case of most abortions, they do. So you must substantially retract the case for abortion in order for this analogy to hold.
• She has already “consented to give up some of her bodily resources” if she is pregnant. Now, if it were possible for the woman to revoke that consent morally, then that would be another case, but if revoking of that case consists in actively killing the fetus/other victim, then she is not morally justified in doing so.
• The right to bodily autonomy is not absolute anyway, although arguments over abortion often act as though it is. People are not entitled to do whatever they want with everything they own - including their bodies. Suicide, the ban on soft drinks in New York, self-mutilation, etc. are all examples (of varying level of extremity and controversy) of things that we are not considered entitled to do.

These would need to be investigated later. But I cannot resist to point out: “if suicide is a crime… how should it be punished?.. by execution???”

 

[polytropos]

I did not deny that it is “alive”. A bunch of cancerous cells are also “alive”, but no one would argue that they should not be “killed”. So it is not enough to point out that the zygote/fetus is “alive”.

Here I was defending my use of the term “killing,” which is not in any sense “emotional.” It is not my subjective opinion that abortion is killing; likewise, the opposite position, that abortion is not killing, is biologically untenable.

Now, one could mention cancerous cells, but then we have another analogy that comes up much too short. Cancerous cells are biologically abnormal and deleterious; to leave them alone results in death. A fetus is biologically normal, and completion of a normal pregnancy cycle is arguably (and likely) more healthful than terminating a pregnancy. A fetus is also a genetically unique, biologically distinct human, whereas cancerous cells have just mutated such that they pose a threat to the person whose cells they are. By removing a tumor, you are healing an individual, who continues to be an individual afterward. By killing a fetus, you are… killing a fetus, who never gets another chance at life.

As I conceded originally, although one cannot deny that abortion is killing, one can deny that a fetus is a person, whether abortion is murder, and whether, if abortion is murder, abortion is not justified. But whether it is killing is not really something that can be rationally debated.

That is perfectly fine. But I wanted to point out that an undoubtedly “human” being cannot claim “ownership” on another human’s body… which is a much stronger case than the “claim” of a few cells.

Please don’t put human in quotes. That’s not a matter of opinion either; a fetus is a homo sapiens sapiens. Feel free to argue that a human fetus does not have rights or that its rights don’t entitle it to life; do not imply that it is not human. (If you had some other reason for putting human in quotes, I apologize.)

Also, the fetus is not laying claim to the woman’s body. The woman’s body consented and gave it life. The woman is not in the position of having not acted; she is not making the choice of whether or not to give up her kidney. She already made that choice, and is now attempting to take her kidney back, which she can only do by killing that which she gave her kidney to. She is not justified in doing so.

I never said that the zygote/fetus is a “person”.

You said:

So, let’s consider that there is another real, true-blue human being involved (not just a few cells or a zygote).

It seems to me like you were saying, “I won’t concede that a fetus is a person, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is…” and so on. Otherwise your analogy would have no relevance to this thread.

These would need to be investigated later. But I cannot resist to point out: “if suicide is a crime… how should it be punished?.. by execution???”

I didn’t say it should be punished, just that it’s an example of an action regarding one’s own body that people are generally not thought to be entitled to.

Some might dispute this, but it is still a commonly held principle: If you see someone trying to commit suicide, you are morally obligated to intervene.

 

[Portofino]

The thing is, no external thing is forcing her to act as a host. Her body takes the biologically normal route and consents for her. This is why revoking consent of pregnancy is not analogous to unplugging from the theoretical violinist - because there is no way to “unplug.” In the violinist analogy - in any medical analogy where the woman’s right to her body conflicts with another agent’s right to life - you can unplug or elect not to give away your kidney, but you can’t slash the violinist’s neck. So as long as abortion involves the active killing of another person, it is not analogous to situations in which the woman is not obligated to donate her organs etc.

I do not agree that the “body” can consent on behalf of a woman; only a conscious mind can, strictly speaking, provide volitional consent. By your definition, the body consents even in cases of a woman being the victim of a non-consensual sexual encounter; but the “biological consent of a body” is not compelling to me, and likely wouldn’t be for those who define consent by the reasonable standards of conscious volition. Biology is not destiny; just because a body will consent to digest the food you have eaten, does not mean that – for whatever reason – you cannot choose to regurgitate that food.

Obviously, Roe v. Wade bases itself on the question of viability. Without the mother’s consent to remain pregnant – which is not a contradictory statement, as I am not convinced that the act of a woman’s body being pregnant is de facto the consent of the woman’s conscious mind – a fetus is not viable. Thus, even if a fetus were carefully removed from the womb, and one attempted to sustain its life by artificial means, it likely would not survive on its own.

At best, you have a special case – a fetus is being kept alive by the body of its mother, and the mother does not have the right to disengage her body from the fetus’ body during that time, no matter how much care is taken in the process (e.g., through the cutting of an umbilical cord, which is a part of her body, as is the uterus). If her body is the “water”, then removing the fetus from her body would be like removing a fish from the water; therefore, she would have to be mandated to keep the fetus within her body, even if she does not consciously consent to having it remain there for the full 9 months of her pregnancy.

