Can the Pro-Choicer be Rational?

[zippy2006]

It is a potentially unavoidable and uncontrollable reality, though. Abstinence isn't going to save you if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, or if you have an abusive boyfriend who isn't inclined to wait any longer. This isn't a non-issue because it's relatively rare; any woman could be that unfortunate <1%.

So you really do need to grant that the violinist argument is potentially analogous. From there, you can either find a different reason to reject it (though I am unaware of any), or grant the rape exception as fully legitimate. Once you do that, though, you are on increasingly shaky footing.

(I'm sorry, I know you don't like the topic of sexual assault, but when it comes to the topic of abortion, it's not irrelevant. You really can't ignore it and end up with a consistent and rational pro-life position.)

Silmarien: Abortion is analogous to the violinist scenario.
Zippy: The violinist scenario is not analogous because it omits responsibility.
Silmarien: Rape--which constitutes less than 1% of all pregnancies--also omits responsibility. Therefore they are analogous.
Zippy: When one thing is disanalogous to something else 99% of the time, and analogous 1% of the time, it is not analogous on the whole. You are characteristically conflating an exception with a rule.

The rape exception does obtain in the context of this logic. That is to say, someone who accepts the soundness of the violinist argument must also accept exceptions in the case of rape.

No, the problem is that if responsibility is a genuine factor, then it follows that it's more acceptable to abort a fetus that is the product of rape than one that is not. This is what undermines the idea of human dignity--it should not be variant from one fetus to another. The circumstances of your conception should not matter.

The fact that some factor increases the weight of an argument does not mean that the unweighted argument is impotent. Not every factor needs to be a necessary condition.

Everyone can agree that a pregnancy caused by rape is more tragic than an unwanted pregnancy caused by consensual sex. Most can probably also agree that the subjective culpability of an abortion is lesser in the first case than in the second. That doesn't in itself entail that the act of abortion is permissible in either case.

It seems to me that the violinist argument depends heavily on the omission of responsibility, thus producing a kind of strawman. Perhaps that factor of responsibility is not necessary to conclude with the categorical impermissibility of abortion, but the significant disparity strikes me as problematic. Regarding the political question, there is a spectrum of views. Different people view the issue differently, and it seems to me that by omitting the responsibility that obtains 99% of the time one is doing a disservice to truth and is lessening the gravity of the act in the public opinion (by mere sophistry). Admitting the fact that responsibility obtains in 99% of the cases will not cause pro-lifers to abandon the rape cases. Responsibility is only one piece of the puzzle. Other pieces address the rape case. And like I said before, responsibility is more of a counter argument than a primary argument.

I think the question of responsibility breaks down for other reasons as well, though. If a person had sex and contracted HIV, would you deny them medical treatment on the grounds that it was their own fault? What if someone decides to go hiking in the mountains and gets lost in a blizzard? We do normally prefer to rescue people from the consequences of their bad decisions, so the argument from responsibility isn't convincing.

Responsibility need not be all-encompassing in order to be a factor. Suppose there are two people with HIV who arrive for medical treatment. The first had unprotected sex and contracted HIV. The second was accosted by an HIV needle at a gas station pump. The two people are otherwise identical in every way and you only have the medical resources to treat one of them. Who do you treat?

Again, the problem is that the violinist argument conflates 1% of cases with 99% of cases in order to lessen the gravity of the act. That is shoddy, deceptive philosophy.

Yeah, I can imagine, haha. The rhetoric is really dripping with subjectivism these days--my choice, whatever it is, is the correct one. I'm a lot more liberal than you are, but this is increasingly an issue for me too.

I don't know how you can legislate around it, though. My position used to be pretty radical and terrible, so I can say that genuine freedom is submission of a sort, and the perceived freedom to think that anything is good is really destruction, but I don't see how I can make that decision for anyone else. This is the major issue where two worldviews collide, and there are obviously very big questions about what the government in a pluralistic society should do when that occurs.

What would you say are the primary principles underlying each side?

 

[RaymondG]

There are "pro-choicer" who are against abortion......but are also against the taking away of free will or legal liberties. They dont analyze and judge the choices made by others and try and come up with convincing arguments why not to do things. "I believe it is morally wrong, and my interpretation of the bible agrees with me," is enough. No need to bring in science and text books or pull emotional strings using heartbreaking outliers. The truth is the truth and can stand on its own.....no need for stats....because the same stats that seem to help you now.....can harm you later.... The same science you use to support you now, and be used to disprove your bible later.

So asking if we could abort a human life in the stages of zygote, embryo, or fetus is really equivalent to asking if we could abort a human life in any of the other stages of human development.

I agree, asking to abort is the same as asking to end an adult life right? We have stats that show gun violence is increasing in the US and the number of adults dying from them is increasing.... Would you advocate the taking away of the, now, legal liberty to own a gun from all americans? You say that their life is the same as the fertilized egg....and we have a weapon to end that life..... are you ok with taking that liberty away from all men, just like you are willing to take away the liberty to abort the fertilized egg? abortion is the weapon that kills the embryo...... Gun is the weapon that kills the adult. Abortion rates are decreasing in the US.....Gun Violence is increasing..... Are you willing to fight to remove the liberty to own the gun, just like you are willing to fight to remove the liberty to abort?

I am against gun violence......but I do not wish to force others to abide by my beliefs......I am against abortion......but i do not wish to force others to abide by my belief. I am ok with telling all what I believe is right, but stop at trying to force them to do it by law or condemnation.....for i do not wish for my liberties to be taken away be others of differing beliefs. Is that ok?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Why do you assume that being human is a) an ontological status,

I would be interested in hearing your reasons why humans are non-beings...

b) a binary ontological status

Not sure what a "binary ontological status" is. Please define.

 

[Silmarien]

Silmarien: Abortion is analogous to the violinist scenario.
Zippy: The violinist scenario is not analogous because it omits responsibility.
Silmarien: Rape--which constitutes less than 1% of all pregnancies--also omits responsibility. Therefore they are analogous.
Zippy: When one thing is disanalogous to something else 99% of the time, and analogous 1% of the time, it is not analogous on the whole. You are characteristically conflating an exception with a rule.

The rape exception does obtain in the context of this logic. That is to say, someone who accepts the soundness of the violinist argument must also accept exceptions in the case of rape.

I don't actually conflate exceptions with rules. I'm a moral absolutist--if a rule breaks down over an exception, then it is not really a rule. That is why I take this approach so often; if you need to change your moral reasoning to get around an exception, then I think something was wrong with the reasoning in the first place.

In this case, I think we both agree that rape does not make abortion morally acceptable. We both now also seem to agree that if one's only objection to the violinist argument is the issue of responsibility, then one ought to accept the rape exception. I'm pushing you on this issue because you presumably do not, which means that the argument still has force against you if you don't have other objections against it.

Do you have other objections? (Though honestly, as we've seen in Apologetics, just presenting and trying to shoot down arguments is probably the wrong way to go. What is the argument trying to demonstrate might be the better question to ask. )

The fact that some factor increases the weight of an argument does not mean that the unweighted argument is impotent. Not every factor needs to be a necessary condition.

Everyone can agree that a pregnancy caused by rape is more tragic than an unwanted pregnancy caused by consensual sex. Most can probably also agree that the subjective culpability of an abortion is lesser in the first case than in the second. That doesn't in itself entail that the act of abortion is permissible in either case.

It seems to me that the violinist argument depends heavily on the omission of responsibility, thus producing a kind of strawman. Perhaps that factor of responsibility is not necessary to conclude with the categorical impermissibility of abortion, but the significant disparity strikes me as problematic. Regarding the political question, there is a spectrum of views. Different people view the issue differently, and it seems to me that by omitting the responsibility that obtains 99% of the time one is doing a disservice to truth and is lessening the gravity of the act in the public opinion (by mere sophistry). Admitting the fact that responsibility obtains in 99% of the cases will not cause pro-lifers to abandon the rape cases. Responsibility is only one piece of the puzzle. Other pieces address the rape case. And like I said before, responsibility is more of a counter argument than a primary argument.

Yes, and I would be interested in the primary arguments, not the counter arguments. I've been pointing out where the counter argument fails, because it's obvious that it does in certain contexts, but the fact of the matter is that I would reject it in all cases.

