bd-from-kg

echoes:

More nonsense. Of course it matters why some people aren’t being fed. For example, Christians in southern Sudan are being systematically starved by the Sudanese government. How will adding more people in other places hurt the situation? Please try to think rationally.

I don’t.

In the first place, Nazism wasn’t the main ideology I had in mind. Communism has been responsible for killing far more people that Nazism, and unlike Nazism, which is pretty much defunct, Communism and its close cousins are still very much alive and kicking.

And your original statement was that it “may have to come to that at some point”, meaning that the point might be reached where it is necessary to kill a lot of people. None of the Nazi or Communist murders were necessary, or even desirable, any more than killing thousands of people at the World Trade Center was necessary or desirable.

Danya

bd-from-kg

All of this has an obvious bearing on the abortion question. Legalizing abortion is not designed to protect the unborn child;

But, in some cases, it has to do with why a woman chooses to get an abortion rather than raise a child that she knows will go hungry, be abused, or otherwise be born and grow up unwanted or unloved.

If you want to discuss what signifies a human being or when a life begins than maybe you could direct your attention to the IVF thread that was started a few days ago but has died out. I would like to hear your views on that subject.

tronvillain

bd-from-kg:

Yes, a fertilized human egg is a distinct complete organism of the species Homo sapiens, and it is a member of the species Homo sapiens, but the latter does not follow from the former. An organism does not have to be distinct or complete to be a member of a species, but simply being distinct and complete does not make an organism a member of a species. For example, a human heart is complete and distinct, but it is not a member of the species Homo sapiens - something can be human without being a human being.

So, what does it mean to be a member of a species? An organism has to be a relatively complete example of a given developmental stage of the species. It can get a little fuzzy, since you can potentially slice away a lot of an organism and still consider it a member of the species, but the brain (assuming there is one) seems to be considered important.

Actually, we're talking about whether a given human being is a human being in the sense of being a member of the species Homo sapiens or a human being in the sense of being a person. Since we potentially assign different values to different things, level of development is a relevant consideration (an example of this is the difference between a fertilized chicken egg and an adult chicken). Now, it's possible that despite things having different values we will choose to protect them equally, but an argument has to be made for this.

You talked a lot about what the "rights" of children, but where do they get those rights? Well, adults value children highly (often more than other adults, especially their own children) so they give them those rights and enforce them. If adults didn't value children, then it is quite likely that children wouldn't have any rights at all. This applies directly to a fertilized egg - if people don't value it, then it probably won't have any rights.

Your argument appears to amount to asserting that people should value a fertilized egg, so they should give it rights. This is not a compelling argument.

Jerry Smith

To bd-from-kg

Hello. I must begin by saying that I admire your dedication to the principal of right to life.

You and others have rightly subordinated the general right to choice to the general right to life. There are some points on which I think those who hold "pro-choice" opinions (ones who think that abortion should not be restricted on terms X) have a reason to differ with you.

1) Definition of human being:
My first question is whether it is proper to identify the moral concept of human being on a one to one relationship with the scientific concept of homo sapiens. I don't think that anyone here would argue with you that after birth this one to one relationship exists, but that is not necessarily enough to prove that a zygote must be included in a moral conception of what a human being is. The zygote definitely meets the definition of homo sapiens, but must a moral definition of what a human being is include that same zygote? A moral definition of a human being might include anything that makes you and I (the moral agents) value its life, consistently applied.

Now, let us use this tentative and underdefined meaning of human being where it concerns Jews in the holocaust. Obviously, the Nazis defined Jews out of humanity, so one thing that made them value the life of a homo sapiens was the quality of it not being Jewish (or alternatively of being Aryan). We all take issue with their exclusive definition of human. So, does this mean that we should include anything that is properly classified homo sapiens in our definition of human, or does it mean that we must choose some better and non-arbitrary definition?

After all the Jews differ from any other homo sapiens almost none at all (morphologically, psychologically, etc); however zygotes, embryos, and foetae (especially those without working nervous systems) differ dramatically from all other homo sapiens.

2) Who's rights?
Some pro-choice persons feel that, whether the unborn is a human entitled to legal rights or not, the status of abortion remains the same. The rationale is that no human has a right to derive, forcibly, their subsistence from any other person's bodily resources. That is, if you need a steady transfusion of my blood to live, you do not have a right to stick a needle in my arm and start sucking it, and I do have a right to protect myself from you. Many pro-choicers will even defend this in the case of pregnancies that result from consensual sex, the rationale being along the lines of 'My leaving the door unlocked does not give you the right to come in and steal. Furthermore, I have the right to expel you by any means necessary, up to and including taking your life.' They will rebut the counter-argument [that a fetus cannot be morally responsible for 'stealing' (or 'parasitizing') because they cannot know it is wrong] by saying that a person has a right to defend themselves from this sort of intrusion any time they perceive a real threat, and regardless of the motivations or the responsibility of the 'intruder'.

I find this line of reasoning to include much that is cold and indifferent to the respect for life, and therefore do not embrace it. On the other hand, I must admit that I have found no way to show that it is strictly incompatible with a legal system that shows respect for life.