So this would be a special case; special because I have no legitimate claim to the body of any other individual, or any part thereof, whereas it is being posited that I did have legitimate legal or moral claim claim on the body of my mother, while I was in the womb. During that time, her body did not belong only to her. It would be a special legal scenario for the relationship between two individual bodies, quite aside from any difficulties of enforcement (for one thing, pregnancy is not apparent before several weeks, and is literally a private affair in terms of the ability to keep it a secret not only from one’s partner but from the world at large). It would be an exception to the rule.

To say that no individual has a claim to the body of another individual, or any part thereof, except in the case of an unborn child towards its mother, is one thing (though issues of rape or endangering the life of the mother still create a dilemma). But this notion that “her body has consented” doesn’t make sense to me; in a very different context, it would be like saying that a woman’s body consented to a sexual encounter, if she experienced an orgasm as a result of that encounter, which would bar her from claiming that the intercourse was non-consensual.

One might as well be forthright and say, “even if she didn’t consent to being pregnant in the first place (as in cases of rape), she still has no right to take active steps to terminate her pregnancy.” Of course, as with suicide, there are forms of “active” steps to inhibit a pregnancy that appear to be passive; not taking care of oneself, for example, or not taking active steps to take care of oneself during one’s pregnancy; because, arguably, there is no such thing as “sitting back and letting one’s body carry a pregnancy to term.” A particularly unwilling pregnant mother could forego all medical checkups or prenatal care, and then there would be the question whether she was guilty of murder through her negligence.

 

[polytropos]

I do not agree that the “body” can consent on behalf of a woman; only a conscious mind can, strictly speaking, provide volitional consent. By your definition, the body consents even in cases of a woman being the victim of a non-consensual sexual encounter; but the “biological consent of a body” is not compelling to me, and likely wouldn’t be for those who define consent by the reasonable standards of conscious volition. Biology is not destiny; just because a body will consent to digest the food you have eaten, does not mean that – for whatever reason – you cannot choose to regurgitate that food.

I think you are taking my comment about the body consenting much, much too far. It will be necessary for me to clarify my position. In the case of consensual sexual encounters, the woman is aware that her actions might result in pregnancy. She is also aware that, in the event of pregnancy, she may not be able to get out of pregnancy without actively killing a human person. (So we are assuming that the sex was consensual and that it is granted that the fetus is a human person - other arguments would have to be made for other scenarios.)

I am not arguing that we consent to everything our bodies do; I was using the word “consent” for effect rather than in a strict and technical sense, which was misleading, so I apologize. What I mean is that the woman was conscious that her actions could have put her in a situation that she only could have gotten out of by a). carrying the pregnancy to term, or b). killing a human person. She knew that her body might become pregnant even if she didn’t want it to. Because she had foreknowledge of the possibility of such a scenario, she is not justified in choosing option b).

Innoruk’s car-crash analogy does not apply here because when we go out to drive on any given day, knowing that injury is unlikely though possible, we are not in the same way acknowledging the real possibility that the consequences of our actions may put us in a situation where, in order to preserve our bodily autonomy, we must kill another human being.

To cede bodily autonomy is to allow someone to use your body for something. By having sex, one is aware that pregnancy is possible, so one has consented to the possibility of becoming pregnant and letting a zygote implant (even if this condition is not desired). One might intend to then revoke consent immediately afterward by invoking the right to bodily autonomy, but consent for this contingency is necessarily given in all consensual sex.

My argument is that this latter move of revoking consent in such circumstances is not justified. If one has freely entered into a situation that will only allow them to preserve their bodily autonomy only by intentionally killing a human being, then they are not justified in killing that human being. If I know that a person’s life could become dependent on mine through my own actions, then, regardless of how much that person’s dependence on me limits my autonomy, my right to bodily autonomy does not permit me to later revoke consent by killing that person.

 

[polytropos]

I want to return to this analogy:

A woman has two kidneys and a man needs one of them. The woman volunteers to give away one of her kidneys. The man has her kidney. The woman is now not allowed to kill the man to take her kidney back, even though her preferred level of autonomy is to have two kidneys.

By consenting to sex, a woman acknowledges that she could become pregnant (even if she does not want to become pregnant). Becoming pregnant is a cession of bodily autonomy; in having sex, she ceded her bodily autonomy because she wanted the pleasure of sex in spite of the potential risks.

She gets pregnant. The fetus was dependent on her cession of bodily autonomy. Now she can only regain her desired level of bodily autonomy by killing the fetus. She is not justified in doing so. The right to bodily autonomy, as a contingent right, does not extend far enough for her to kill another person whom she willingly let become dependent on her reduced autonomy.

 

[Portofino]

Regarding the kidney analogy, I appreciate that one’s point of view on this is going to depend on how one interprets it. For a pro-choice person, “giving the kidney” is the equivalent of carrying the child for nine months and giving birth; once that has been done, that cannot be “taken back” (notwithstanding what comedian Bill Cosby’s father once told him, which was, “remember, I brought you into this world; I’ll take you out”).