I just don't think responsibility matters at all here. I don't see how sexual activity automatically entails moral responsibility here--it seems like you're falling afoul of a version of the is/ought distinction and jumping directly from causality to moral responsibility. Perhaps that is valid, but it would require a more detailed analysis of ethics and sexuality, and would likely involve a number of axioms that the argument doesn't share.

You and I have different approaches to ethics, I think. I've noticed this before--you seem to be more oriented towards natural law (though if I'm wrong about that, correct me), whereas I am more categorical imperative, so the notion of variant gradients of moral responsibility does not register for me. As I said before, I see that responsibility as absolute in both the case of the fetus and in the case of the hypothetical violinist. (This is why the question of moral vs. legal duties is so important to me, because if the full extent of moral duties were legally enforced, we would all be in prison.)

Responsibility need not be all-encompassing in order to be a factor. Suppose there are two people with HIV who arrive for medical treatment. The first had unprotected sex and contracted HIV. The second was accosted by an HIV needle at a gas station pump. The two people are otherwise identical in every way and you only have the medical resources to treat one of them. Who do you treat?

Whoever walked in first.

Honestly, it'd be pretty dark for doctors to start administering medication based on merit.

What would you say are the primary principles underlying each side?

Oh, the biggest underlying issue is most certainly autonomy. The secular humanist worldview seeks to place the self as the highest authority, often with a focus on emancipation as the ideal to aspire to. I've noticed this in the way atheists talk about God at times: it would be a betrayal of the self to submit even if he does exist. (It's Enlightenment thinking, sometimes with a touch of Romanticism--I was always more the latter, misinterpreted Milton and all.)

Bodily autonomy is of course sacrosanct, and perhaps it makes sense that it would trump sanctity of life or human dignity as the highest ideals--neither really makes sense on a materialistic metaphysics, so whatever ethical framework you can build on it is going to be different.

I think those are the biggest differences, since secular humanism obviously inherited a fair amount of ideas from Christian humanism.

 

[sfs]

I would be interested in hearing your reasons why humans are non-beings...

Should I ever make the claim that humans are non-beings, I'll be sure to tell you the reasons.

Not sure what a "binary ontological status" is. Please define.

It means there are only two possible statuses: human and non-human. One alternative is that humanness exists on a continuum.

 

[Yekcidmij]

One alternative is that humanness exists on a continuum.

I'm not sure why one would think that.

 

[Robert6671]

I agree that the pro-choice position is very weak, and that is why they are slowly but continually losing ground. It also explains why there is no consensus pro-choice position.

(The academic near-equivalent of your parasite example is Judith Thomson's violinist argument.)

No its not...banning abortion does not stop it. There are plants...that are legal that and induce abortion. You can order abortion pills. They can have it shipped privately like Sexual enhancement pills. They are shipped so that know one but the receiver knows what they are getting. If you have money you will simply go to a state or country were is legal. And its not that there losing ground..they are just starting to ignore you. You see you can not force your RELIGIOUS OR MORAL BELIEVES ONTO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING!!!! And that is what it is about. And the bible does not consider the unborn child a human being. If a man causes a woman to miscarriage he must pay a fine. If he takes her life he is to put to death. But all of that aside, not everyone is Christian, only 2 billion out of 7 billion people claim to be Christian, I say claim because a good number of so called Christians are hypocrites and do not follow Christs teachings. But in what fantasy world do you or many Christian live in were you think your beliefs and moral should control they rights beliefs and moral of the rest of the planet.

 

[rainingviolets]

Consider this:
I was told that the baby I was carrying was severely deformed and was encouraged to abort her. My husband and I were shown ultrasound photos showing that her intestines were outside of her body, there was a hole in her kidney, along with other defects. We were told she would be a mental and physical "vegetable" if she survived birth. We had other tests taken at a large hospital and told the same thing. The long heartbreaking journey we endured for several months where we refused to abort our daughter ended in the birth of a PERFECTLY HEALTHY BEAUTIFUL BABY GIRL. That girl had an almost photographic memory. While other children memorized Bible verses, she memorized entire books of the the Bible. She graduated as the valedictorian of her high school class, receiving along the way all kinds of academic, music, and speech awards. Today she a doctor - a pediatric specialist - helping babies born with developmental birth defects. What if we had listened and aborted that incredible young woman?

 

[sfs]

I'm not sure why one would think that.

I'm not sure why one would think otherwise. I'm pretty sure it's your job to give me some reason to think otherwise -- you were the one who started by making the assumption that humanness is a binary ontological status. I'm asking you to provide some justification for that assumption.

 

[RaymondG]

Consider this:
I was told that the baby I was carrying was severely deformed and was encouraged to abort her. My husband and I were shown ultrasound photos showing that her intestines were outside of her body, there was a hole in her kidney, along with other defects. We were told she would be a mental and physical "vegetable" if she survived birth. We had other tests taken at a large hospital and told the same thing. The long heartbreaking journey we endured for several months where we refused to abort our daughter ended in the birth of a PERFECTLY HEALTHY BEAUTIFUL BABY GIRL. That girl had an almost photographic memory. While other children memorized Bible verses, she memorized entire books of the the Bible. She graduated as the valedictorian of her high school class, receiving along the way all kinds of academic, music, and speech awards. Today she a doctor - a pediatric specialist - helping babies born with developmental birth defects. What if we had listened and aborted that incredible young woman?

Do you believe that the gifts this woman has is because of the body she is in and/or the training and upbringing she received? Or is it in the spirit that is in her? If the spirit....... do you feel that the spirit has a contract with only one body...and if this body is killed, the spirit is as well?.....or will never experience life, when abortion is concerned? Or is it possible that, when one house is destroyed, that same spirit can wait for the next house to be build and experience life in the next?

I understand the thought that the parents would have missed out on the opportunity to raise this wonderful child.......an opportunity given to another set of parents. I do not understand the thought that women can control which spirits get to receive bodies and which do not....

 

[Yekcidmij]

I'm not sure why one would think otherwise. I'm pretty sure it's your job to give me some reason to think otherwise -- you were the one who started by making the assumption that humanness is a binary ontological status. I'm asking you to provide some justification for that assumption.

I don't believe in a continuum of humanness, as you put it, simply because I see no reason to do so, which is why I asked you for reasons and a definition for your position. So the only alternative seems to be "binary," to use your term, which seems to match with simple observation. You're either human or you're not. I wouldn't know how to non-arbitrarily place things on a continuum of humanness, how transitions within or into/out of this continuum were supposed to work, what sort of being one transitions into or out of when transitioning in/out of the human continuum, qualities and characteristics of this continuum, etc... If I'm transitioning toward the low human-end of the continuum, what am I becoming? A jungle cat? A tree? And if I'm on the high-human end of this continuum, what am I transitioning into? A deity? A rock?

In short, it's hard for me to contrast my position with a position of yours that you refuse to define. I don't know why I'm obligated to defend a position against something so vague.

In addition to offering a definition of a term you threw on the table, I think you ought to have warrant for your position too. I don't think the fact that I made this thread means you're off the epistemic hook.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I don't believe in a continuum of humanness, as you put it, simply because I see no reason to do so, which is why I asked you for reasons and a definition for your position. So the only alternative seems to be "binary," to use your term, which seems to match with simple observation. You're either human or you're not. I wouldn't know how to non-arbitrarily place things on a continuum of humanness, how transitions within or into/out of this continuum were supposed to work, what sort of being one transitions into or out of when transitioning in/out of the human continuum, qualities and characteristics of this continuum, etc... If I'm transitioning toward the low human-end of the continuum, what am I becoming? A jungle cat? A tree? And if I'm on the high-human end of this continuum, what am I transitioning into? A deity? A rock?

In short, it's hard for me to contrast my position with a position of yours that you refuse to define. I don't know why I'm obligated to defend a position against something so vague.

In addition to offering a definition of a term you threw on the table, I think you ought to have warrant for your position too. I don't think the fact that I made this thread means you're off the epistemic hook.

I think what we're about to see, if these replies continue going back and forth, is that for the pro-choicer, determining the ontological status of the pre-born isn't so easy. SFS has put forward some sort of, as yet undefined, Continuum Hypothesis (my term) of humanity. Apparently, he is prepared to attempt to argue that there is some threshold on [I suppose] the lower end of the spectrum, below which it becomes morally permissible to kill the low-level-human. But there are quite a few questions that follow.

