Why should pro-choicers think we sincerely think embryos are people?

[Prodigal_Son]

I work in philosophy, and – more than once – I’ve heard pro-choice philosophers make the following argument:

1. If pro-lifers genuinely believed that an embryo is a person, then they would consider embryos worth killing – or dying – for.
2. Pro-lifers do not consider embryos worth killing or dying for.
3. Therefore, pro-lifers do not believe that embryos are people.

This strikes me as a good argument, so far as it goes. It’s an ad hominem, obviously – it doesn’t prove anything about abortion, only something about people’s beliefs about abortion. But what should we, as pro-lifers, do about it?

Clearly, we think it’s morally permissible to seriously hurt (even kill) another person in order to protect a child from getting killed. Good. But we also claim that a fetus is a child. And yet we loudly insist that it is deeply wrong to hurt – or even sabotage! – abortionists. I don’t get it.

If we believe these are PEOPLE being killed in abortions, then why don’t we start an uprising? I’m serious. Why don’t we break into abortion clinics and steal their equipment? Why don’t we stand in front of abortion clinics and not let people pass? Why don’t we fight like we would fight for our own children, if someone tried to kill THEM?

There may be very good answers to these questions. I certainly don’t advocate hasty actions, and I strongly condemn most attacks on abortion clinics, because they seem to me badly thought-out, ineffective, and politically disastrous. But a sort of “anti-abortion intifada” seems like a logical step. It would show that we put out money where our mouth is.

Am I completely nuts here? I am honestly perplexed by the whole thing.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

My first immediate thought would be “chances of success”.

The Cathar crusade took place because the Church could rally an overwhelming majority, some of whom probably did have less devout reasons for getting involved, that had a very high chance of accomplishing its goals; the annihilation of Gnosticism in Europe and the annexation of Cathar territories.

While I understand the pro-life movement in the US is far stronger than in other parts of the western world it is not so strong it can enforce itself by force. Perhaps a slight overreaction but if need be the state governments could rally an army to defend abortion clinics, just as it sent security forces in to protect the black students at Little Rock all those years ago to ensure its will would be enforced. Pro-Lifers do not have this ability.

Any violent action taken against the pro-choice movement will almost certainly meet with failure in the long term, the pro life movement simply does not have either the popular support or resources required for such an endeavor.

The most effective course of action for the pro life movement at present is to promote itself by licit means in the hope of causing a popular change of opinion. Only then can it ensure its will can be enforced, by force of arms if required.

Just war is indeed a doctrine of Catholicism, but it hasn’t ever been employed when there is no chance of victory possible. It’s less a matter of Philosophy but sheer practicality and strategy. Attacking one abortionist may save one child, but you jeopardize the lives of many more by evoking popular support for the pro choice movement.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My first immediate thought would be “chances of success”.

The Cathar crusade took place because the Church could rally an overwhelming majority, some of whom probably did have less devout reasons for getting involved, that had a very high chance of accomplishing its goals; the annihilation of Gnosticism in Europe and the annexation of Cathar territories.

While I understand the pro-life movement in the US is far stronger than in other parts of the western world it is not so strong it can enforce itself by force. Perhaps a slight overreaction but if need be the state governments could rally an army to defend abortion clinics, just as it sent security forces in to protect the black students at Little Rock all those years ago to ensure its will would be enforced. Pro-Lifers do not have this ability.

Any violent action taken against the pro-choice movement will almost certainly meet with failure in the long term, the pro life movement simply does not have either the popular support or resources required for such an endeavor.

The most effective course of action for the pro life movement at present is to promote itself by licit means in the hope of causing a popular change of opinion. Only then can it ensure its will can be enforced, by force of arms if required.

Just war is indeed a doctrine of Catholicism, but it hasn’t ever been employed when there is no chance of victory possible. It’s less a matter of Philosophy but sheer practicality and strategy. Attacking one abortionist may save one child, but you jeopardize the lives of many more by evoking popular support for the pro choice movement.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. A comparison might be a slave rebellion. Supposing that we agree that a slave rebellion would be GOOD, we might still think that – in the current environment – it would be ineffective. No point risking life and limb for a failure.