They would consider a woman who is a couple of days, or a couple of weeks, pregnant, has not yet fully “given” what was to be given, which was the gift of a life that was sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb.

Obviously, the threshold at which the analogical kidney is considered to have been “given”, and the threshold beyond which it cannot be taken back, is different depending on whether one is pro-life or pro-choice. For the pro-life individual, “it” has been given, and cannot be taken back, once conception occurs. For the pro-life individual, “it” has not definitively been given during conception or even during the first trimester, so long as the fetus is not viable, and it cannot become viable without the mother’s continued consent to remain pregnant.

consenting to sex, a woman acknowledges that she could become pregnant (even if she does not want to become pregnant). Becoming pregnant is a cession of bodily autonomy; in having sex, she ceded her bodily autonomy because she wanted the pleasure of sex in spite of the potential risks.

This also requires the support of an independent argument for the personhood of the fetus, as I think you acknowledge; merely taking this very strict definition of responsibility – a contract that is signed, with no refunds or exchanges, and no return period – is not something I can see being easily agreed upon, otherwise. A woman who regrets her promise to marry, before she marries, can call off the wedding, even a minute or a second before she says “I do”; a woman who regrets her decision to marry after she says “I do,” even if a moment after, can still file for divorce. The state doesn’t tell her, “sorry; your decision, which was consensual, is also irrevocable.” If she ought not to have the right to change her mind, it has to be for some reason other than alleging that the original decision was consensual.

In the case of abortion, you obviously are saying that there is a reason why there is no refund or exchange: because it is now another human life that is involved. If pregnancy didn’t involve another human life then, sure, she could always change her mind.

But if the state were to refuse a divorce and a woman or man were to say, “the state is forcing me to stay married”, I would agree with that assessment. Yes, the state would be forcing you to stay married, and I wouldn’t consider the fact that the original marriage was consensual to be sufficient evidence that refusing the granting of a divorce does not constitute forcing the person to stay married. Someone could say, “no, they are not forcing you because marriage, by definition, is forever, and you knew this going into it!” Yet a woman who gets married in the U.S. knows that divorce is a legal option, and a woman who gets pregnant in the U.S. knows that abortion is one of her legal options, as well (though, of course, the whole point of the argument for the “natural and biological” irrevocability of pregnancy is to seek to remove that legal option).

 

[polytropos]

Regarding the kidney analogy, I appreciate that one’s point of view on this is going to depend on how one interprets it. For a pro-choice person, “giving the kidney” is the equivalent of carrying the child for nine months and giving birth; once that has been done, that cannot be “taken back” (notwithstanding what comedian Bill Cosby’s father once told him, which was, “remember, I brought you into this world; I’ll take you out”).

They would consider a woman who is a couple of days, or a couple of weeks, pregnant, has not yet fully “given” what was to be given, which was the gift of a life that was sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb.

Obviously, the threshold at which the analogical kidney is considered to have been “given”, and the threshold beyond which it cannot be taken back, is different depending on whether one is pro-life or pro-choice. For the pro-life individual, “it” has been given, and cannot be taken back, once conception occurs. For the pro-life individual, “it” has not definitively been given during conception or even during the first trimester, so long as the fetus is not viable, and it cannot become viable without the mother’s continued consent to remain pregnant.

Naturally, the pro-choice person will attempt to interpret the analogy in a way that helps his case, and I will attempt to interpret it in a way that helps mine.

So I of course disagree that giving the kidney is analogical to carrying the child for nine months. Much of this debate over organ donation vs. pregnancy earlier in the thread was over the fact that pregnancy is a continuous commitment (over at least the first trimester of which, the pro-choice argument goes, the woman can revoke consent and abort), while organ donation, for all intents and purposes, is a discrete event. You agree to donate an organ, up until the operation takes place you can back out, and then during the operation you are (I presume) unconscious.

One could say: what if the date of the operation for organ donation was 9 months hence, and the woman has a chance to back out up until then? This would superficially seem like a solution, except in this case, it actually distorts the analogy since there is no burden in the 9 months and all of the burden afterwards, while pregnancy is 9 months of burden and then freedom. (Taking “burden” to mean cession of bodily autonomy, of course - the commitment hardly ends after 9 months!)

So I think the most appropriate way to view the analogy is if the organ donation marks the beginning of pregnancy - that is when bodily autonomy has actually been voluntarily ceded in both cases, and when someone else comes to benefit from the cession of bodily autonomy. Perhaps the cases diverge slightly since the woman will never get her kidney back, whereas eventually she will cease to be pregnant, but I think the principle stands without the analogy: when you have voluntarily and knowingly ceded bodily autonomy, you are not free to reinstate it by immoral means.

This also requires the support of an independent argument for the personhood of the fetus, as I think you acknowledge; merely taking this very strict definition of responsibility – a contract that is signed, with no refunds or exchanges, and no return period – is not something I can see being easily agreed upon, otherwise. A woman who regrets her promise to marry, before she marries, can call off the wedding, even a minute or a second before she says “I do”; a woman who regrets her decision to marry after she says “I do,” even if a moment after, can still file for divorce. The state doesn’t tell her, “sorry; your decision, which was consensual, is also irrevocable.” If she ought not to have the right to change her mind, it has to be for some reason other than alleging that the original decision was consensual.

Yes, I don’t think the consensual nature of sex is enough to argue against abortion. That is essentially Muze’s argument at the beginning of the thread. Without arguing that abortion is immoral, one can only argue that women are not entitled to abortion; one must argue that it is immoral in order to positively argue that women cannot do it.

The point of my argument, however, is that the right to life of a consensually produced fetus should be respected regardless of its mother’s desire to let it live. Sort of a thrust against the “even if a fetus is a person, a woman is allowed to kill it” argument. Many arguments from viability of the fetus are also sort of hybrids of the “fetus is not a person” and “a woman has a right to kill a fetus-person” argument - so it might have some effect against those. I suppose if I could get people to accept my argument, then they would have to never concede that a fetus is a person.

 

[Portofino]

This would superficially seem like a solution, except in this case, it actually distorts the analogy since there is no burden in the 9 months and all of the burden afterwards, while pregnancy is 9 months of burden and then freedom. (Taking “burden” to mean cession of bodily autonomy, of course - the commitment hardly ends after 9 months!)

To help persuade with your argument, you would tell the mother, “after nine months, you are free to put this child up for adoption; nine months and you are free, if that’s what you want!” I’m assuming that pro-lifers support legal adoption, including in cases where a mother simply does not “want” a child, for whatever reason she cares to give. A father could be “free” even sooner than nine months, if he reneges on his responsibilities (though he legally could have financial responsibilities, if the woman decides to keep it).

Putting a child up for adoption necessarily has psychological ramifications, of course-- both for mother, and for child. There are even those who would say it is immoral to give up a child solely because one doesn’t want to be a parent. In any case, it’s a difficult decision.

when you have voluntarily and knowingly ceded bodily autonomy, you are not free to reinstate it by immoral means.

I still think this is stated way too strongly, even misleadingly. A woman’s using birth control – improperly, let’s say – and becoming impregnated in spite of it, is not a simple matter of “voluntarily and knowingly ceding bodily autonomy.” Instead, it’s comparable to what is known as “negligence” in the legal realm; and what you would be arguing is that an individual is responsible for an unplanned or “accidental” pregnancy, as they would be responsible for the consequences of any act of negligence or carelessness.

An analogy would be consensually playing William Tell with one’s spouse (as author William Burroughs is reported to have done). His wife put a glass on top her head, telling him “it’s time for our William Tell routine”; he was drunk and intended to shoot the glass off of her head. He missed, striking her in the forehead, and killing her. Assuming it was not intentional – he claimed it wasn’t, and he may have been telling the truth – she died because of his negligence and reckless endangerment of her life. Legally and common sensically, such negligence is not the equivalent of “voluntarily and knowingly having killed her.” Rather, he should have known that he was putting her life in great danger; he should have foreseen these potential consequences. Nonetheless, that does not mean that he “knowingly and voluntarily” killed her. What he did do is knowingly and voluntarily put her life in danger.

If a woman were to take your arguments to heart – “you break, you buy” – she might be motivated a. to practice abstinence or b. not rely on condoms or even birth control pills, but an intrauterine device with a comparatively much lower failure rate.

You seem to be driving a hard bargain, though: first outlaw abortion, then – in a perfect world – outlaw birth control, such that a woman has only two legal choices – abstinence, or motherhood. Correct me if I’m wrong about this, and you would not actively fight for the criminalization of birth control, on the heels of the criminalization of abortion.

 

[polytropos]

To help persuade with your argument, you would tell the mother, “after nine months, you are free to put this child up for adoption; nine months and you are free, if that’s what you want!”

Right.

Putting a child up for adoption necessarily has psychological ramifications, of course-- both for mother, and for child. There are even those who would say it is immoral to give up a child solely because one doesn’t want to be a parent.

I find the attitude tragic. Maybe I would say morally reprehensible. I’m not really concerned with the moral status of the unwilling parent. But I would rather see a child grow up in a loving home rather than growing up in an unloving home or aborted. I suppose we all would. Not an easy situation.

I still think this is stated way too strongly, even misleadingly. A woman’s using birth control – improperly, let’s say – and becoming impregnated in spite of it, is not a simple matter of “voluntarily and knowingly ceding bodily autonomy.” Instead, it’s comparable to what is known as “negligence” in the legal realm; and what you would be arguing is that an individual is responsible for an unplanned or “accidental” pregnancy, as they would be responsible for the consequences of any act of negligence or carelessness.

I was thinking about this, although I don’t think the improper use is the biggest problem. The pill and condoms have relatively high failure rates already, so in my opinion the “voluntarily and knowingly” still applies. The bigger issue, I think, is that people would likely claim that they didn’t know that contraceptive measures had failure rates, whether they actually were ignorant or not. I’m pretty sure people have claimed as much in the past. What people who are sexuality active don’t know about being sexually active can be astonishing. This is admittedly a problem with sex education, since abstinence-only education that is advocated by pro-lifers would conflict with people entering into contraceptive sex knowing about the consequences.