First, we need a good definition of what this Continuum is exactly. See some of my above questions

Second, we need to know more about this moral threshold, below which killing becomes morally permissible. Is this some sort of absolute threshold or is this some sort of relative threshold? If it's absolute, how is one's position within the Continuum determined? If it's relative, relative to what? Relative to each other (so would it be morally permissible to kill anyone some significantly lower distance on the spectrum than oneself)? Relative to each other's values? What would determine these and why?....

Third, why would it be morally permissible to kill anyone anywhere on this spectrum for any reason? Doesn't this Continuum Hypothesis seem to just beg the questions in the OP? Whether or not humanity is a "continuum" of being or a "binary" of being (sfs's terms), the ethical questions haven't just magically disappeared.

Here I make a further argument I will label the Augment from Caution. Given that we're talking about such a severe action as snuffing out the life of some organism that could be fully human, as the pro-lifer says, or even partially human, as SFS seems to imply, wouldn't it be better to prohibit abortion until we could determine that the organism in question was not only not human at all, but not lifeworthy whatsoever? For example, my dog isn't human at all, but is clearly lifeworthy. It would be morally impermissible for me to kill my dog just because I got tired of feeding him or just because the poor guy is a dog.

It seems that given the severity of the activity and a high potential to be wrong, the pro-choicer should exercise prudence, and opt for a general prohibition of abortion and not permission. There's a really good chance you're wrong and are killing a human being (even if it's only a low-quality/level/life-human), in which case you've committed a serious moral offense. I would think that it must be determined prior to execution that the thing in question wasn't lifeworthy in any sense, and so take a prudent sort of innocent until proven guilty approach. The pro-choicer would seem to opt for guilty until proven innocent approach - it's morally permissible to kill the organism until it's proven lifeworthy.

 

[sfs]

I don't believe in a continuum of humanness, as you put it, simply because I see no reason to do so,

That's not an argument -- you've given no reason to think that "humanness" is a valid ontological category (as opposed to, say, a category we choose to assign), nor a reason why a binary category should be the default.

So the only alternative seems to be "binary," to use your term, which seems to match with simple observation. You're either human or you're not.

That doesn't match my simple observation. To me, a fertilized egg doesn't look anything like a human, especially since it may well develop into two humans. Is a fertilized egg that produces twins two different humans, based on your simple observation?

I wouldn't know how to non-arbitrarily place things on a continuum of humanness, how transitions within or into/out of this continuum were supposed to work, what sort of being one transitions into or out of when transitioning in/out of the human continuum, qualities and characteristics of this continuum, etc.

And I don't know how to do the same things with a binary category of humanness. As a sperm enters an egg, how is the transition to a new ontological status supposed to occur? When, exactly? How can you non-arbitrarily place that point?

If I'm transitioning toward the low human-end of the continuum, what am I becoming?

I believe the words are "embryo" and "fetus".

In short, it's hard for me to contrast my position with a position of yours that you refuse to define.

I don't have a position; I don't know whether abortion is necessarily wrong or not. I'm looking for a coherent argument in favor of one side or the other that would help me decide.

 

[Yekcidmij]

That's not an argument

Of course it is. I'm not required to epistemically ascent to something when simple observation tells me otherwise.

-- you've given no reason to think that "humanness" is a valid ontological category (as opposed to, say, a category we choose to assign), nor a reason why a binary category should be the default.

I've given a very good reason: simple observation. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but you asked for a reason, not for persuasion. Also a "category you choose to assign" is quite arbitrary.

That doesn't match my simple observation.

Ok. I suppose I'm sorry you don't see the obvious.

To me, a fertilized egg doesn't look anything like a human, especially since it may well develop into two humans.

Didn't you just admit it develops into at least one human? That would seem to qualify as human life.

Is a fertilized egg that produces twins two different humans, based on your simple observation?

I'm not sure why the number of humans produced matters. A zygote that develops into more than one person still seems to be human life in a particular stage of development. If left alone, the organism continues the line of human development. It doesn't turn into a tree or a cat.

And I don't know how to do the same things with a binary category of humanness. As a sperm enters an egg, how is the transition to a new ontological status supposed to occur? When, exactly? How can you non-arbitrarily place that point?

I would think there is a transition from egg and sperm as separate organisms to human life when those organisms combine and can be observed as that combination follows the course of human development (rather than the respective stages of development of the sperm or egg independently). I don't see how that's arbitrary.

I believe the words are "embryo" and "fetus".