The weird thing, though, is that most Christians don’t think a war against abortionists would be good. The fact that they don’t seems to suggest that they don’t REALLY believe embryos have the same right to life as children.

And the shallowness of our beliefs, on this point, is killing our politics. If you don’t really believe that embryos are people, why should I vote for you? All our politicians seem insincere, and the grassroots seems confused. Why do we bend over backward to defend the “rights” of murderers? How can anyone believe that we are sincere when we coddle abortionists in this way?

 

[Cake_or_Death]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. A comparison might be a slave rebellion. Supposing that we agree that a slave rebellion would be GOOD, we might still think that – in the current environment – it would be ineffective. No point risking life and limb for a failure.

Exactly, there are merits to biding ones time until a suitable opportunity to take action arises. Rather like a sniper lying in wait, there’s no point emptying the barrel and revealing yourself unless you know you will succeed.

The weird thing, though, is that most Christians don’t think a war against abortionists would be good. The fact that they don’t seems to suggest that they don’t REALLY believe embryos have the same right to life as children.

While there are Christians who don’t believe embryos should be recognized as children (Hans Kung comes to mind when he said “an acorn has the potential to become a tree, but it is not a tree”) as far as I understand on an official level most of them see it as a necessary evil. Wheras Catholics prioritize the life of the embryo, Mormons and Anglicans prioritize the health (both physical and mental) of the woman. They’d much prefer her to have the baby, but they believe sometimes it would do far more damage to have it.

It’s still killing, but they see it as preferable to the woman killing herself from the shame of giving birth to her rapists child or such as the case of the 11 year old who may be physically crippled for life by attempting to carry a child to term.

And the shallowness of our beliefs, on this point, is killing our politics. If you don’t really believe that embryos are people, why should I vote for you? All our politicians seem insincere, and the grassroots seems confused. Why do we bend over backward to defend the “rights” of murderers? How can anyone believe that we are sincere when we coddle abortionists in this way?

Well, there are several Protestant sects that view the Pope and the Catholic Church as the literal church of Satan. While Catholic beliefs might make the formation of anti-abortionist militia desirable this same logic could all too easily encourage and legitimize several Baptist churches buying a few guns and assassinating Catholic priests for heresy (attempting to “Summon Jesus” via the words of consecration is deeply offensive to some Baptists, preventing perceived “Witchcraft” would be just as noble an act to them as preventing an abortion).

We bend over the defend the rights of those who disagree with us generally to ensure we ourselves don’t meet a violent response when the majority disagrees with us on an issue. Perhaps that sounds a bit pessimistic, but without that order chaos would ensure and then abortionists really would be the least of the Catholic problems.

 

[bmonk]

The argument is valid, as far as it goes. We should consider embryos as persons, worth dying for. However, our very embrace of the culture of life means that we are not willing to kill to support our beliefs–the very idea of killing would betray our commitment to life. On the other hand, our support may be rather shallow–we should be willing to sacrifice our lifestyle so that others may live.

 

[1ke]

I work in philosophy, and – more than once – I’ve heard pro-choice philosophers make the following argument:

Other people who work in philosophy? Or just random people not trained in logic? because if it’s coworkers, they need a remedial class.

This strikes me as a good argument, so far as it goes.

Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy, not a “good argument” at all.

Clearly, we think it’s morally permissible to seriously hurt (even kill) another person in order to protect a child from getting killed. Good. But we also claim that a fetus is a child. And yet we loudly insist that it is deeply wrong to hurt – or even sabotage! – abortionists. I don’t get it.

If we believe these are PEOPLE being killed in abortions, then why don’t we start an uprising? I’m serious. Why don’t we break into abortion clinics and steal their equipment? Why don’t we stand in front of abortion clinics and not let people pass? Why don’t we fight like we would fight for our own children, if someone tried to kill THEM?