Still, I would have to question how many people genuinely don’t know that pregnancy is a possibility in any sexual act.

I imagine, if some law were instituted banning abortions for non-rape cases, there would also be more false rape claims.

You seem to be driving a hard bargain, though: first outlaw abortion, then – in a perfect world – outlaw birth control, such that a woman has only two legal choices – abstinence, or motherhood. Correct me if I’m wrong about this, and you would not actively fight for the criminalization of birth control, on the heels of the criminalization of abortion.

In an ideal world, I think we would see them both outlawed - but in a “perfect world,” that would be done with much more public assent. In other words, while I think some restrictive anti-abortion legislation could pass under current circumstances, I do not think abortion could be completely banned without an overhaul of sexual mores, and birth control could not be banned in a country that is at all acclimated to having abortions. I am not so concerned about birth control because it is such a distant goal.

Although I think, as a general rule of thumb, I would probably oppose at any given time whatever is “next on the list.” I just don’t think I could expect the dominoes to fall very quickly.

In any case, it would be a situation similar to gun control. It is completely infeasible to remove guns from the country, particularly if people find means to print them on new 3D printing technology, and it would be even less feasible to remove condoms, which could probably be produced pretty easily even if they somehow became illegal. Substantive decrease in contraceptive use would largely have to come from persuading people that it’s bad - which is tantamount to convincing them of the Catholic view of sex, and it’s tough enough to convince Catholics of the Catholic view of sex (at least in America). I am not so concerned with creating a kingdom of sexual purity because that’s not possible. I would love to see abortion on the scale of genocide come to an end, and then perhaps we can get started on changing hearts and shifting away from the culture of death. Even that is very idealistic.

 

[Portofino]

Right. I was thinking about this, although I don’t think the improper use is the biggest problem. The pill and condoms have relatively high failure rates already, so in my opinion the “voluntarily and knowingly” still applies.

Perhaps this would fit the definition of gross negligence – “gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care…”

With teen pregnancy, of course, we’re often speaking of underage girls, to begin with. But, regarding gross negligence, one could also argue that becoming impregnated while having no employment – and no permanent partner in the picture – is careless, negligent behavior.

I am not so concerned about birth control because it is such a distant goal.

That seems reasonable. I presume you would not agree with the adjective “responsible” in relation to someone who knows they do not want any more children, and who has her tubes tied as a result (though even this is not 100% effective); still, it’s perhaps comparatively more responsible than someone who takes no precautions, gets pregnant, and then realizes “yeah, I don’t want any more children.” It’s the “you should have thought of that before” admonition that relates to the notion of negligence or carelessness.

decrease in contraceptive use would largely have to come from persuading people that it’s bad - which is tantamount to convincing them of the Catholic view of sex, and it’s tough enough to convince Catholics of the Catholic view of sex (at least in America).

Birth control among married Catholics is quite prevalent – for largely financial reasons, I take it. If a couple is on a modest income, it may have the rationale that it cannot afford more children, including worries over affording college tuition for those additional children. As for young people, my own college years were spent at a Jesuit university, and I can attest that the vaunted “hook-up culture” was no less evident there, than it was on any other American campus. I can honestly say that, to the best of my knowledge, there were students who were only dimly aware, if at all, that the institution was Catholic!

am not so concerned with creating a kingdom of sexual purity because that’s not possible. I would love to see abortion on the scale of genocide come to an end, and then perhaps we can get started on changing hearts and shifting away from the culture of death. Even that is very idealistic.

Most Americans seem to celebrate the birth of a child; abortion is a largely invisible phenomenon (the unwilling mothers largely remain silent). I’ve seen a few cases where the expectant mother, or father, has gone awkwardly silent when others have heartily congratulated them; perhaps it’s that they have worries, or are feeling overwhelmed, as I’m sure often happens in anticipation of a first child (or subsequent child, for different reasons).

It’s of course said that grandparents often get the best deal of all – all of the joy of having a child, none of the worry and uncertainty (life can be worrisome and uncertain enough, for a single adult who is supporting himself, or for a childless married couple, largely in regards to perceived financial uncertainties).

But there are certainly plenty of people wanting children, wanting to celebrate life – to a fault, one could say, at least in terms of in-vitro fertilization and same sex child-rearing!

 

[polytropos]

I presume you would not agree with the adjective “responsible” in relation to someone who knows they do not want any more children, and who has her tubes tied as a result (though even this is not 100% effective); still, it’s perhaps comparatively more responsible than someone who takes no precautions, gets pregnant, and then realizes “yeah, I don’t want any more children.” It’s the “you should have thought of that before” admonition that relates to the notion of negligence or carelessness.

Correct, I would not agree with the adjective “responsible” for such a person. The effectiveness of the birth control does not really matter to me (although you’ve made a case for improper use). I assume those who would be having an abortion are taking measures to prevent pregnancy in some way, and any measures have a failure rate. I don’t think that failure rate can be low enough to absolve them from responsibility for a pregnancy.

I also am not particularly trying to punish people for being “irresponsible” (however much that may bother me personally or religiously). I oppose abortion, and I think that a reasonable case is made for disallowing it in cases where women have willingly, even if unintentionally, made another human being dependent on them. I don’t find the woman who ties her tubes morally preferable, just legally inevitable, for now.

As for young people, my own college years were spent at a Jesuit university, and I can attest that the vaunted “hook-up culture” was no less evident there, than it was on any other American campus. I can honestly say that, to the best of my knowledge, there were students who were only dimly aware, if at all, that the institution was Catholic!

Yeah, I have heard that the top Catholic institutions in America–Georgetown, Notre Dame, BC–are not so thoroughly faithful. They seem pretty willing to dispense birth control. There was a controversy over BC bringing in a pro-abortion speaker or something. It’s unfortunate because there is good work that goes on there and they certainly have the potential, but I think they are likely to buckle to public pressure. I believe they tend to have at least 1/3 of their students non-Catholic (or maybe non-Christian), and in this day and age they probably can’t get away without providing birth control (and there are of course some laxer Catholics who would demand birth control as well).

I am kind of on the other end of the spectrum. I attend a highly secular liberal arts college and condoms were thrown at us during freshman orientation (and are readily available at any other point during the year). It wouldn’t be unreasonable to say that the hook-up culture is encouraged. There has been a lot of controversy over rape, but I don’t know what you can expect when you oversexualize a culture. People get used to sex on demand.

 

[Portofino]

I am kind of on the other end of the spectrum. I attend a highly secular liberal arts college and condoms were thrown at us during freshman orientation (and are readily available at any other point during the year). It wouldn’t be unreasonable to say that the hook-up culture is encouraged. There has been a lot of controversy over rape, but I don’t know what you can expect when you oversexualize a culture. People get used to sex on demand.

From what I understand, there is a certain model of the Catholic university – largely Jesuit – that tends to prevail, which is of a very “public” institution. At the university I attended, there was only one theology course required as part of the core curriculum, and that was “Intro to Theology”, taught by a professor who was Lutheran and who introduced the students to all of the world’s religions, including secular thinking on religion (Freud’s “Future of an Illusion”; Rudolf Bultmann’s notion of “demythologizing” religion; Ludwig’s Feuerbach’s concept that “God is a projection of human qualities”). The professor was a pious Christian but had a very Socratic method; he maintained scholarly neutrality and, to my recollection, never once said, “yeah, those guys are wrong.” If anything, he shook things up for many of his Catholic students; I remember a case of one unfortunate student who, during a class where the professor played devil’s advocate for atheism, told him, “wait; I went to 12 years of Catholic school, and now you are telling me that God doesn’t exist??”

The student body had a fair share of non-Christian students, including Jewish students. Religion was never discussed in class, to my knowledge, but there were a few philosophy courses where there was exposure to medieval Christian philosophy. For theology majors, of course, it was different. Among the professors there was also a scholar from the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition; he taught a course on existentialism, which included the Christian existentialist Kierkegaard. He also shared his perspective that Sartre was, at bottom, a religious thinker; of Sartre’s relationship to God, he liked to quote the line, “and there He was, absent in the flesh.” Any discussion of the the writings of David Hume (for example), in a course on philosophy, would not be from the standpoint of apologetics – trying to show how Hume was wrong – but rather understanding and debating his arguments “in a vacuum”, as it were.

My understanding is that this Jesuit university was largely “neutral” in tone for two reasons: 1. at the level of higher education, a certain scholarly neutrality was cultivated; 2. the school needed to attract a diverse student body and, frankly, needed the benefit of their tuition dollars.

 

[Portofino]

Regarding abortion, it occurred that this is ironically a non-issue for same sex couples; in part because because they tend to avail themselves of adoption or *in vitro *fertilization, having a child tends to be a conscious, deliberate choice. To have a child is more precious to them than gold, something they do not take for granted (just as a couple who previously has experienced problems conceiving, would not take it for granted). So, ironically, such a child is all but assured of being wanted and valued, and is also – it seems – more likely to be born into an environment that is financially stable. I can appreciate that, for a Catholic, this isn’t the whole story, but it is nonetheless ironic.

 

[Muze]

Regarding abortion, it occurred that this is ironically a non-issue for same sex couples; in part because because they tend to avail themselves of adoption or *in vitro *fertilization, having a child tends to be a conscious, deliberate choice. To have a child is more precious to them than gold, something they do not take for granted (just as a couple who previously has experienced problems conceiving, would not take it for granted). So, ironically, such a child is all but assured of being wanted and valued, and is also – it seems – more likely to be born into an environment that is financially stable. I can appreciate that, for a Catholic, this isn’t the whole story, but it is nonetheless ironic.

