Abortion

Niall001 · Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 9:08 pm Post subject: Peter:

Peter, Chris is right that was an excellent post.
It brings up many interesting issues that I love to read about.

But I'd have to say that the presumption that theres something special and unique about human life is not a presumption that lies in my argument, but in every legal system that I'm familiar with.

We all draw 'THE LINE' somewhere. I accept that there is no logical basis for acting as though humans are somehow different in nature, but that doesn't mean that I have to treat animals like humans or humans like animals. My argument wasn't that we are somehow different from animals. My argument was that almost all humans behave as though we were. We behave as though there was something different about humans. If through our behaviour, we accept the premise that human life is valuable and different than all other life, then those rights extend to the unborn, which is human.

If you believe that abortion should be permitted because of the fact that humans aren't special, then what you propose is that we create a new perfectly logical system in which rape, murder and theft are also permissable. Thats not a system that anyone wants to see. All I'm looking for is continuity.

Our civilisation stems from the premise that human life is valuable. It is ridiculous to question that premise when debating abortion unless you are willing to question the entire system. Are you willing to abandon the entire system for the sole purpose of premitting abortion?

I feel guilty about not addressing any of your other points, but I think that if I were to do so, it would cloud my argument. The only other thing that I'll add is that it is highly likely that the rape victim and the mother of the disabled child probably share my beliefs, whether they know it or not.

Kostya · Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:13 am Post subject: Re: Abortion

I think the central question when we talk about abortion is question of morals and values. Behind whom or what do we recognize the right to life?

Niall keeps repeating the “mantra” about allowing rape or murder as being logically consistent with pro-choice argument, but this is not correct.

The reason we find murder or rape immoral is because we recognize that one’s rights are being violated. There are conflicts of interests between 2 entities (persons) with presumably equivalent set of rights and individual freedoms.

In case of abortion, common pro-choice position that was brought up many times in this discussion is that zygote does not and should not have equivalent rights with individual human persons. Therefore, there is no conflict of interests; there is only one set of interests – that of the mother.

The disagreement is then this: at what stage in the development of human life do we “draw the line” where we begin to recognize entity’s right to life.

I think that the common pro-choice position is that we draw this line at around the time in development of the embryo when it is commonly believed to begin developing ability to feel pain. This happens with the development of neural system and brain structures.

Until that time it can be argued that less harm being done by removing a human embryo than by killing a mouse who does in fact feel pain. I am not advocating that it is OK to kill mice, I’m just pointing out that our legal systems and majority of the world population do not find killing a mouse to be an immoral act.

There is effectively very little difference between destroying a sperm or an egg or a zygote.

The antiabortionists position is seems to be that we should recognized entity’s right to life simply because it has human DNA and it is alive. They argue that zygotes should have the same rights as human persons simply because they potentially will develop into real human persons.

But as Peter already pointed out there is a difference between potential and actual. Blueprint of the human person is not human person. Just like blueprint of house is not a house and seed is not yet a tree. We put different values on actual things and on potential things. Zygotes are not babies, children are not adults and we do recognize different sets of rights and apply different laws to different stages of development and lives of human organisms.

If we held potential in the same esteem as actual we would have to jail all the priests who practice celibacy for mass murder of their potential offspring’s.

Beside that, if we use antiabortionist’s criterion for granting someone or something the right to life then, to be consistent with that position, we should also recognize brain-dead patients right to life. We have technology to keep brain-dead bodies alive almost indefinitely. Soon technology might become available to repair or regenerate the brains. Therefore, brain-dead patients have human DNA, they are alive and they are potential normal persons. Shouldn’t antiabortionists also advocate outlawing of removal of life-support of brain-dead bodies forever? This would effectively render death illegal…

Thank you.

Kostya

Edited by: Kostya at: 3/7/04 3:02 pm

PeterDF · Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 3:58 pm Post subject: Re: Abortion

Niall

Quote:
that was an excellent post

thanks!

Quote:
My argument wasn't that we are somehow different from animals. My argument was that almost all humans behave as though we were.

But should we? Are we right to question this point of view if it is irrational or inconsistent?

Quote:
the presumption that theres something special and unique about human life is not a presumption that lies in my argument, but in every legal system that I'm familiar with.

But isnt this a non-argument? You are adopting an ultra-conservative viewpoint. You are saying that this is how things are and implying that that is how they must stay.

Either the philosophical basis of the western legal system is sound and capable of withstanding rigorous analytical critique in light of new scientific discoveries, or it isn’t. If someone feels it isn’t, then it is appropriate to him/her to point out where the deficiencies are.

I agree with Kostya's view:

Quote:
the central question when we talk about abortion is question of morals and values.

It seems to me that this all comes back to two conflicting philosophical schools of thought. Neither of these seem entirely satisfactory to me, but I think a balanced position between the two is probably the most rational approach to take.

On one hand there is the position of the empiricist philosopher John Locke whose ideas were born out of the enlightenment. He thought that man had a God-given set of rights and that these should be enshrined in law. He strongly influenced the founding fathers in the US and his ideas were influential when the American constitution was drawn up.

On the other side of the debate is the view of the more pragmatic utilitarian philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. I think I’m right in saying that Bentham rejected the idea of rights altogether. They thought that matters should be decided on what Mill called the Greatest Happiness Principle, by which he meant that each situation should be assessed on its merits and whatever solution would cause the least distress overall should be the right one. (Mill however did not entirely reject the concept of rights – he was an a strong advocate of women’s rights.)