The civil authority has legitimate authority over us. We may not commit two wrongs to make a “right”. We may not take the law into our own hands. We may not execute abortion doctors, as if we had some legitimate authority to do so. We are not the law.

We may engage in civil disobedience, and many people do. There are people in jail right now for entering abortion clinics to talk to women there.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Other people who work in philosophy? Or just random people not trained in logic? because if it’s coworkers, they need a remedial class.

Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy, not a “good argument” at all.

It’s not affirming the consequent, 1ke. Affirming the consequent is:

If A, then B.
B.
Therefore, A.

This argument is:

If A, then B.
Not-B.
Therefore, not-A.

That’s a valid argument form.

The civil authority has legitimate authority over us. We may not commit two wrongs to make a “right”. We may not take the law into our own hands. We may not execute abortion doctors, as if we had some legitimate authority to do so. We are not the law.

Would Catholic Germans in 1941 have been justified in bypassing the Nazi government, and shutting down the concentration camps? Of course. Why? Because the Nazis were committing crimes against humanity. Same with abortionists.

 

[JohnGerard]

Interesting discussion. I’m not a philosopher but it seems to me there are some things in error in the argument. Just don’t know if I can articulate it. I think the second premise is wrong. Pro-lifers DO consider embryos worth killing and dying for. They are the most innocent of humans on the planet. That second statement is simply false. The question is: then why don’t we kill and die for embryos? I think you have already answered that well in stating that it is in the nature of the battle/war that we are in. Sometimes in war, an ill-timed offensive is nothing more than suicide. So you wouldn’t do that. You won’t live to fight anymore. You fight in other ways that are not suicidal. That’s where we are at in the War on the Unborn. Because of this, I also don’t think the argument proves anything about people’s beliefs about abortion, either.

Think about a hostage situation. Does the SWAT team not consider that the hostages are people worth killing or dying for? If yes, why aren’t they immediately rushing in there to take out the bad guys? Especially since the bad guys might kill everyone before they can get in there? What are they waiting for? They wait for the best way to deal with the situation and save as many as are inside as possible. That’s also where we are at in the War on the Unborn. It is complicated.

 

[1ke]

It’s not affirming the consequent, 1ke.

Yes, you are correct. Reading too quickly.

Would Catholic Germans in 1941 have been justified in bypassing the Nazi government, and shutting down the concentration camps? Of course. Why? Because the Nazis were committing crimes against humanity. Same with abortionists.

They would have been justified in joining with the Allies. That was a legitimate war.

 

[marymary1975]

I work in philosophy, and – more than once – I’ve heard pro-choice philosophers make the following argument:

1. If pro-lifers genuinely believed that an embryo is a person, then they would consider embryos worth killing – or dying – for.
2. Pro-lifers do not consider embryos worth killing or dying for.
3. Therefore, pro-lifers do not believe that embryos are people.

This strikes me as a good argument, so far as it goes. It’s an ad hominem, obviously – it doesn’t prove anything about abortion, only something about people’s beliefs about abortion. But what should we, as pro-lifers, do about it?

Clearly, we think it’s morally permissible to seriously hurt (even kill) another person in order to protect a child from getting killed. Good. But we also claim that a fetus is a child. And yet we loudly insist that it is deeply wrong to hurt – or even sabotage! – abortionists. I don’t get it.

If we believe these are PEOPLE being killed in abortions, then why don’t we start an uprising? I’m serious. Why don’t we break into abortion clinics and steal their equipment? Why don’t we stand in front of abortion clinics and not let people pass? Why don’t we fight like we would fight for our own children, if someone tried to kill THEM?

There may be very good answers to these questions. I certainly don’t advocate hasty actions, and I strongly condemn most attacks on abortion clinics, because they seem to me badly thought-out, ineffective, and politically disastrous. But a sort of “anti-abortion intifada” seems like a logical step. It would show that we put out money where our mouth is.

Am I completely nuts here? I am honestly perplexed by the whole thing.

To me the answer is because the end does not justify the means. We don’t break and steal into abortion clinic a because those are evil means. We cannot use evil or morally unacceptable means to win our fight. We fight the fight using licit means. The fact that we use licit means to reach and end does not equate that we don’t think the fetus is a person. To me it sounds like the argument that if you are not out there rioting and destroying other people’s property then you agree with Cops abusing their power. That is a silly argument to me.

Second I am not understanding what do you mean in your fourth paragraph. That we think is acceptable to hurt someone but not a fetus. you confused me there. Who prolifers think that is OK to hurt. I didn’t understand that part.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Think about a hostage situation. Does the SWAT team not consider that the hostages are people worth killing or dying for? If yes, why aren’t they immediately rushing in there to take out the bad guys? Especially since the bad guys might kill everyone before they can get in there? What are they waiting for? They wait for the best way to deal with the situation and save as many as are inside as possible. That’s also where we are at in the War on the Unborn. It is complicated.

You might want to check out this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=958420

In that thread, I was essentially called names and personally ridiculed merely for defending the claim that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with killing an abortionist who is about to commit a murder. So I think a LOT of pro-lifers actually don’t think of abortionists the way they think of terrorists in a hostage situation.

You’re right that it’s complicated. But one of the complicating factors is that some of us don’t consider this a war at all. We’ve come to terms with just living out our lives in peace, while – one by one – hostages are being murdered.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

They would have been justified in joining with the Allies. That was a legitimate war.

What if there were no allies? Surely just war principles are not the only ones that justify violence.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I think the greatest weakness of this argument is that it’s first premise is faulty.

Most pro-lifers do think the child in the womb is work killing or dying for. The issue is that there is no constructive way this view can be expressed.

I will kill for my wife. I will die for my wife. I would do either of these things to prolong her life and keep her well. If I kill to protect her, then I have protected her. If I die to protect her then, hopefully, I have likewise protected her.

Now, let’s look at this in regards to the child in the womb. In the case of abortion, if I kill to protect the child then one of two things has happened:
1: I have killed the abortionist to prevent them from performing the abortion, or
2: I have killed the mother to keep her from having the abortion.
In the first case, I have only prevented a single abortionist from doing evil, the woman can still go to another abortionist. Meanwhile, I’ll likely be imprisoned, having committed murder. In the second case, I have killed the mother, and in almost all cases will have indirectly killed the child. Again, I will be in prison for murder. You could also argue that I could kill the person applying pressure to the woman, generally a parent or boyfriend. In this case, I have not only committed murder, I have robbed the woman of someone close to them (for better or for worse).

Now, let’s consider dying for the child. I cannot conceive of a rational set of circumstances where my death would result in saving a child doomed to be aborted, however, let’s look at an extreme example. Say that I have been told that either I will die, or a woman will have an abortion. I have the choice to be killed, or allow another to be killed. While it would be perfectly moral of me to accept this death in the place of another, I do not have a moral obligation to do so. If I do accept this death, then I can no longer promote life, as I am dead. My death, while saving a single individual (supposedly) would be the end of any good I can do in my life.

The argument being made is flawed because there is no logical or moral way to perform the acts they accuse us of being unwilling to perform. To kill for the child would be murder, however justified it may be the legal result would be unproductive to the greater pro-life cause; and there is no real set of circumstances in which I could die for the child. The person making the argument is being intellectually dishonest by claiming that we are wrong because we have not completed an impossible task.

Feel free to respond to this, I’ll try to check in on it later and see about responding. God Bless!

 

[Antegin]

Prodigal_Son:

1. If pro-lifers genuinely believed that an embryo is a person, then they would consider embryos worth killing – or dying – for.

Killing and dying are two different things. Killing is a moral wrong except under very specific situations, even if the target is an abortionist, an abusive husband or a dictator like Hitler. Even though it kills us to see millions of preborn destroyed it would not justify us taking their lives into our hands. "Vengeance is Mine says the Lord.’’ Free Will is God’s gift, not ours to give or take back. Dying on the other hand can be a natural consequence or a sacrifice.

