Is it morally permissible to commit feticide? The abortion debate swirls around this question, a lot of rhetoric, emotion and anger gets spent on debating this question or avoiding it.
In this series I will examine this question. First I will sketch an argument against feticide: the killing of a fetus. Then I will examine three common ways of criticising this argument and respond to them.
The Argument Against Feticide
Implicit, if not overtly explicit, in much historic Christian moral reflection on feticide is a simple three-premise position. Firstly, that there is a divine law prohibiting homicide – the killing of a human being without adequate justification; secondly, a fetus is a human being; and thirdly, that in all or most cases of feticide, justification for homicide is not forthcoming. This argument can be summarised as follows:
[1] It is wrong to kill a human being without justification;
[2] A fetus is a human being;
[3] In the case of feticide (at least in the majority of cases) insufficient or no justification is forthcoming.
This argument is formally valid. These three premises jointly entail that feticide is wrong; premises [1] and [2] entail that it is wrong to kill a fetus without justification, this conclusion, conjoined with [3], entails that feticide is wrong in at least the majority of cases. Given the argument is formally valid, any critique of this argument must call into question the truth of either of the premises. [For more on validity see Assessing Arguments]
Avoidance Tactics
Notwithstanding this, the most common response to this argument is some tactic seeking avoidance of the issue. It is not unusual to see attempts to denounce, insult, caricature or defame the character of those who oppose feticide. If current commentary is to be believed opposition to legal abortion comes from misogynist fundamentalist fanatics who want to impose their religious mores onto others.
Of course, these strings of pejorative terms fail to address the argument above. Suppose everything that is said of such people is true – people who oppose feticide do have the bad character traits or motives claimed – the soundness of the argument remains untouched. A good argument does not cease to be a good argument just because someone has personal flaws or dubious motives. It is only unsound if it is invalid or if one of its premises is false. A person’s motives for adopting a conclusion or the circumstances of their supporting that conclusion, might tell us something of the psychology of that person but it does not tell us about the truth or falsity of their premises or the validity of their argument.
Similar things can be said about slogans such as “you can’t force your morality onto others”, “you can’t legislate morality”. As I argued in Imposing Your Beliefs Onto Others: A Defence, those who cite such slogans face a dilemma; either they claim that the slogan “you can’t force your morality onto others” applies to the moral principles prohibiting homicide or they do not. If they do not, then opposing feticide can only involve an unjust imposition of morality onto another if you first assume feticide is not homicide. If they do then their position is manifestly absurd as it entails that all forms of homicide – murder, manslaughter, infanticide, etc – should be decriminalised.
Is Feticide Justified?
In the literature on the morality of feticide numerous arguments have been offered against premise [3] that purport to establish that feticide is justified. These arguments can be broadly grouped into two categories. The first comprises of appeals to various beneficial consequences that the practice is alleged to have. The second category of arguments is rights-based and appeals to an alleged right to control or dispose of one’s body as one sees fit.
What is important to note is that the typical arguments against [3] succeed only if it is assumed from the outset the falsity of [2], the fetus is not a human being and given this that feticide is not a form of homicide. Some examples will illustrate this.
Rights Arguments
It is frequently asserted that “that a woman ought to be in control of what happens to her body to the greatest extent possible, that she ought to use her body in ways she wants to and refrain from using it in ways she does not want to.”[1] This assertion is false. Women do not have a right to do whatever they like with their bodies – no one has such a right!
Women cannot use their bodies to rape or commit homicide or set fires or steal. The right to do as we please is limited by the morality of our actions, thus whether abortion falls into the category of an action we are free to choose to do depends on whether feticide is homicide. If it is, then this argument fails but as currently used it is just assumed that it is not.
Some might object that such an interpretation is an uncharitable reading of this contention. What is important from this perspective is that all people have a right to control what happens inside or to their own bodies. I have a right to control what happens to mine and you have a right to control what happens to yours. Hence, provided the decision I make does not involve me using your body in a way that you do not consent to then I have a right to do it. However, implicit in this argument is the claim that a fetus, at least until born, is part of a woman’s body, that it is not a separate, bodily-living, human being on its own.
This claim is erroneous. There are no reasons for affirming this. The usual reason given is because the fetus exists inside a woman’s body and is dependent upon her for survival so therefore the fetus is part of that woman.
Despite its constant repetition in the literature, this reason is wanting. If a person lives inside an ocean liner for several months while on a cruise ship in the Atlantic, she resides inside the cruise liner and depends upon its facilities for survival. It does not follow that she is part of the cruise liner!