Which are simply stages of development, not the being of the organism. "Embryo" and "Fetus" are simply contingent properties of the organism, not essential properties.

I don't have a position; I don't know whether abortion is necessarily wrong or not. I'm looking for a coherent argument in favor of one side or the other that would help me decide.

Ok, fair enough.

 

[Silmarien]

Here I make a further argument I will label the Augment from Caution. Given that we're talking about such a severe action as snuffing out the life of some organism that could be fully human, as the pro-lifer says, or even partially human, as SFS seems to imply, wouldn't it be better to prohibit abortion until we could determine that the organism in question was not only not human at all, but not lifeworthy whatsoever? For example, my dog isn't human at all, but is clearly lifeworthy. It would be morally impermissible for me to kill my dog just because I got tired of feeding him or just because the poor guy is a dog.

It seems that given the severity of the activity and a high potential to be wrong, the pro-choicer should exercise prudence, and opt for a general prohibition of abortion and not permission. There's a really good chance you're wrong and are killing a human being (even if it's only a low-quality/level/life-human), in which case you've committed a serious moral offense. I would think that it must be determined prior to execution that the thing in question wasn't lifeworthy in any sense, and so take a prudent sort of innocent until proven guilty approach. The pro-choicer would seem to opt for guilty until proven innocent approach - it's morally permissible to kill the organism until it's proven lifeworthy.

I've been reformulating my admittedly convoluted stance since you posted this thread, and I was considering precisely this type of argument earlier today. I don't think it's quite as straight-forward as you've written it out here, given the nature of the situation. (Forgive my consciously Kantian analysis here, but I think it is the clearest framework, and the one that best demonstrates the dilemma at hand.)

If you are pregnant, then given the severity of the activity and the high potential to be wrong, I would agree that the best option would be to refrain from having an abortion. The only two potential people in this situation are yourself and the fetus, and you violate neither your own nor the fetus's theoretical dignity by voluntarily carrying it to term. You are risking violating its dignity by refusing to do so. The correct moral choice here is simple.

If you are a third party, such as the government, it is significantly less simple. Killing the fetus is certainly a potentially terrible moral decision. Stripping the woman of her dignity by transforming her into a human incubator is, however, is also a terrible moral decision. I would not want to make that one and be wrong about it. So is the correct decision the one that avoids a potentially terrible moral act, or the one that avoids a known terrible moral act?

My frustration with this argument is that neither side truly wishes to address the other half of the moral equation. Pro-choicers are intent on redefining humanity in a way that really does concern me, and pro-lifers are so intent upon the moral duties that pregnant women have that they ignore the duties that they have towards pregnant women. Can one truly judge between the relative value of the two moral duties? I would say that the duty to not treat a human being as a means to an end is absolute in both cases, and that whichever way you choose, one party is dehumanized completely. This makes the question look completely unsolvable in legal terms, at least if one is looking for the perfect moral solution. (Though can governments act morally? Perhaps at the government level, a form of consequentialism is preferable. I am not sure.)

I do think the balance of interests is clearly in the fetus's favor when induced labor becomes a viable option, which is obviously extremely relevant in the case of late-term abortion for disabilities. I don't know how to solve the calculus before then, though. For myself, should the situation arise, I have no problem accepting that there is only one genuine choice, but as a third party, what responsibility do I have when separate rights and duties collide? To seek to provide for alternatives, probably, and perhaps to address the causes behind abortion (economic, social, as well as what appears to be increasingly bad moral reasoning on the part of the pro-choice movement), but beyond that... I am not convinced.

 

[SPF]

That doesn't match my simple observation. To me, a fertilized egg doesn't look anything like a human

This of course is actually non-sense, and is a typical thought process made by pro-choice advocates.

A new human being comes into existence at fertilization and begins a roughly 25 year process of development. Does an embryo looks like a fetus? No. Does a fetus look like a toddler? No. Does a toddler look like a teenager? No. Yet at no point during our development are we not a human being. In fact, at each stage of our development we look exactly like what a human being is supposed to look like.

The science on when a new human being comes into existence is fairly settled at this point. The current abortion argument is not actually about when a new human being comes into existence, it actually can't be anymore thanks to science.