1. Pro-lifers do not consider embryos worth killing or dying for.
2. Is invalid so it’s false, 2. Is false. In the case of St Gianna Molla, she died, sacrificed her life for her preborn daughter because she was a person worth saving. Many pro life activists are subject to arrest, civil litigation and penalties and accept these sufferings gladly because they do believe the preborn are children. But they don’t go out and kill one person because another is in danger because killing is wrong.
3. Therefore, pro-lifers do not believe that embryos are people.
4. False
5. False
6. False

 

[casslean]

The argument being made is flawed because there is no logical or moral way to perform the acts they accuse us of being unwilling to perform. To kill for the child would be murder, however justified it may be the legal result would be unproductive to the greater pro-life cause; and there is no real set of circumstances in which I could die for the child. The person making the argument is being intellectually dishonest by claiming that we are wrong because we have not completed an impossible task.

The argument isn’t only flawed; it’s factually incorrect. The argument was:

1. If pro-lifers genuinely believed that an embryo is a person, then they would consider embryos worth killing – or dying – for.
2. Pro-lifers do not consider embryos worth killing** or dying** for.
3. Therefore, pro-lifers do not believe that embryos are people.

There are pro-life advocates who have died to save the life of an unborn child. Saint Gianna Beretta Molla, for instance, refused both an abortion and a hysterectomy to save the life of her unborn fourth child.

Believing that an embryo’s life is worth killing or dying for, and believing that a given set of circumstances warrants either killing or dying to protect that life are two different things.

 

[thistle]

I work in philosophy, and – more than once – I’ve heard pro-choice philosophers make the following argument:

1. If pro-lifers genuinely believed that an embryo is a person, then they would consider embryos worth killing – or dying – for.
2. Pro-lifers do not consider embryos worth killing or dying for.
3. Therefore, pro-lifers do not believe that embryos are people.

This strikes me as a good argument, so far as it goes. It’s an ad hominem, obviously – it doesn’t prove anything about abortion, only something about people’s beliefs about abortion. But what should we, as pro-lifers, do about it?

Clearly, we think it’s morally permissible to seriously hurt (even kill) another person in order to protect a child from getting killed. Good. But we also claim that a fetus is a child. And yet we loudly insist that it is deeply wrong to hurt – or even sabotage! – abortionists. I don’t get it.

If we believe these are PEOPLE being killed in abortions, then why don’t we start an uprising? I’m serious. Why don’t we break into abortion clinics and steal their equipment? Why don’t we stand in front of abortion clinics and not let people pass? Why don’t we fight like we would fight for our own children, if someone tried to kill THEM?

There may be very good answers to these questions. I certainly don’t advocate hasty actions, and I strongly condemn most attacks on abortion clinics, because they seem to me badly thought-out, ineffective, and politically disastrous. But a sort of “anti-abortion intifada” seems like a logical step. It would show that we put out money where our mouth is.

Am I completely nuts here? I am honestly perplexed by the whole thing.

Are you completely nuts? Yes based on your views. You are advocating violence. Its only where your mouth is, not ours or the Church’s.

To advocate killing an abortion doctor (which you did in the other thread) is inciting people to commit murder.
Your views are totally against Church teaching.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To advocate killing an abortion doctor (which you did in the other thread) is inciting people to commit murder.

No, I did NOT advocate killing an abortion doctor. That is utterly false.

I said killing an abortionist is not intrinsically wrong.

I might also say that “holding a protest in the middle of a freeway is not intrinsically wrong.” I would not thereby be advocating holding a protest in the middle of a freeway.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think the greatest weakness of this argument is that it’s first premise is faulty.

Most pro-lifers do think the child in the womb is work killing or dying for. The issue is that there is no constructive way this view can be expressed.

I will kill for my wife. I will die for my wife. I would do either of these things to prolong her life and keep her well. If I kill to protect her, then I have protected her. If I die to protect her then, hopefully, I have likewise protected her.