What number 2 boils down to when the emotional appeals and reactions are boiled out, is that the legal system can respect human life without protecting each individual human life in some cases.

3) An incomplete justification of a different view of what is human which could exlude the unborn:

As stated in number 1, a very important part of our definition of human being is what we value enough to respect the life of.

A person has value to society in that he/she is able to contribute to that society, and also in that he/she is personally connected to many members of that society in ways that would cause those members grief and hardship should he/she come to harm or perish.

When a woman is pregnant, no one has met the fetus or had any contact with it but that woman (except through ultrasound, etc). The fetus has yet to contribute anything to the society, and only the woman bearing it could reasonably be caused grief by it coming to harm or perishing.

The fetus does not meet the criteria of humanity as outlined above, nor does it, at certain stages of development meet other possible, rational, and non-arbitrary criteria: a sense of personal identity, ability to feel pain, ability to relate emotionally to other humans, ability to fear death, etc... nor has it met the criterion of ever having possessed these qualities. What criteria are the most important?

I cannot answer. I would like to see that hashed out. If being an individual belonging to the species homo sapiens is most important, I would like to see the supporting moral rationale. If some other character or combination of characters is most important, I would like to see the supporting moral rationale there, too.

One poster suggested that it was reasonable for a society to remain agnostic on the matter of when life begins and to let the decision on abortion rest in the hands of the (undisputable) person most affected by it: the pregnant mother. With all of the difficulty of properly defining what is a human being and what is not in the context of the unborn, this is perhaps a laudable solution.

I cannot be vocal enough in applauding your commitment to the human right to life. I think that you should recognize, however, that even those who emphasize the right to choose also value that right to life, but approach the question of abortion differently than you.

If you read my (very old) thread in Secular Lifestyle & Support, you will see that I have no firm beliefs on this issue: my habit is to gather as much relevant information on moral choices as possible and form the best working opinion I can. Right now, I have to remain in the camp with those who feel that the woman should have the final say (at least until the third trimester )

Jerry

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Jerry Smith ]

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Jerry Smith ]</p>

echoes

Even in a case such as this, population growth elsewhere can have an effect. There are too many factors to be able to say that there is NO impact. And while it may not apply here because the government is behind the lack of food, in another situation population growth elsewhere might reduce available imports, reducing the food supply.

And then of course the Sudanese population keeps on growing...

When I said that it may have to come to that point, I meant that certain people may decide that it is worthwhile to do that, as was the case with the example I gave. I certainly didn't intend to imply that I agree with that. I just wanted to say that it IS an answer, although like I said, I don't think it's a very good one. I don't think that I said that I believe that it is necessary and desirable that this happen. If you think I was saying that, then I'm sorry but you definitely did misread my post. And if I did say that, then I definitely misspoke.

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: echoes ]</p>

Jamie_L

bd-from-kg:

First, let me say I appreciate your thoughtful responses in this thread. This is the most closely I've examined my own views on this topic, and that's one of the things I value most about these sorts of debates.

A couple of other posters have chimed in on the idea of when is a zygote/embrio/fetus a human being or person, so I won't repeat that.

However, I would like to say something about equal protection under the law. It seems to me that when two organisms are so closely intertwined and one is dependent on the other, biology makes equal protection virtually impossible. In the case of pregnancy, the zygote/embrio/fetus has a right to equal protection of it's life, but the pregnant mother has a right to equal protection of her freedoms and the use of her body.

Furthermore, when a pregnancy occurs, biology places a great burden on the woman but virtually no (biological) burden on the man. There's nothing we can do about that. Abortion does, however, allow women to attain nearly the same biological freedom from pregnancy. If we reinforce that with a legal system, we are now enforcing this unequal burden through force of law. That seems to violate a woman's right to equal protection as compared to men.

Note: I'm actually formulating new opinions as this thread goes on, so forgive me if my stance seems to drift slightly as it goes on.

Jamie

Danya

Pro-life values

1. Criminilize abortion
2. Keep sex ed and birth control out of schools
3. Support infertility treatments
4. Fight stem cell research


Most will agree on all of the issues above and could care less about any of the issues they create.

1. Unwanted children and back alley abortions
2. Teen pregnancy
3. Fewer couples willing to adopt
4. Wasted frozen embryos

And yet, they say if your pro-choice you don't care about human life. I think they have it backwards.

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Danya ]

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Danya ]

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Danya ]</p>

bd-from-kg

Danya:
Ah, now I understand. The purpose of legalizing abortion is, after all, to protect the unborn child, just like the other laws restricting the rights of children. But in this case the purpose is to protect it from being born.

By the way, have you heard of adoption?

Pomp

bd,

Your name has come up in the latest CS Lewis thread. Just letting you know that we're talking about you.

bd-from-kg

Danya:

Sigh. Yet another ad hominem argument.

Please write this 100 times:

I will not impugn the motives of those who disagree with me.
I will not accuse my opponents of dishonesty, inconsistency, or moral turpitude.
I will keep to the subject.