What has happened is there has been a shift from science to philosophy. People argue "personhood". Pro-choice advocates will declare that only human persons possess moral worth and value, not human beings! Then they'll draw an arbitrary and subjective line between the human being and human person. We know this line is subjective because there is no objective way to define it. We also see a myriad of positions on it, based upon whatever suits the arguer. First trimester, second trimester, third trimester, heart beat, ability to feel pain, neural activity, viability, or even birth - all subjective and arbitrary lines.

And why do we insist on making these arbitrary and subjective lines? Simple, because people want to justify immoral acts.

“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)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“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)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

 

[Wrangler]

As a somewhat Kantian ethicist, this is my position:

It is always immoral to treat another human being as a means to an end.

I had to laugh at this naive post for humans almost ALWAYS treat other humans as a means to an end! A friend asked me yesterday to accompany him to a meeting tonight because he wanted company. My wife asked me the day before "to help" her pull her cell phone charger out of the wall because she wanted to stow it. My boss asked me to provide a quote to a customer because that is how we get more business and profits.

 

[Wrangler]

At the most fundamental level, everything seems to rest on the assumptions about the ontological status of the unborn. Is the unborn baby a human life? ...


(Also, this was a little stream-of-consciousness, so please disregard spelling and grammar errors)

Yes, the OP was a stream-of-consciousness. Given that you start off asking the inflammatory question, "Can the Pro-Choicer be Rational?" you did not demonstrate much yourself beyond rationalizing and asserting superiority. 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.

The reason the baby does not have a right to its own life is that rights pertain to actual moral agents. Recent studies suggest the human brain is not fully formed until 25 years of age. Certainly an unborn is not only NOT a rational choice maker, it is no kind of choice maker. Sure, I concede the human baby has the potential to one day be a moral agent. However, potential is not actual.

Even if the human baby had rights, no one's rights extend to the point of making another a slave. Just because the mother's slavery is short lived, < 9 months after finding out she is pregnant, changes nothing.

Regarding the right to privacy; the mother is the primary protector of the unborn. If she is against it, it has no chance to survive. How do you propose government protect rights of a person it does not know even exists?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Yes, the OP was a stream-of-consciousness.

Thanks for the affirmation.

There are 3 basic reasons to be pro-choice:

1. The human baby does not have a right to its own life

The reason the baby does not have a right to its own life is that rights pertain to actual moral agents. Recent studies suggest the human brain is not fully formed until 25 years of age.

I found the premise interesting. I would have probably said that rights apply to human lives, rather than specifying moral agents, since the right to life seems to me connected to the fact of life rather than the capability of moral decision making. Do you think there are moral agents that just aren't human lives? Or do you think there are human lives that aren't moral agents? In the case that there are human lives that are denied a right to life because they can't be considered moral agents, then I'm not clear what constitutes a moral agent or why, and I'm not clear on what age 25 has to do with this. Are you implying that people aren't fully moral agents until age 25? Are there degrees of moral agency?

I would have also considered the probability that a right to life is feature of nature and so a moral constraint on others rather than a property of moral agents.

Certainly an unborn is not only NOT a rational choice maker, it is no kind of choice maker.

I'm not sure this is justification for being able to kill the life though. We could easily think of other situations where a person isn't a rational choice maker, for whatever reason. I could think of several mental conditions where a person wouldn't be a rational choice maker, yet I think you would be hard pressed to say it was therefore morally permissible to kill them.

Additionally, I'm not so sure that at some point an unborn baby doesn't become a rational choice maker while in the womb. Sure, it wouldn't be making rational choices in the same way as a 26 year old (making sure we get over that 25 year old hump), but it will make rational choices such as attempting to avoid the needles of abortion doctors. It seems that the unborn baby is capable of at least some minimal rational choices that are observable at least when it comes to it's own survival. The unborn in this case certainly behaves in such a way that suggests that it thinks it has a right to life. And though it may be minimal in rational choices, it does seem to be able to make at least one key rational decision regarding it's own life - avoid the needle.

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.

Even if the human baby had rights, no one's rights extend to the point of making another a slave. Just because the mother's slavery is short lived, < 9 months after finding out she is pregnant, changes nothing.