There are a number of criticisms of utilitarianism. Daniel Dennet (in Darwin’s dangerous idea) rejects it entirely on the basis that we can’t ever know precisely what all the implications of any decision might be. I think he is right but in some situations you can be pretty sure that decision “x” is more likely to give a positive outcome than decision “y”. It’s seems pretty hard to make the case that the loss of an anonymous human zygote offends the GHP (greatest happiness principle) more than the loss of a mother chimp. I think that in these situations it is right to rely on the GHP rather than high-minded idealism, especially when the people most closely affected by the decision may not share the principles of the decision maker.

The GHP deals with the point you make about rape being allowable if we allow people to chose what they do with their own bodies.

The biggest criticism of utilitarianism I have is the idea – which is inevitably implicit in utilitarianism – that the death of a homeless, unloved vagrant is of less importance than that of a loved celebrity or civic dignitary.

I have a lot of respect for Locke and also for Bentham and Mill, but I don’t think any of them got it quite right. The idea that there is a special essence of humanness is just not sustainable now that we know that we evolved along with other animals. (Locke and Bentham were both dead before Darwin wrote The Origin) but I think Locke was right in proposing that we (but not God) recognise a set of universal human rights as the basis for our legal systems. Where I differ is that I think we should now recognise the importance of the entity of the sentient being as the object of those rights rather than any entity, which just happens to be nominally a member of our species. There must also be a recognition of the importance of the greatest happiness principle too otherwise the narrow principles of the vociferous few might gain too much weight, we might lose sight of common sense and terrible injustice might result.

Edited by: PeterDF at: 3/7/04 4:05 pm

Niall001 · Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 5:53 pm Post subject: A quick post

Peter, I'm not of the opinion that we should just accept the world as it is, but here, my argument operates under the presumption that the current system is correct. The reason for that isn't because I absolutely agree with the current model, its because its the only way to control debate and stop it spiraling into a broad argument about everything and nothing.

I would support banning abortion. Thats a 'real world' possibility and so my argument isn't going to examine alternative means of defining life etc. Its not going to touch on the nature of morals. Its going to be about consistency. Several premises are almost universally accepted and, whether valid or not, I'm going to make use of them.

I don't agree with the GHP. I don't think that its ok to kill neo-nazis just because they make life uncomfortable for people. Vengance makes people happy, hell it makes me happy, but I don't think that it matters.

I remember that a few years ago there was some californian people who went to court in order to obtain certain human rights for some chimp. The chimp was fairly compared to a five year old child. At the time, I believed that the chimp should have recieved those rights, but now I think differently.

Giving those rights to the chimp would not have made sense. The argument went that because he was as smart as some humans, he should recieve the same rights. But implicit in the argument was the idea that our value is determined by our ability. now I know I'm repeating myself, but if that were the case, then we would have to create a hierarchy of all beings. So a fully grown chimp would be considered more valuable than a newborn. An infant would be considered inferior to a teenager and so on. In school, I would have been entitled to do what I want with the class dunce, just becaue I was more intelligent than him.

In the end, all I'm saying is that most people, illogical as it may be, believe that humans should be treated as special, unique creatures which are more valuable than animals. The laws which govern our societies are based on that principle. Here, I'm not arguing for a change of system. I'm arguing that the laws that govern society be consistent with the founding principles. If it were the case, that the assumption that humans are special creatures with a right to life regardless of ability wasn't a founding principle of our civilisation, then you'd have a case for ALLOWING abortions to be performed. Then it would be about individual choice. If you remove that principle from your civilisation, then anything should be allowed.
Strangely though, countries which permit abortion, have not removed that principle, they just seem to ignore it when it comes to the rights of the unborn. And that is bloody inconsistent.

Niall001 · Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:50 pm Post subject: Re: Abortion

Kostya, I've been meaning to address your post, but time isn't on my side. First off, and this is just an enquiry, are you aware of your subtle semantic slanders?

Second please tell me, why is the ability to feel pain significant. Are you implying that its ok to kill someone so long as its painless? What about red-haired people? Generally, they posess a lower pain threshold. Are they anymore human for it.

In relation to your mice analogy, under most legal systems, killing a chimp is not a crime. Yet a fully grown chimp would be more 'human' than a new born baby. Do you believe that the killing of a newborn should be allowed, or that killing chimps should be prohibited?

Furthermore, in relation to your 'potential person' argument, are you suggesting that children should not be considered as valuable as fully grown adults?

THe brain-dead argument was really what interested me. I'll come back to that.
The difference between a sperm/egg and a zygote is that the zygote is a new distinct genetic entity.

Kostya · Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:34 pm Post subject: Re: Abortion

Quote:
are you aware of your subtle semantic slanders?

I would love to take a credit for those, but because I am not necessarily sure what exactly you are referring to I would have to say "not really".

Quote:
why is the ability to feel pain significant.

Perhaps the argument can be made that inflicting of pain on other being could be immoral.

Quote:
Are you implying that its ok to kill someone so long as its painless?

No.

Quote:
Do you believe that the killing of a newborn should be allowed, or that killing chimps should be prohibited?

Presented with this choice I would lean towards prohibition of killing of chimps.

Quote:
are you suggesting that children should not be considered as valuable as fully grown adults?

I am saying that they ARE not valued or treated the same as fully grown adults.

Quote:
The difference between a sperm/egg and a zygote is that the zygote is a new distinct genetic entity.

Thanks.

Edited by: Kostya at: 3/9/04 7:34 pm


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT