The Right-to-Life doesn't include

[Sbee0]

Consider the following:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

For context, this was posted by a pro-choice atheist whose commentary on abortion I have been reading for a few years. She is a public figure within the atheist community and something of a pro-choice apologist, using social media to equip other secularists on how to argue the pro-choice position and respond to pro-lifers (whom she refers to as “anti-choicers”).

I mention this to emphasize that I am very familiar with how she argues.

For example, if you say that a pregnant woman is responsible for the life of her unborn child because she is the biological mother on whom the child naturally depends for survival, she will say you are committing the naturalistic fallacy.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

She promotes the argument used by the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson in the essay A Defense of Abortion. If you are not familiar with the essay, you may read it by clicking on this link:

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion

Thompson gives a more sophisticated version of the bodily autonomy argument. Unlike other pro-choicers who argue for the woman’s- right-to-choose-abortion on the basis of denying the humanity and/or personhood of the fetus, Thomson doesn’t do this. She is willing to grant the personhood of the fetus and argues that its personhood is not in-itself a sufficient basis for prohibiting abortion.

Pro lifers are not anti choicers. That label is used by those who have absolutely no clue what the pro life movement is. We pro lifers know that a law preventing abortion will not stop abortions on its own- history has shown that. Abortion is simply a symptom of society’s failure to care for women in need, especially desperate women who are considering abortion. Stopping the symptom does not stop the condition. Society addressing this need will stop abortion much faster then any law would.

As for this argument - like any prochoice argument it is easy to apply to born people and thus completely falls down. It’s also logically fallacious as there is absolutely no connection between pregnancy and organ donation.

 

[Ana_v]

Take a look in the mirror, and note that you are a living human being, and then tell us that you willed (voluntas) yourself into being.
Did you will yourself into being? It think not. In fact your coming to be is completely involuntary on your part.

So then by your logic, your very being is of the same value as just another natural and involuntary menstrual cycle.

I didn’t say anything about value. I am talking about simple biology.
There are biological processes which explain the existence of many things. To say that the workings of the reproductive system (of which menstruation is a part, so is fertilization) is involuntary is a matter of biological fact or falsehood, not value-judgement.

And as long as I have specified what I mean by the reproductive proces, which I have – I clarified that I am only referring to what happens internally, not the external act of having sex, which is voluntary – then there should be no controversy on this point.

The controversy begins when we start trying to hash out the implications of the voluntary vs. involuntary aspects of our human nature.

 

[Peebo]

It might be well and good having philosophical discussions about consent to sex…consent to the consequences…ie…pregnancy…abortion etc…unfortunately many people who engage in sex don’t sit down and discuss the consequences neither…whether immature teenagers or lusting adults…the physical attraction…the lust for sex is what’s on their mind at that time…people want instant gratification and to h*ll with the consequences…as much as I loathe abortions I wonder about making abortions illegal for many people who nowadays don’t hold to the sanctity of the unborn like we Christians…even some Christians are pro choice…can we legislate people out of having abortions who see nothing wrong with it…it’s been legal for decades now…are we going to charge women who have an abortion with murder and sentence them to life in prison…the doctor…or backyard abortionist also with murder…the male who impregnates the woman as an accessory to murder…(if they can find him)…maybe the parents who don’t want their teenage daughter to have a baby…please don’t think I’m making excuses for abortion…I just have doubts how we can just legislate away something that’s legal today and illegal tomorrow with a population that at least half don’t see anything wrong with…will the pendulum swing from abortions for all to witch hunts for those suspected…human nature can be pretty judgemental in it’s perceived righteous anger

 

[goout]

goout:

Take a look in the mirror, and note that you are a living human being, and then tell us that you willed (voluntas) yourself into being.
Did you will yourself into being? It think not. In fact your coming to be is completely involuntary on your part.

So then by your logic, your very being is of the same value as just another natural and involuntary menstrual cycle.

I didn’t say anything about value. I am talking about simple biology.
There are biological processes which explain the existence of many things. To say that the workings of the reproductive system (of which menstruation is a part, so is fertilization) is involuntary is a matter of biological fact or falsehood, not value-judgement.

And as long as I have specified what I mean by the reproductive proces, which I have – I clarified that I am only referring to what happens internally, not the external act of having sex, which is voluntary – then there should be no controversy on this point.

The controversy begins when we start trying to hash out the implications of the voluntary vs. involuntary aspects of our human nature.

I’m trying to focus your attention on this fact:
Your assertion equates the development and flourishing of a unique human being with any old involuntary process like menstruation or digestion.

Do you think your readers don’t know what biological processes are? I assure you that even the most elementary understanding of biology knows what involuntary biological processes are.

What is tragically missing is an appreciation for the development and flourishing of human life.

Think for a minute:
the purpose of process like peristalsis is to provide nourishment for the body, and to discard the remains.
the purpose of menstruation, in a similar fashion.

You are equating the trajectory and status of human life and development and giving it a disposability that equates to ejecting a pile of dung, or a clump of blood to be ejected and discarded.

That ought to terrify you. The fact that it doesn’t, and the fact that in your statement above you would like to remove value judgments from this issue point to moral bankruptcy.
Morality is the evaluation of human acts, and if you can’t see the value of the development of human life in comparison to producing a pile of dung…
connect the dots.

 

[goout]

I have no idea whether we can successfully legislate this or that. I hope our society can regain it’s collective sanity and reflect it in our laws.

But that is not the point. The point is that human life has intrinsic value. And without recognizing that value all other human rights are a farce. It’s not about punishing people, and it’s not about holding people accountable for decisions they didn’t really thing very hard about.
It’s about recognizing human life plain and simple.

The Christian should witness to the value of human life whether it is politically expedient or not.

 

[Peebo]

I agree with you that as Christians we should definitely recognize all human life… from conception to death…but then you have Christians who are pro choice…and many other people…whether different religions or no religion at all who accept abortion…how do we change the minds of a generation that has grown up with many accepting abortion and who don’t recognize the value of human life…(from abortion to euthanasia) as most Christians do…plain and simple also to their way of thinking…even if we witness to those who are pro choice or abortion on demand…will they listen to the Christian message on the sanctity of life if they see we are also taking away the right that they hold to…I just wonder if that old saying is true…“it’s too late to shut the gate after the horse has bolted”…I can pray and do all I can to witness against abortion ( and vote against it) and pray it will end someday…somehow…at least I know God is still in control

 

[goout]

I agree with you that as Christians we should definitely recognize all human life… from conception to death…but then you have Christians who are pro choice…and many other people…whether different religions or no religion at all who accept abortion…how do we change the minds of a generation that has grown up with many accepting abortion and who don’t recognize the value of human life…(from abortion to euthanasia) as most Christians do…plain and simple also to their way of thinking…even if we witness to those who are pro choice or abortion on demand…will they listen to the Christian message on the sanctity of life if they see we are also taking away the right that they hold to…I just wonder if that old saying is true…“it’s too late to shut the gate after the horse has bolted”…I can pray and do all I can to witness against abortion ( and vote against it) and pray it will end someday…somehow…at least I know God is still in control

So you proclaim the Gospel and if it falls on deaf ears you keep proclaiming it.
In season and out. Results are in God’s hands.

 

[Sbee0]

The context of the violinist is so vague (and IMO intentionally so) and has absolutely no connection to real life, it disingenuously labels the unborn child as some kind of parasite or invader, nor does it accurately describe the relationship between mother and unborn child. It is a complete fallacy to make this sort of connection to defend abortion.

Not to mention the fact that if one disconnects from the violinist then the violinist dies of causes that are natural. There is nothing natural about the act of abortion, it is a violent death for the unborn child. A much better way to link this to abortion would be for me to say as part of the story that I will “disconnect” from the violinist at say, 15 weeks instead of 9 months by stabbing him/her in the skull and sucking out their brains, then ripping their body off of me limb by limb… and knowing that this was my son/daughter at the same time.

This analogy is intended to deceive people into making abortion sound logically plausible but it really is an atrocious one. It wants us to believe that it accepts the unborn child as a life or person but fundamentally it comes down to the fact that it really does not do any such thing.

 

[Flopfoot]

This kind of argues that every baby since the beginning of humanity is a criminal for not getting mom’s permission to be in the womb, especially back when women didn’t know how to terminate their own pregnancy

 

[blackforest]

Here’s the problem, Zach. The pro-choicer in question (the one which my original post is about) holds both of the following views:

1. Consent to sex - in and of itself - is not consent to pregnancy.
2. Consent can be withdrawn at any time.

Are you the pro-choicer in question? It sounds like you agree with this person’s position.

Let’s try this on for size. Consent to board an airplane isn’t consent to get a crash. Consent to climb a mountain isn’t consent to fall off a cliff. Nobody consents to unforeseen consequences, but we know that they are lurking as a potential.

The one hole in those analogies is that you can’t undo an airline crash or 100-foot fall the way a pregnancy can be “undone” by killing one’s offspring. But are we entitled to push back against unforeseen consequences when doing so involves killing someone else?

 

[Flopfoot]

The argument also fails against Kant’s categorical imperative, because humanity would go extinct. (Other pro choice arguments don’t come up as hard against this)

 

[Pattylt]

Thank you @Ana_v for a great discussion. I am in the rare camp of being against abortion but an agnostic. So many of the discussions revolve around the theological arguments from morality which is understandable on CAF but not very effective outside a religious context.

While I am anti abortion, it is due to my personal values of human life. The problem is so many in society have a lower value of fetal life vs. mothers life. I can not make anyone else’s value match mine. Until or unless society’s values change, to me it is a fruitless discussion which is why I usually stay out of it. This is also why I feel that we need to address the reasons why terminations occur before outlawing abortion.

I’ve never heard or thought about this legal debate before and appreciate you bringing it to my attention. It boils down to the legal dilemma of right to life vs right to self autonomy and everyone struggles to bring in a scenario that compares, often pathetically so, to human pregnancy. It is unique.

Do you know of any legal cases where someone’s right to life overrides self autonomy? How about self autonomy overriding right to life? If you do know of any, please link. I certainly don’t have answers and am unsure if we would ever come to one that satisfies both religious and secular society. All we can do from my point of view is drastically reduce the numbers by addressing the reasons for abortion and we seem to be in no hurry to accomplish that.

 

[Ana_v]

Are you the pro-choicer in question? It sounds like you agree with this person’s position.

No. Did you read my original post that started this thread? I shared a post that was made by an atheist on Facebook, explained the context behind the post, and the reply that I wrote to her.

She’s somewhat of a public figure (in atheist, activist circles) but I chose to keep her anonymous for the sake of keeping this thread objective and not bring in anything about her public or private life that isn’t relevant to the arguments at hand.
But if you want to know who she is, her name is Beth Presswood. You can search her on Facebook and read the type of things she posts.

She was married to a man named Matt Dillahunty, who is the host of a program called The Atheist Experience. Matt has been rising in fame and does a number of public events, talks, lectures and debates on topics relating to atheism, skepticism, religion, and secular humanism.

Beth Presswood likes to counsel her followers on how to debate prolifers. That is why I chose to open this thread. So CAF members interested in the abortion debate could be made aware of what sorts of argument-strategies are being popularized. She has a platform that most of us don’t have (in terms of influence).

She is also involved in a podcast program called “Godless B*itches” which, among other things, covers topics related to abortion.

Here is a segment of an episode (though she is not featured in this particular one):

 

[Sbee0]

This is also why I feel that we need to address the reasons why terminations occur before outlawing abortion.

Well a law would be great but by itself it won’t stop abortion, as history has already shown. I also do not believe that the abortion industry cares about women nearly as much as they’d like to preach. They just want $$$ and nothing else.

Also I don’t think theological arguments about abortion are made here very often, at least not that I can see. It goes without saying of course, but most of the arguments I’ve seen here are from a secular, logical and scientific point of view.

 

[Pattylt]

I mostly agree with you but when it is argued that we have intrinsic value, it appears that you are saying this value comes from God. I do agree that many don’t argue from this point of view but it is never clear where this intrinsic value is coming from unless defined as other from God?

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say a fetus has little to no value to them…life is cheap, there is no shortage, etc. How can anyone make another intrinsically value that which they do not…secular style?