I think we’ll all be very surprised how fast gay folk become pro-life when researchers can identify the gay gene with a pre-natal test.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]The bigger issue, I think, is that people would likely claim that they didn’t know that contraceptive measures had failure rates, whether they actually were ignorant or not. I’m pretty sure people have claimed as much in the past…]

I think what may be happening here is a gap between “knowledge” and “expectation.” Despite knowing that failure rate of birth control methods their expectations (which may be more from an emotional assessment) may be different. Thinking about the earlier car example people know that they can be seriously injured or killed while driving a car. A person may take precautions against this in reaction to that knowledge but may not be expecting it each time she gets behind the wheel.

There are also those that don’t seem to realize that certain actions will raise the failure rate more, such as taking antibiotics while on birth control pills or using massage oils before intercourse with a latex condom, so on (I know of people that have discovered these things after the fact).

It may be slightly off topic, but do you think that occurrence of those that find the need for abortion would go down if the concerns that motivated the abortion were some how addressed? (I would not expect them to totally go away as there are medical cases conditions in which a pregnancy is not viable and ending the pregnancy is necessary to at least save one life).

 

[polytropos]

I think we’ll all be very surprised how fast gay folk become pro-life when researchers can identify the gay gene with a pre-natal test.

I don’t think it will make a difference. Feminists deny the existence of sex-selective abortions which, even if they do not occur in certain ethnic populations in the United States, have had a massive effect on the populations of India and China. The fact that selective abortion might conflict with feminist and gay agendas by revealing the act’s intrinsic injustice is for whatever reason not a cause for pause. I am disgusted by any abortion that is a consequence of prenatal screening. I think they reveal how callous one has to be to have an abortion. This is admittedly a strongly visceral reaction that pro-choice advocates won’t share, but the issue makes me feel very hopeless for our world.

In any case, I would be appalled by any pro-lifer who would abort a baby with any genetic predisposition to homosexuality.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In any case, I would be appalled by any pro-lifer who would abort a baby with any genetic predisposition to homosexuality.

 

[epan]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m anti-abortion, and I think the unborn ought to be afforded fundamental rights including life.

However, since the actual scientific argument about when life begins becomes a mire, I came up with another tack for dealing with the pro-choice argument on their terms.

Effectively, they say that abortion is a woman’s right because it’s her body and she has the right to do what she wishes with it.

Well, here’s the counter argument:

When a woman engage in coitus with a man and willingly allows him to release sperm into her reproductive system, she consents to to use of her body to gestate a fetus to term. And thus, even if a woman has a right to her own body, the consent given means she has an obligation to fulfill.

It doesn’t matter what means she took to prevent pregnancy, it is universally known that sex produces offspring. And, as such, when offspring are produced, the woman contented to it forming there and consented to the use of her body until birth.

And thus the argument about a woman’s right to her body falls apart on the issue of her consent to give up that right for a period of time.

I would accept the opinion held by most embryologists. Here are a couple of excerpts from textbooks:

… fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed” (Human Embryology and Teratology) and “the time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual” (Patten’s Foundations of Embryology).

I think the big mistake in Roe V Wade was that there was insufficient expert testimony on the subject. There is not much disagreement on when life begins, by those who actually study the topic biologically. If the Court had heard from 10 embryologists on the topic, I think that they would have heard 10 similar answers.

Whether the biological answer is sufficient to form a legal definition of when life begins, is beyond me. But that seems a good place to start.

A fertilized egg contains all the DNA of the person to be born, and it consumes oxygen. Certainly, nobody could argue against the fact that cellular division is a clear sign of life.

 

[Innoruk]

Please don’t put human in quotes. That’s not a matter of opinion either; a fetus is a homo sapiens sapiens. Feel free to argue that a human fetus does not have rights or that its rights don’t entitle it to life; do not imply that it is not human. (If you had some other reason for putting human in quotes, I apologize.)

I had good reason to use the quotes. The term “human” is not defined. The taxonomy of “home sapiens sapiens” is just an arbitrary definition, using a very loose relationship of similarity of the DNA. There is no such thing as “human DNA”. There is a very wide range of DNA, which we associate with human beings, and there are no limits, which would say that “up until this point the being is human, but outside these limits it is either a sub-human or a super-human”. A proper definition of “human being” would be necessary but it is not the point of contention. The cancerous cells are also “human DNA”, a freshly deceased person (before tissue degradation) also has “human DNA”, but none of these are considered human beings, much less human persons. To define personhood would be the topic of a different thread.

Also, the fetus is not laying claim to the woman’s body. The woman’s body consented and gave it life. The woman is not in the position of having not acted; she is not making the choice of whether or not to give up her kidney. She already made that choice, and is now attempting to take her kidney back, which she can only do by killing that which she gave her kidney to. She is not justified in doing so.

This is true, but it does not address the whole picture. Demanding the kidney back is not what I was talking about. If the other person’s life would be dependent upon a continued blood transfusion, maybe combined with periodic bone marrow transplant then the “donor” cannot be compelled to continue that donation against her will, even if the withdrawal of the donation would result in the other person’s death. And this is a correct analogy for pregnancy.

It seems to me like you were saying, “I won’t concede that a fetus is a person, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is…” and so on.

