If You're Visiting from Blog Reload …
You may be interested in other bloggers on the libertarian–theocon boundary.
As for one of the reasons for disagreement … In the particular case of abortion, it sure looks like abortionists are imposing their will on fetuses.
12 Comments:
The "Theocon" thing is pretty much a crock, Joe. In the vast majority of cases, it has the effectual tail wagging the causal dog.
As a character in this story puts it (most eloquently, in my humble but highly relevant opinion), "I'm not opposed to abortion because I'm a Catholic. Being opposed to abortion is part of what qualifies me to be a Catholic. Give that a spin on your mental merry-go-round and see where it gets off."
This realization has escaped an awful lot of folks, many of whom probably consider themselves really bright. Food for thought.
In the particular case of abortion, it sure looks like abortionists are imposing their will on fetuses.
This statement is ridiculous on two different levels.
First, the obvious. Pro-choice advocates are not imposing their will on fetuses. Abortion has nothing to do with a fetus making a choice. It has to do with a pregnant mother making a choice.
Second, when an abortion occurs, no one is forcing their will on any one else. A fetus is certainly alive, to a basic scientific extent, but it has not yet achieved free will. That is the important part. And that is why abortion is not the same thing as homicide, and that's why the life of a fetus can never be deemed equal to the life of a born human.
What separates humans from other animals, and from fetuses, is that through our sensory perception, we have developed an awareness of our existence that supercedes all other beings on the planet. The recognition of this awareness, and of our duty to protect it, is much of the basis for libertarian thought and the concept of free will. For any libertarian to believe that the life of a fetus should be protected OVER the wishes of the woman who is carrying that fetus is a sign of a fundamental misunderstand of what classical liberalism was all about.
It is a recognition that our lives have value, and they have value because we are aware and that value demands free will. A fetus, which has no ability to achieve this type of human awareness from inside a womb, can never be realistically thought of to have the rights alongside having 'free will'.
Some religions do believe, and have a right to believe, that at the point of conception, a fetus has a right to live. But that belief CAN NOT be imposed on others. Dictating to a pregnant woman what her religious beliefs should be is an anathema to anything that REAL liberatarians stand for. You can't be an "anti-choice libertarian". That's an oxymoron.
Jeez, you could hardly present a less coherent argument for abortion than that.
The only conceivable argument in favor of abortion is that the fetus does not possess rights. But the fetus has human DNA, and if not interfered with will grow into a creature that everyone would concede possesses rights. So our friend "thehim" must confront this question:
At what point in the development of the fetus does it acquire the right to life -- that is, the right not to be killed -- and why?
If "thehim" chooses the exit from the womb as his demarcation point, he has the very same problem as persons who claim that a man's passage over a boundary line between nations causes him to acquire rights. That is, he's positing that one's position, rather than one's nature, determines one's rights.
If "thehim" chooses to deny the right to life to the fetus on the grounds that it doesn't exhibit volitional consciousness, then what would he have to say about the comatose, the persistently vegetative, or the merely asleep?
Pro-abortion types will be bedeviled by these problems until they concede that their position is based solely on the convenience of the negligent mother -- but, as that would expose them to the question whether the mother had taken implied responsibility for the consequences of her sexual actions, they'll never allow the issue to come to that.
The only conceivable argument in favor of abortion is that the fetus does not possess rights. But the fetus has human DNA, and if not interfered with will grow into a creature that everyone would concede possesses rights.
Right here, you've already gotten about 80% of the way towards proving your own argument wrong. Just because something can "grow into" a creature that possesses rights does not automatically mean that it possessed rights. By that same horrendous logic, you could argue that people who choose not to have sex at all are guilty of murder because both eggs and sperm have DNA and could both potentially become a human being with rights.
So our friend "thehim" must confront this question:
At what point in the development of the fetus does it acquire the right to life -- that is, the right not to be killed -- and why?
It acquires the right to life at birth or at a point where it can realistically survive outside of the womb, but the point is where the symbiotic relationship with the mother ends. I'm actually opposed to late-term abortions where the fetus would be viable outside of the womb for this reason. Thankfully, over the past few years, these cases are incredibly rare, and usually involve severe birth defects that cause the newborn baby to only live for a short time outside of the womb anyway.
But the reason that the law recognizes that human life begins at birth is NOT because a child has human awareness the instant it is born, but instead because the child is no longer in that physically symbiotic relationship with the mother which it depends on for survival. From the point of birth on, if need be, another person could then take care of the child if the mother did not want to, and therefore it would be silly to allow the mother of the child to end the life of the child. There's no longer a physical burden. But before that point, the mother should have the right to determine what to do with a fetus that has a symbiotic dependency on her.
Continued...
If "thehim" chooses the exit from the womb as his demarcation point, he has the very same problem as persons who claim that a man's passage over a boundary line between nations causes him to acquire rights. That is, he's positing that one's position, rather than one's nature, determines one's rights.