Now, let’s look at this in regards to the child in the womb. In the case of abortion, if I kill to protect the child then one of two things has happened:
1: I have killed the abortionist to prevent them from performing the abortion, or
2: I have killed the mother to keep her from having the abortion.
In the first case, I have only prevented a single abortionist from doing evil, the woman can still go to another abortionist. Meanwhile, I’ll likely be imprisoned, having committed murder. In the second case, I have killed the mother, and in almost all cases will have indirectly killed the child. Again, I will be in prison for murder. You could also argue that I could kill the person applying pressure to the woman, generally a parent or boyfriend. In this case, I have not only committed murder, I have robbed the woman of someone close to them (for better or for worse).

Yes, I agree with all of this. It doesn’t explain, though, why we wouldn’t do something like a peaceful intifada, which might involve things like sabotage or theft. Of course, we would have to restrict our actions to objects that are instrumental in the actual perpetration of the crimes. But that sounds do-able. What are the chances of success? I’m not sure.

But I do know that being heroic and being persecuted for doing so is one of the most powerful witnesses imaginable. I suspect our becoming more active and consistent on this issue would bring a lot of people to the Church.

The argument being made is flawed because there is no logical or moral way to perform the acts they accuse us of being unwilling to perform. To kill for the child would be murder, however justified it may be the legal result would be unproductive to the greater pro-life cause; and there is no real set of circumstances in which I could die for the child. The person making the argument is being intellectually dishonest by claiming that we are wrong because we have not completed an impossible task.

I’m not sure. Please to note: I am getting lambasted here on these forums for merely suggesting that – in the ideal situation where it would effectively save a life without bad political consequences – it would be morally permissible to kill an abortionist. Are these the people you think *really believe *that embryos are people? How can one believe that, and be so nice to the abortionist?

Here’s my comparison. I have friends who don’t eat meat because they “think animals have the same rights as humans.” Whenever they say that, I want to laugh. I mean, come on! If you genuinely thought animals had the same rights as humans, you wouldn’t just not eat meat – you would keep me from eating meat, and you would boycott meat-serving restaurants. These people don’t really believe what they’re saying. Their “moral position” is just an excuse to feel righteous.

I think some pro-lifers, for whatever reason, either don’t have the courage of their convictions, or aren’t really convinced. This seems like a serious problem, to me.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The argument isn’t only flawed; it’s factually incorrect. The argument was:

1. If pro-lifers genuinely believed that an embryo is a person, then they would consider embryos worth killing – or dying – for.
2. Pro-lifers do not consider embryos worth killing** or dying** for.
3. Therefore, pro-lifers do not believe that embryos are people.

There are pro-life advocates who have died to save the life of an unborn child.

Oh, I absolutely agree! It’s not those people that I’m concerned about, in this thread. It’s other people, who seem to think that killing an abortionist is absolutely unthinkable.

Believing that an embryo’s life is worth killing or dying for, and believing that a given set of circumstances warrants either killing or dying to protect that life are two different things.

Agreed.

 

[casslean]

Oh, I absolutely agree! It’s not those people that I’m concerned about, in this thread. It’s other people, who seem to think that killing an abortionist is absolutely unthinkable.

I think in most circumstances, it is unthinkable.

The difficulty is that you are talking about perpetrating one moral wrong to prevent another; the circumstances have to be very narrow for that to be just under Catholic social doctrine (essentially paralleling the “just war” doctrine). I really can’t imagine a situation where it would be morally acceptable to kill a single person where the effect would be negligible in the ability to save the lives under attack.

If we were talking about murdering Hitler in 1941 as the Holocaust was beginning because the murderer knew what his overall plans were for the Jews, that would be different, but there is no parallel situation with respect to abortionists. Murdering a single abortionist does nothing to prevent the death of the lives in question (as there are plenty of other abortionists available) and causes far more harm to the pro-life movement by alienating moderates who would see such action as too extreme.

But, your proposition was that there was a logical flaw in the pro-life position. There is not. It is simply that while the conditions can, and have, existed where pro-life advocates felt compelled to die for the life of an unborn child, the circumstances have not existed where it would be morally just to murder to protect the life of an unborn child.