 

[Sbee0]

I mostly agree with you but when it is argued that we have intrinsic value, it appears that you are saying this value comes from God. I do agree that many don’t argue from this point of view but it is never clear where this intrinsic value is coming from unless defined as other from God?

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say a fetus has little to no vale to them…life is cheap, there is no shortage, etc. How can anyone make another intrinsically value that which they do not…secular style?

IMO fundamentally, it always comes down to the belief that an unborn child is not a human being. A belief that has no basis in science and fact. Personhood arguments that derive from it are flawed as well. Hence the “clump of cells” and “tumor” comparisons.

For those who are born I think there’s a secular perspective on inherent value of human life. We all view human lives with a higher reverence than we would view, say, a bird’s or snake’s because we are comparing our own to theirs. We know we only have one life, it is precious, and we can empathize and value other human beings with the same perspective we want for us, for happiness, accomplishment, self improvement, and so on.

 

[Pattylt]

IMO fundamentally, it always comes down to the belief that an unborn child is not a human being

Most pro choice activists that I have read readily accept that the fetus is human. Personhood is something that they deny, however, as personhood changes over one’s lifetime, their humanity does not.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

IMO fundamentally, it always comes down to the belief that an unborn child is not a human being

Most pro choice activists that I have read readily accept that the fetus is human. Personhood is something that they deny, however, as personhood changes over one’s lifetime, their humanity does not.

Well… I’ve heard the term “potential human” which isn’t quite the same thing.

Personhood of course is an arbitrary marker with no scientific basis and as history has shown us, is a poor indicator of who is worthy of rights including life.

 

[blackforest]

No. Did you read my original post that started this thread?

Yes, I read the whole thing. Forgive me skepticism, but posting under false pretenses, especially on hot-topic issues like this one, has not been uncommon here. I should have looked at your past posting history, which I now see shows that your intentions are legit. People do like to come to CAF to “try on” new arguments that they find particularly compelling.

She’s somewhat of a public figure (in atheist, activist circles) but I chose to keep her anonymous for the sake of keeping this thread objective and not bring in anything about her public or private life that isn’t relevant to the arguments at hand.

I haven’t heard of her and, if it’s any consolation, don’t believe in letting ad-hominem factors bog down a debate.

As I indicated in my first post to you, I would emphasize that the natural consequences of actions are not something to which we can “consent.” I would instead shift the discussion toward what would constitute a bioethically acceptable way to respond to the consequence.

I have a busy day ahead and can address this more this evening. But keep in mind that your pro-choice contacts are making a 40±year-old argument that has been repeatedly discussed and refuted, (whether or not successfully I’ll leave for you to judge). There are a plethora of resources doing so online from both secular humanist and religious world views. But as you peruse them, keep in mind that Thompson begins by misrepresenting the pro-life position. http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Does_Thomson.pdf

 

[Ana_v]

It sounds like you agree with this person’s position.

The reason it may sound that way is because I have tried my best to present the argument in the way I think she would if she were speaking for herself on this thread. No one likes their arguments to be misinterpreted, misrepresented, or caricatured, and so I wanted to articulate the position she defends in a way that I thought was truly reflective of how she would proceed in a discussion with prolifers.

I am not compelled by Thomson’s argument, but I understand why it has sway with people. My advantage is that I majored in philosophy at a Catholic college whose professors taught in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition (I am therefore influenced by the scholastic method of arumentation) and took classes on logic, rhetoric, moral theology and ethics among other courses relevant to this thread. Also, I was involved in a Socratic Club at school where every week a member would present on a topic of their choice (anything from monarchy, bioengineering, gender, torture, etc. ) and then open the topic for discussion. I mention this to provide insight on where I’m coming from in terms of how my mind works. I did not go on to graduate school, so the closest I get to “continuing philosophy”, aside from reading, is mainly through online discussions. And since I am a layman and have no formal expertise, I discuss mostly with other laymen.

What I hope to promote in this thread is precision of argument and the spirit of the medieval axiom: never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish.

(Especially in an era of sound bites, memes, bumper sticker type of thinking, instantaneous communication, and short attention spans due to social media distracting people from careful, reflective thinking.)