What a confused statement! I'm not even sure how to parse this properly. You're discussing two sets of laws and the demarcations within a single set of laws. That's comparing apples to oranges. It makes absolutely no sense at all. No one anywhere should lose human rights based upon what country they currently stand in. That has nothing to do with abortion, and nothing to do with this argument. We're dealing with a single set of laws, and how that deals with the appropriate rights to give a fetus that is symbiotically dependent upon another human being for its survival. Comparing that to what happens when a person moves from the U.S. to a country with less rights has absolutely no bearing on what we're talking about at all.
If "thehim" chooses to deny the right to life to the fetus on the grounds that it doesn't exhibit volitional consciousness, then what would he have to say about the comatose, the persistently vegetative, or the merely asleep?
People who are comatose, or asleep, or in the early stages of a persistent vegatative state, are different from a fetus in one very major reason. They are not in a physically symbiotic relationship with another human being. They also, as a result of having been alive and aware at some point beforehand have built up interpersonal relationships with people, and those interpersonal relationships have value. It's a stretch to say that a fetus can have an interpersonal relationship with its mother. And it's absurd to say it can have one with anyone else. Keep in mind that with abortion, only a mother can decide the fate of the fetus. That is the essence of being pro-choice. It's about ensuring that right.
It's also important to add that the comatose case, the sleep case, and cases where individuals have just slipped into a persistent vegetative state are very different from the Terri Schiavo case as well, which seems to be a popular topic on this blog. The reason is because Terri Schiavo had been in a persistent vegatative state for 15 years. The longest anyone had been in a PVS and was able to regain human awareness was 3 years, and the damage that's done is exponential. The reason that the court system of Florida (and George W. Bush in 1999 in Texas) deemed lives such as those as not as valuable as a normal human life is because there's no chance to ever gain that awareness back. That separates it as well from just a comatose condition or sleep.
Continued...
All you've argued for is that the mother has the right to expel the fetus -- not to kill it. I would even dispute that, because of the mother's assumption of responsibility in undertaking the course of action that resulted in the creation of the fetus. She is required by fundamental moral law to answer to any responsibilities that arise from her voluntary actions. It's exactly the same principle as would apply once the baby had been born!
As for the "grow into" matter, you've evaded my question: If the fetus possesses the right not to be killed at birth, then why doesn't it possess that right at any other time? Whatever your argument, be sure it also applies to other "moral patients" -- that is, to all other creatures that have once exhibited or might someday exhibit moral agency, which is the deontological criterion for conceding rights. Make sure you can argue consistently for the rights, or lack of rights, of:
-- infants,
-- the comatose,
-- those who are incapable of communication but who were once able to communicate just fine,
-- those whose physical handicaps are such that they could not survive without the support of others.
I, too, was once an abortion-rights supporter, you see. Then I grasped the implications of my position.
Pro-abortion types will be bedeviled by these problems until they concede that their position is based solely on the convenience of the negligent mother -- but, as that would expose them to the question whether the mother had taken implied responsibility for the consequences of her sexual actions, they'll never allow the issue to come to that.
First, my position is not pro-abortion. I am not FOR abortion, I am for the ability of mothers to make that CHOICE for themselves and with their doctors. As a man, I don't have an opinion on that, and I never will because I'll never in that situation.
Second, the line of reasoning that women should be allowed to have an abortion as a form of punishment is just appalling. That's not even close to how the law works. You can't just say, "Well, I think smoking cigarettes is irresponsible, so people who get cancer from them shouldn't be allowed to get medical treatment." That's obviously assinine, but it's the exact same logic you just used to convince me that women shouldn't get abortions.
The decision of how much to value a fetus falls to one person, the mother. If you can't handle the fact that a woman whose morals you disagree with can make moral decisions, then you have some very serious insecurities within yourself that you need to deal with. I mean that, you have problems. It's one thing to just be confused like Joe and not understand the legal and scientific aspects of abortion. It's another thing entirely to want to want to ban abortion as a way to punish women who you feel exhibit poor morals. That's about as un-American as possible.
All you've argued for is that the mother has the right to expel the fetus -- not to kill it. I would even dispute that, because of the mother's assumption of responsibility in undertaking the course of action that resulted in the creation of the fetus. She is required by fundamental moral law to answer to any responsibilities that arise from her voluntary actions. It's exactly the same principle as would apply once the baby had been born!
What the hell is "fundamental moral law"? Are you content with making things up now? Are we just going to throw logic and reality out the window and just make arguments that have no basis in anything?
And for every abortion, expelling it is the same as killing it. What's your point?
As for the "grow into" matter, you've evaded my question: If the fetus possesses the right not to be killed at birth, then why doesn't it possess that right at any other time?
I answered that already. It's because as a fetus, it's in a physically symbiotic relationship with another human being. It depends on another human being's body for its own survival.
Whatever your argument, be sure it also applies to other "moral patients" -- that is, to all other creatures that have once exhibited or might someday exhibit moral agency, which is the deontological criterion for conceding rights. Make sure you can argue consistently for the rights, or lack of rights, of:
-- infants,
-- the comatose,
-- those who are incapable of communication but who were once able to communicate just fine,
-- those whose physical handicaps are such that they could not survive without the support of others.
infants:
- Not symbiotically and physically reliant on another human being
The comatose:
- Not symbiotically and physically reliant on another human being
Those who are incapable of communication but who were once able to communicate just fine:
- Not symbiotically and physically reliant on another human being
Those whose physical handicaps are such that they could not survive without the support of others:
- (Tough one, well done!) Not symbiotically and physically reliant on A SPECIFIC SINGLE human being
I, too, was once an abortion-rights supporter, you see. Then I grasped the implications of my position.