I find it pretty unpersuasive and quite a stretch that biological reproduction is akin to slavery. I think you may be able to argue that in such cases as rape and the life of the mother that it's more akin to slavery, but assuming copulation was consensual, I'm just not clear on how this is slavery. Is it slavery because the mother is restricted in some ways? It seems human reproduction is just a natural process of human evolution and is no more enslaving than other natural processes. I wouldn't consider myself enslaved just because I'm restricted from leaping tall buildings in a single bound. I would think I'm just bound by the laws of nature just as much as biological reproduction binds us.

I'm also not clear on why these conditions would be restricted to pre-birth rather than just after and up to some years after birth, perhaps even up to age 25 (or maybe even 27 considering what insurance allows). It seems that a baby just out of the birth canal is no less dependent on the mother, and dependent in such a way that places some sorts of restrictions on the mother.

Do you think it could be successfully argued that since the normal reproduction process is slavery, and that since slavery is immoral, then reproduction ought to be prohibited?

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.

I doubt the right to privacy implies the right to kill so long as the government doesn't know about it. I'm also not sure what you mean by "right to kill," and I'm not sure that killing is morally permissible so long as it's not known by the government. Would I have a right to kill my neighbor so long as I'm not caught? And if I were caught for killing someone, why would that imply I didn't have the right in the first place?

And just a little semantics here, but I'm not sure that the Supreme Court discovers anything so much as offers an opinion. In fact, they called it an opinion, not a discovery.

Regarding the right to privacy; the mother is the primary protector of the unborn.

Is a protector a slave? I'm not sure how one goes from enslaved to protector.

How do you propose government protect rights of a person it does not know even exists?

I would suppose in the same sort of manner that it does with other person's rights even if the government doesn't know of their existence. I don't think a persons rights are dependent on what the government knows or doesn't know, and I'm not sure that just because a government can't protect everyone's rights all the time that it shouldn't recognize those rights all the same and protect them in some sensible, albeit imperfect, manner. If the government is to have any purpose, then among it's chief purposes is to ensure the rights of the people.

Are you suggesting here that if the government does come to know about rights violations that it is ok to do something about it? So if indeed the unborn had their natural rights violated in an abortion, and the government knows about it, then it is permissible for the government to act? For example, the government knows of Planned Parenthood clinics. So if a rights violation is occurring, would the government be justified in shutting down the clinics and penalizing doctors?

Government obviously can't enforce rights protection of people if it doesn't know about it, for whatever reason, be it because they don't know about the people themselves or because they are unaware of the action that's taken place. But I don't know that means that there shouldn't be some sort of rights protection in the case they do discover the violations.

 

[sfs]

Of course it is. I'm not required to epistemically ascent to something when simple observation tells me otherwise.

You're not required to do anything. But if you want to present an argument for the truth of something, especially to those who disagree with you, "It looks true to me" is not an argument.

I've given a very good reason: simple observation.

And I've given exactly the same argument: simple observation. Your question was whether the pro-choice position could be rational or not. So according to you, it is.

Didn't you just admit it develops into at least one human?

I stated (not admitted -- try to avoid tendentious language if you actually want to engage people who disagree with you, rather than just feel superior to them) that fertilized eggs sometimes result in one human, sometimes two, and sometimes less than one.

I'm not sure why the number of humans produced matters. A zygote that develops into more than one person still seems to be human life in a particular stage of development. If left alone, the organism continues the line of human development.

The same is true of an egg and sperm. Moreover, why is the normal process of development the basis fro deciding whether something is human or not. If we clone a human from a cell, or carry out in vitro fertilization, are you arguing that the resulting products aren't human?

I would think there is a transition from egg and sperm as separate organisms to human life when those organisms combine and can be observed as that combination follows the course of human development (rather than the respective stages of development of the sperm or egg independently).

You didn't answer the question. Fertilization is a process, not an event. Where in that process does the human start existing?

Which are simply stages of development, not the being of the organism. "Embryo" and "Fetus" are simply contingent properties of the organism, not essential properties.

And here we get to the assumption that I've been asking you to support, and the one you keep evading. Why do you assume that organisms have "essential properties". If you're going to appeal to science when it comes to abortion, the most important thing you should learn is that species aren't things with essential properties. They are human-defined groupings, often with fuzzy boundaries. What I've been asking all along is why you think there is such a thing as an essential property of being human. I see no reason to think so, and you haven't given me one.