As pointed out above, the term “human being” is not defined, and “human person” is even less defined. But even if these were properly defined and agreed upon, I still see no compelling argument for compelling the woman donate her body to allow a zygote/embryo/fetus to achieve independent existence. We are talking about two conflicting issues: 1) a conscious woman who does not wish her life to be interrupted with an unwanted pregnancy, and 2) the zygote, which has no desires, no interest, but would probably keep on growing if left alone. Why should the zygote trump the will of the woman?

You see, if the church would strongly endorse the idea of contraception, and if it would offer a comprehensive system to deal with the results of failed contraception, then its stance would be much stronger.

 

[polytropos]

I had good reason to use the quotes. The term “human” is not defined. The taxonomy of “home sapiens sapiens” is just an arbitrary definition, using a very loose relationship of similarity of the DNA. There is no such thing as “human DNA”. There is a very wide range of DNA, which we associate with human beings, and there are no limits, which would say that “up until this point the being is human, but outside these limits it is either a sub-human or a super-human”. A proper definition of “human being” would be necessary but it is not the point of contention. The cancerous cells are also “human DNA”, a freshly deceased person (before tissue degradation) also has “human DNA”, but none of these are considered human beings, much less human persons. To define personhood would be the topic of a different thread.

… really? You are going to argue that the relationship of DNA among the species that is called “homo sapiens sapiens” is “loose”? A fetus’s DNA differs from an adult’s DNA as much as any other adult’s DNA differs from that adult’s DNA. “Human DNA” is absolutely defined; the term “DNA” should indicate to you that we’re talking about the specialized science of biology, which has defined these things quite clearly. There is really no dispute that biologically a fetus is “human.”

Cancerous cells have human DNA, but they are part of an individual and they objectively harm that individual. A human fetus is a discrete biological entity (albeit dependent on another biological entity) and is in no way a biological abnormality. A freshly deceased person is not alive. A fetus is biologically alive.

A fetus is a human. As I said, you can take the position that it is not a human person, but it is offensive to say that it is not human. Historically arguing against a group’s humanity has been part and parcel with oppressing said group.

This is true, but it does not address the whole picture. Demanding the kidney back is not what I was talking about. If the other person’s life would be dependent upon a continued blood transfusion, maybe combined with periodic bone marrow transplant then the “donor” cannot be compelled to continue that donation against her will, even if the withdrawal of the donation would result in the other person’s death. And this is a correct analogy for pregnancy.

As I have intimated earlier, that is not a correct analogy for pregnancy. Pregnancy does not have an equivalent of “withdrawal.” Withdrawal in the donor scenario is to cease giving; withdrawal in the abortion scenario is to actively kill a human. If someone depends on your continuous blood transfusion, then you are allowed to cease giving to them, but you are not allowed to inject them with a fatal toxin or slash their neck.

Of course this depends on the fetus having some right to live. What it means is that the right to bodily autonomy does not permit someone to reinstate their bodily autonomy by taking immoral action (violating a dependent being’s right to life). This scenario is distinct from the blood transfusion scenario because the act of withdrawal is not immoral with respect to blood transfusion but is immoral with respect to violating another being’s right to life.

As pointed out above, the term “human being” is not defined, and “human person” is even less defined.

They are not properly defined by secular society because philosophical naturalism dictates that such legal terms are necessarily arbitrary; that value could be ontologically inhered in any human being, fetus or adult, is impossible under philosophical naturalism. Secular society is logically incapable of reconciling its definition of the beginning of personhood with reason. As such, secular society has no rational basis for disputing a religious claim that a fetus has a right to live.

But even if these were properly defined and agreed upon, I still see no compelling argument for compelling the woman donate her body to allow a zygote/embryo/fetus to achieve independent existence. We are talking about two conflicting issues: 1) a conscious woman who does not wish her life to be interrupted with an unwanted pregnancy, and 2) the zygote, which has no desires, no interest, but would probably keep on growing if left alone. Why should the zygote trump the will of the woman?

It is not really a question of compelling the woman to donate her body. I am not forcing her to have sex and then carry a pregnancy to term. We begin from the scenario of the pregnancy: through voluntary means, she is pregnant. A woman is allowed to reinstate her bodily autonomy by morally neutral means; she is not justified in killing something to reinstate her bodily autonomy.

The zygote did not intentionally place any restriction on the woman, but the woman willingly pursued a state of affairs out of which she cannot extricate herself without taking immoral action. Therefore, she is not justified in reinstating bodily autonomy.

You see, if the church would strongly endorse the idea of contraception, and if it would offer a comprehensive system to deal with the results of failed contraception, then its stance would be much stronger.

What? You are saying… if the Church… supported contraception… and supported abortion for when contraception fails… then its stance would be much stronger? What is the point in saying that? Obviously, in your opinion, the Church would have a stronger stance if it shared your opinions…

The main problem with that is that the Church teaches Truth, and it’s not changing the nature of Truth just because you cannot apprehend it. The Church isn’t going to falsely claim that killing babies is justified. Sorry.