And that's mainly because you still don't understand the issue. It doesn't have anything to do with a moral judgement. It has to do with the fact that the rights of a fetus can not be evaluated in a vacuum. The rights of a fetus have to be weighed AGAINST the rights of the mother who is carrying the fetus. This is not a moral decision, it's a legal one, and the basis of our laws, derived from the concept of free will, can not be clearer in this case to determine that the free will of a woman easily supercedes any value that a fetal life has.
I type to fast, above should be:
Second, the line of reasoning that women shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion as a form of punishment is just appalling.
This is the first time I've seen this phenomenon -- a discussion of abortion without people screaming insults at each other! That is commendable.
Anyhow.
So you ask:
"At what point in the development of the fetus does it acquire the right to life -- that is, the right not to be killed -- and why?"
and respond something to the effect of "Picking some line of demarcation where it suddenly becomes impossible to kill the fetus is arbitrary." Indeed, it is, but we are forced into that situation no matter what we do. Presumably you have chosen conception as your boundary point. But this is equally arbitrary. At what stage of conception does one become human? And given that most fertilized eggs spontaneously, naturally abort, should it be pre or post implantation? Or should it be before the acrosomal process and therefore should we ban masturbation, a practice that 94% of males engage in, for the so-called lost human potential?
You say that one's nature rather than one's position determines one's rights. But one's nature changes.
An adult, a child, a baby, a fetus, a blastula, a zygote, a couple of haploid cells and some carbon-based compounds all have (in that order) decreasing levels of rights afforded to them.
I agree with your assertion that consciousness alone as a way to determine whether or not one has a right to live is inadequate, but it becomes a question of potential. Is a person whose brain has been replaced by spinal cord fluid still human? They will never regain consciousness. I'd say they are more akin to a reanimated corpse and therefore have similar rights -- which include the right to a digified burial.
You can no more "impose your will" upon a zygote by terminating it than you can impose your will upon a cheeseburger by eating it.
This is the first time I've seen this phenomenon -- a discussion of abortion without people screaming insults at each other! That is commendable.
Ah, Tweed, you are a bit too late. My gasket was blown. I think maybe I lost it too prematurely. For that, I probably deserve some abuse.
I agree with your assertion that consciousness alone as a way to determine whether or not one has a right to live is inadequate, but it becomes a question of potential.
And don't forget that it's also a question of symbiotic dependency. That is the key that people too often forget, and it is the sole instance where the imposition against free will truly can occur.
You can no more "impose your will" upon a zygote by terminating it than you can impose your will upon a cheeseburger by eating it.
Good comparison. And now I'm hungry.
As a character in this story puts it (most eloquently, in my humble but highly relevant opinion), "I'm not opposed to abortion because I'm a Catholic. Being opposed to abortion is part of what qualifies me to be a Catholic. Give that a spin on your mental merry-go-round and see where it gets off."
This would seem to imply that the character arrived at their conclusions using a rational approach -- or that they otherwise came to their conclusions independent of the influence of the Catholic Church. I respect that but I think you have to admit that most people on both sides of their make their decisions from a purely emotional basis. It is also impossible to divorce morality from your opinions on this matter, making it not so much a matter of mental ability as you claim.
Pro-abortion types will be bedeviled by these problems until they concede that their position is based solely on the convenience of the negligent mother -- but, as that would expose them to the question whether the mother had taken implied responsibility for the consequences of her sexual actions, they'll never allow the issue to come to that.
Forced pregnancy advocates often make this complaint. To which I have a two word reponse. Rape. Incest. You are making assumptions. Further, even if we do hypothesize that all abortions are somehow the result of promiscuity, when will we have the opportunity to punish the men who participated equally in this "deviant" sexual behavior? Also, you are basing the punishment on the outcome, hinging it on, say, the failure of contraception. Shouldn't your position demand that any premarital sex be punished as any of it could result in an unwanted pregnancy?
In any case, determining the morality of the abortion will be a traumatizing and necessarily inexact endeavor. Why don't we leave that up to your "fundamental moral law"? I would also suggest that anti-abortion people want there to be more public abortions or more shameful pregnancies to somehow intimidate young girls into not having sex. If this were not the case, you'd see more people taking the position that abortions should be reduced to the greatest extent possible via contraception, education, rape prevention and removing the economic and social conditions that cause people to feel that they will not be able to support a baby. Instead they shrug their shoulders and suggest banning and punishment. Reducing abortions is the only goal which I see as being morally supportable.
In fact, I believe the stigmas you apparently wish to enforce increase the number of abortions. Consider how massively condemned and unacceptable teenage pregnancy is now. The girl may have well planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. The judgement makes the pregnancy unwanted. Are you surprised that this results in abortions?
Post a Comment
<< Home