Can the Pro-Choicer be Rational?

[Wrangler]

This is not how universal health care works, lol. Such systems are government funded, but that doesn't mean that doctors are volunteers, much less slaves. You cannot drag your doctor out of their house at 2am and force them to treat you.

What if doctor's don't want to participate in government run health care?

 

[Silmarien]

What if doctor's don't want to participate in government run health care?

Then they don't need to practice medicine. They're not being drafted and forced into it.

I don't think this is the place for that particular debate, though.

People who are comatose cannot exercise their rights. This means they have no rights in practice.

Yes, they absolutely do. You cannot abuse or murder a comatose person. Many human rights are negative--what cannot be done to you, rather than what you can do.

 

[hedrick]

There's a difference between comatose and brain dead. Someone who is brain dead is considered to be dead.

 

[Wrangler]

Then they don't need to practice medicine. They're not being drafted and forced into it.

I don't think this is the place for that particular debate, though.

You don't see the connection between doctor's not being able to freely practice medicine, not needing to practice medicine as tyranny? The same tyranny over women who are carrying a child against their will?

 

[Silmarien]

You don't see the connection between doctor's not being able to freely practice medicine, not needing to practice medicine as tyranny?

Do you think it's tyranny that police officers and postal carriers have to work for the government? I don't have a problem with the nationalization of the health-care industry--the state certainly has a legitimate interest in public health.

The same tyranny over women who are carrying a child against their will?

I dislike the rhetoric on both sides of the question. I think it's a clear invasion of privacy to criminalize abortion, especially in the first trimester, but I am skeptical of the push to normalize it as just another straight-forward, simple health issue.

 

[Wrangler]

Do you think it's tyranny that police officers and postal carriers have to work for the government?

They applied for a government job. That is not the same as the State seizing control of the free market health care system.

 

[Silmarien]

They applied for a government job. That is not the same as the State seizing control of the free market health care system.

Yes, it is. The idea of a private militia policing a community is not impossible, but the state has a good reason to not allow such a thing. You're not being tyrannized because the government won't allow you to kick out the police in favor of said private militia.

 

[Wrangler]

Yes, it is. The idea of a private militia policing a community is not impossible, but the state has a good reason to not allow such a thing. You're not being tyrannized because the government won't allow you to kick out the police in favor of said private militia.

Private militia? The police are part of the militia. However, the militia is not an apples to apples comparison to free market for violence is inherent in government, health care is not. It shows how desperate you are to ignore the reason of the pro-choice argument.

You are essentially making the argument that since government has some legitimate function, it has the obligation to enslave pregnant women.

 

[Silmarien]

Private militia? The police are part of the militia. However, the militia is not an apples to apples comparison to free market for violence is inherent in government, health care is not. It shows how desperate you are to ignore the reason of the pro-choice argument.

You are essentially making the argument that since government has some legitimate function, it has the obligation to enslave pregnant women.

Could you at least try to keep track of who you're arguing with? I've said multiple times that I think that where abortion is concerned, the privacy issue should supercede legally, at least in the first trimester, but I am an anti-capitalist. I don't want to drag this entirely off-topic, but if you want to conflate this question with the concept of economic freedom, you're going to get objections from those of us who think the free market is inherently abusive.

Neither universal healthcare nor the pro-life position can be legitimately compared to slavery. Frankly, when making this type of comparison, the pro-choice position involves even more serious problems, since an actual human right to abortion would entail a right to compel a doctor to perform one.

 

[Wrangler]

Could you at least try to ...

Neither universal healthcare nor the pro-life position can be legitimately compared to slavery.

Try to at least make an argument and not merely an assertion.

Universal healthcare and the pro-life position is legitimately compared to slavery.

 

[Silmarien]

Try to at least make an argument and not merely an assertion.

Universal healthcare and the pro-life position is legitimately compared to slavery.

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't understand the concept of slavery. Slavery involves human beings being regarded as property, usually in the context of forced labor. If a person is not being forced to practice medicine against their will, then they are not a slave. If a woman is not being forceably impregnated and made to carry the child to term, then she is not a slave. This is true by virtue of the definition of the word slavery.

There are legitimate questions concerning where the balance between state power and individual freedom ought to be, but the state does not enslave someone by denying them the freedom to practice a profession in whatever way they'd like, or even by denying them access to dangerous drugs or controversial medical procedures.

I find the abortion question interesting because of the degree to which a number of ethical and governmental questions converge around it, so I have no problem playing devil's advocate on both sides. I'm not interested in rhetoric, though, so I'll leave you to your anarcho-libertarianism.

 

[Wrangler]

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't understand the concept of slavery. Slavery involves human beings being regarded as property, usually in the context of forced labor.

LOL That's what they call it when a woman give birth - LABOR!

 

[Yekcidmij]

Why do you assume that organisms have "essential properties".

It seems unavoidable. First, do you think organisms have the property of <not-having essential properties> essentially? That would seems self defeating. Secondly, if organisms (or perhaps any object at all?) have only contingent properties, then I think your case is lost since <being non-human> would be a contingent property of organisms in the womb. I think your position may require the unborn of have the essential property of <being non-human>. Otherwise, it would seem then that organisms in the womb can be human lives after all.

This seems like a larger discussion on whether or not objects (of which an unborn is one) have essential properties. It seems as a theist, you would have to think they do since you think there is at least one object with essential properties - namely, God. I also think just on logic alone you'd have to think so too since <being identical to oneself> seems like an essential property all objects have - unless you're ready to reject the property of identity, which would really be quite amazing. So here is a simple argument

(1) All objects have the property of being identical to oneself essentially. [Property of Identity]
(2) The unborn are objects. (Premise)
(3) Therefore, the unborn have the essential property of being identical to oneself.
(4) Therefore, the unborn have at least one essential property (contrary to your claim that they have none)
(5) Therefore, the unborn have essential properties.

 

[SPF]

There are 3 basic reasons to be pro-choice:

1. The human baby does not have a right to its own life.
2. Even if the human baby had a right to its own life, that right would end at the mother's right to her life.
3. Roe v Wade discovered a pregnant woman has the right to privacy, which implies the right to kill so long as no one in government knows about it.

1. I would disagree with this premise as I think the consistent Biblical narrative would be that all human beings are equally created in the image of God and possess equal inherent moral worth and value. We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization and begins a roughly 25 year period of development. Yet at no point in their development are they not a human being. Scripture doesn't discriminate against humans based upon their level of development, I don't see an objective argument that would suggest otherwise.

2. Inherently they both equally have the same right to life.

3. What secular law says or doesn't say has no bearing upon the morality of a subject. The morality of abortion stands or falls based upon our understanding of the nature and worth of the unborn.

Science says nothing at all about this subject, for the simple reason that "new human being" is not a scientific concept -- it has no scientific definition.

Again, you are of course wrong. Science says a lot about this subject. In fact, science has done so much for us in terms of helping us understand when a new human being comes into existence that it has fundamentally shifted the entire abortion debate.

Most current arguments in favor of abortion will employ an attempt at fabricating a distinction between a human being and a human person. Most pro-abortion arguments will acknowledge that a new human being may exist in the womb, but they aren't a human person, and then we'll hear an arbitrary and subjectively made up line at developmental level X in which we can differentiate between the human being and the human person. The assertion will then be that only human person's possess moral worth and value. This of course frees us up to perform what would otherwise be considered immoral acts against human non-persons.

But as Christians, we are able to rely on Scripture for our source of revelation and Truth. We as Christians can see that all human beings are created in the image of God and equally possess inherent moral worth and value. As Christians, we should be engaging in these moral discussions through the lens of trying to understand what brings God the most glory.

As I read back through these pages, and in so many other abortion threads, one would almost not be able to see any difference between an atheist and a Christian by what is written. I personally think there is a problem with that.

 

[sfs]

It seems unavoidable. First, do you think organisms have the property of <not-having essential properties> essentially? That would seems self defeating.

That would seem to be a bizarre view to hold, yes.

Secondly, if organisms (or perhaps any object at all?) have only contingent properties, then I think your case is lost since <being non-human> would be a contingent property of organisms in the womb.

How does that make "my case" lost? (Note: I'm not making a case -- I'm asking you to make one.) I don't even understand what you mean by the terms you're using. Is "bigness" an essential property, for example, or a contingent one?

This seems like a larger discussion on whether or not objects (of which an unborn is one) have essential properties. It seems as a theist, you would have to think they do since you think there is at least one object with essential properties - namely, God.

Woah. If you are conceiving of God as an object commensurable with physical objects, you've already left the bounds of classical Christian theology.

This seems like a larger discussion on whether or not objects (of which an unborn is one) have essential properties. It seems as a theist, you would have to think they do since you think there is at least one object with essential properties - namely, God. I also think just on logic alone you'd have to think so too since <being identical to oneself> seems like an essential property all objects have - unless you're ready to reject the property of identity, which would really be quite amazing. So here is a simple argument

(1) All objects have the property of being identical to oneself essentially. [Property of Identity]
(2) The unborn are objects. (Premise)
(3) Therefore, the unborn have the essential property of being identical to oneself.
(4) Therefore, the unborn have at least one essential property (contrary to your claim that they have none)
(5) Therefore, the unborn have essential properties.

This seems like an extended exercise in equivocation on the meaning of "property". No, I don't think being identical to oneself is a property that inheres in objects; it's just a restatement of whatever definition you're using for "object" here.

 

[sfs]

Again, you are of course wrong.

Again, you have of course made an assertion without backing it up at all.

Science says a lot about this subject. In fact, science has done so much for us in terms of helping us understand when a new human being comes into existence that it has fundamentally shifted the entire abortion debate.

Great. Please cite the relevant papers in the scientific literature that tell us what constitutes a "human being".

 

[SPF]

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. 1974 Pages 17 and 23.

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.” James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

 

[SPF]

The question of when human life begins has been answered in a variety of ways by different religious and philosophical traditions throughout the ages, leading many to conclude the question cannot be definitively answered. Yet what does science tell us about when life begins?[1] One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.

The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.

Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.

What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)."

Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.

 

[Yekcidmij]

No, I don't think being identical to oneself is a property that inheres in objects;

So on your view objects don't have the property of being identical to themselves. That sounds incoherent and absurd.

Properties (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Woah. If you are conceiving of God as an object commensurable with physical objects, you've already left the bounds of classical Christian theology.

Who said all objects are physical?