Numerous other counter-examples are available against this line of reasoning. A premature infant is not part of the incubator nor is an embryo, brought into existence extra-corporeally, part of a petri-dish.
Not only are there no reasons for thinking that a fetus is part of its mother’s body, there are some good reasons for thinking this contention false. To suggest that a fetus is part of a woman’s body entails that the mother of a male fetus has two heads, four arms and a penis.[2] Once again, this argument is successful only if one assumes a fetus is not a human being from the outset. If the fetus is human then it too has a right to not have its body harmed.
Back-Street Abortion
The infamous illegal “back-street” abortion argument fares no better. I have written more about this in my post on Back-Street Abortion but consider the following argument from Zoe During;
But the majority of women, poor women, have had to go to backstreet practitioners or swallow dubious potions or use knitting needles on themselves. Attempting illegal abortion by such means has always been dreadful and dangerous and greatly increased maternal mortality.
The World Health Organisation estimates that worldwide there are 20 million abortions each year, half or more being illegal, these causing up to 78,000 maternal deaths and hundreds of thousands of disabilities… Thus not having access to legal abortion unjustifiably kills mothers and babies, while legalising abortion saves lives.[3]
The allegation that thousands of women die from illegal abortions can justify legalisation only if feticide is not homicide. If it is homicide then this argument reduces to the bizarre assertion that we should kill over ten million children each year in order to prevent thousands of women from harming themselves by breaking the law.
Other Consequentialist Arguments
Typical consequentialist arguments also fail. We are told that abortion prevents unwanted children who are likely to be poor, abused or engage in crime. It is hailed as a solution to over-population and the existence of more handicapped people. It prevents adult and teenage women from falling into economic hardship and stress. It enables them to complete their education, pursue their careers. However, all this is equally true of infanticide.
Infanticide prevents the existence of unwanted children and their associated social costs, lowers the population, prevents the handicapped existing and saves women and teenagers from the economic and emotional stresses of parenthood. Yet infanticide, as convenient as it is, is condemned because it is homicide.
Again, all these arguments assume that the fetus is not human without actually arguing for it.
Self-Defence
This is not to say that feticide can never be unjustified. Utilising the justification of self-defence, I think a case can be made for feticide where pregnancy constitutes a serious threat of harm to a woman’s life. We do not generally think that a woman who stabs and kills her rapist has committed an unjustifiable homicide. So where a fetus poses a threat on par with such cases, defensive force aimed at it might be able to to be justified. However, such cases are extremely rare and make up less than 0.5% of all abortions (according to figures compiled by the New Zealand Abortion Supervisory Committee and this seems similar to figures from other jurisdictions).
So if feticide is homicide then the vast majority of abortions lack justification. To defend permissive abortion laws by appealing to the tiny amount of hard cases is a bit like allowing people to commit homicide whenever it suits them on the grounds that there exist rare cases of justifiable homicide in self-defence.
Unless on contests [2] the claim that a fetus is a human being then in the vast majority of cases feticide appears to be unjustified homicide.
In my next post Abortion and the Morality of Feticide: Part II I will look at whether the fetus is human and the arguments that it is not.
[1] Baruch Brody “Opposition to Abortion: A Human Rights Approach” In John Arthur ed Morality and Moral Controversy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc, 1981) 181.
[2] Peter Kreeft The Unaborted Socrates (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983) 45-47; Francis J Beckwith Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books, 1993) 124.
[3] Zoe During “Is Abortion Justifiable?” New Zealand Rationalist Humanist Spring (1999) 10-11.
Tags: Abortion · Backstreet Abortion · Ethics · Ethics and Medicine · Feticide · Francis Beckwith · Peter Kreeft · Zoe During168 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Here’s a hypothetical: If you were in a situation where someone needed a blood transplant to live, and for various reasons it was established that you were the only viable donor, would you then be morally required to donate blood? What if it wasn’t blood but a kidney?
Having said that, I think the difference in pregnancy is that the woman usually consents to the behavior that leads to the other person (the fetus) depending on them for survival.
So if we elaborate the example above, that yesterday I made a blunder (or a choice), that caused the other person to suddenly require my transfusion, then I think this would strengthen my moral obligation.
What do you think of that?
Matt
The stark assertion that feticide equals homicide fails because circumstances do exist where a termination is morally justifiable.
– there are grounds where the health of mother would be placed in danger if the pregnancy proceeds to term.
– there are grounds where the fetus is non-viable if it proceeds to term.
– there are grounds where the prospect of successful birth of one fetus depends on the paring of others.
Agreed that the numbers may be small, but they are sufficient in that they exist to defeat the assertion that all feticide equals morally unjustifiable homicide.
That leaves aside the ability to enforce your notion of morality on a situation where the detection of an infringement would require such a violation of the privacy and human rights of the population that any legislation would never be enacted. I’m referring specifically to chemically induced terminations before implantation.
I don’t accept that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, nevermind implantation. I’m open to persuasion as to when it is after those times whilst in the womb. Nonetheless, I would argue that it is certainly the case when it can survive, with or without technological assistance, outside of the womb.
Sorry – I forgot to add the take off bold tag.
Paul, I am not clear on your argument here, you say
Agreed that the numbers may be small, but they are sufficient in that they exist to defeat the assertion that all feticide equals morally unjustifiable homicide.
Didn’t I address this above, when I wrote
This is not to say that feticide can never be unjustified. Utilising the justification of self-defence, I think a case can be made for feticide where pregnancy constitutes a serious threat of harm to a woman’s life. We do not generally think that a woman who stabs and kills her rapist has committed an unjustifiable homicide. So where a fetus poses a threat on par with such cases, defensive force aimed at it might be able to to be justified. However, such cases are extremely rare and make up less than 0.5% of all abortions (according to figures compiled by the New Zealand Abortion Supervisory Committee and this seems similar to figures from other jurisdictions).
So if feticide is homicide then the vast majority of abortions lack justification.
@ Matt:
I was addressing the assertion by Madeleine on the other thread that she was quite prepared to argue the moot that feticide equals homicide.
This is perhaps the difficulty with a blog written by several authors producing inter-related OPs.
All abortion is just plain wrong. So, it’s been legal for decades, but this doesn’t make any of it right or justified. Plain wrong, every which way you look at it. Good post.
Paul, I wonder if you are conflating the moot that all feticide is homicide, with the moot all feticide is unjustified homicide.
Good argument there Rosette… (SARCASM… I find people tend not to pick up on this)
As ever really the debate comes down to whether and at what point in time a “person” is involved. This is pretty much a subjective thing, and until someone invents a “person detector” it will remain to be so.
Colin, the hypothetical you cite is very similar to the argument proposed by Judith Jarvis Thomson in the widely anthologised article, a defence of abortion. I can’t go into all the issue here,( I gave a hour long paper to the bioethics centre on this a few years ago) but I agree fundamentally with Donagan’s response:
“It may be objected that the parents of an unborn child brought into existence , although unintentionally, by their joint voluntary action. Stand in a relationship utterly different from that …in which either would stand to a human being, whose blood stream had been, without permission, connected to either of their’s, and who would die if the connection had been broken”( Alan Dongan The Theory of Morality, 169)
Donagan’s point is that with the donor issue, the person in question stands in the relationship to us of needy stranger. In pregnancy the person stands in the relationship of a child whom the women has brought into existence as a result of their own voluntary choices and hence a child the mother is the parent of.
Obviously the duties governing the adult stranger and the parent child relationships are quite different. We are not required to make massive sacrifices to needy strangers, no do we have any duty to provide the basic necessities of life to any and every stranger we can do so. However, if we bring a child into existence by our voluntary actions and hence become parents we are required to provide the basic necessities of life to our children and if necessary make massive sacrifices to do so, so the cases are disanalogous.
@ Matt:
“Paul, I wonder if you are conflating the moot that all feticide is homicide, with the moot all feticide is unjustified homicide.”
That’s a tricky distinction.
Are Madeleine and Glenn therefore prepared to concede that some abortions are morally justifiable ?
The problem, it seems, is the justification rather than the act.
“I was addressing the assertion by Madeleine on the other thread that she was quite prepared to argue the moot that feticide equals homicide.”
Ehh? So you’re copy pasting without even reading the article? Great
“it is certainly the case when it can survive, with or without technological assistance, outside of the womb.”
So why must abortion be stopped if say there is a technology that can assist fetus to survive outside the womb?
@ Anon:
“So why must abortion be stopped if say there is a technology that can assist fetus to survive outside the womb?”
Because then the fetus moves from being a fetus to a baby that can survive independently of it’s parent. The concerns of the mother with regard to the fetus being within her body no longer apply.
Paul, not sure why the distinction is tricky, the example i gave of self defence makes it clear. A person who kills in self defence commits homicide, yet they are justified in doing so.
Also not sure what you mean by “the justification” as opposed to the act, we have a pretty good idea that killing is justified if another person is threatening our life, and we know its not justified to advance ones career, or because the person will be poor, or because they might be abused in the future and so forth.
“….and we know its not justified to advance ones career, or because the person will be poor, or because they might be abused in the future and so forth…..”
Unless it is done as a nation and involves killing multiple people.
Then all these reasons are justified.
@ Matt
I think the use of the word ‘homicide’ while technically correct is causing a problem in that it is easy to mistake the taking of a human life with the criminal act of taking a human life which is why I think it’s tricky.
Are we arguing that it’s morally justifiable or justifiable under the criminal law ?
There are clear examples where taking a human life, for example assisted suicide, is morally justifiable but is not so justifiable under the criminal law, and then comparing that to the legal termination of a pregnancy which you may hold as morally unjustifiable but which is justifiable under the criminal law.
I’m really not sure that I’ve made myself clear but I am multi-tasking trying to work from home as well.
Paul, I don’t accept the claim that assisted suicide is clearly justified, but putting that aside. I am using homicide to mean the killing of a human being. Justifiable homicide occurs when homicide is morally justified. I agree in current law abortion is not a criminal act, but that’s a different question to whether feticide is justified or homicide.
Unless it is done as a nation and involves killing multiple people.
Then all these reasons are justified. I take it your being sarcastic.
Of course I disagree, moreover even if I did not abortion is not done by one nation against multiple people so the issue is moot.
Re; Matt’s comment on Feb 10, 2011 at 11:22 pm – Donagan’s point is that with the donor issue, the person in question stands in the relationship to us of needy stranger. In pregnancy the person stands in the relationship of a child whom the women has brought into existence as a result of their own voluntary choices and hence a child the mother is the parent of.
Based on this reasoning, do you agree that a mother impregnated by a rapist owes no more moral obligation to the fetus than the blood/kidney donors would owe if it could be established that they were the only viable donors to save a life? If not, why?
@ Matt:
“Of course I disagree, moreover even if I did not abortion is not done by one nation against multiple people so the issue is moot.”
That takes us into rape as an act of war. A good example would be the atrocious behaviour of the Red Army during the fall of Berlin (and afterwards).
Would it be morally justifiable in those circumstances for the mother to obtain an abortion ?
I’m not making the case either way, I’m just interested to see how you view the matter.
Thanks for your reply Matt. I wonder then if it is fair to call abortion the killing an entity (which implies that the intention was to kill) where the intention may be to preserve / withhold one’s own bodily resources. Take the morning after pill for example (which many believe to be a form of abortion). A woman might take this pill with the view not so much that she wants the blastocyst to die, but that she doesn’t want it to take up residence in her uterus. (of course any sensible woman would realize that her choice will have the unfortunate side effect of the blastocyst’s death).
The point being that to call an abortionist a killer, is to imply that death is their primary goal.
As such, the opening argument should be amended to this:
[1] It is wrong to knowingly allow the death of a human being without justification;
But that changes the defenition of ‘feticide’ in assertion 3, and weakens the argument for assertion 3.
My two cents about post-rape abortion. I believe that the moral obligation on the mother is not so black and white, but consider this alternative situation:
You open the door of your house one day, and discover a young baby in a basket on your doorstep. Your correctly identify the baby as the offspring of your bitter and hated enemy. What would you do?
“A fetus is a human being;” No.
“In the case of feticide (at least in the majority of cases) insufficient or no justification is forthcoming.”
The word feticide embodies the idea of the killing of a fetus which is a human being as much as the word micro-evolution embodies the idea of the evolution which I.Ders are denying.
“[1] It is wrong to kill a human being without justification;
[2] A fetus is a human being;
[3] It is wrong to kill a fetus without justification.
Fine, your syllogism is consistent, but I believe premise two is not true.
One of the rights we like to think we have, as human beings, is the right not to be killed without justification.
Are we agreed that war is a justification of killing people? But war is a social contract between human beings.
So, even granting the fetus human being status for the purposes of justification, the woman is de facto declaring sovereignty over her own body and declaring war on the fetus..
Is it distasteful. Sure.
Does it allow for real consequences. Indeed.
If the woman consents, there is no law broken.
If someone else kills the woman with her fetus can we be doubly outraged. Yes we can.
Works for me.
This seems to cover unjustified homicide nicely but surely the definition of a human being is not so narrow as to only include ‘those beings which have a right to not be killed by each other’.
To assess whether a fetus is a human being we need to define ‘human being.’ a bit better than that, don’t you think?
The baby went home today, taken from mother 90 days ago due to auto accident. Is this baby, fetus 90 days ago not a human being?
Both mother and child are home. How well the child will do only time will tell.
Why did they not kill the fetus?
Why did they save the baby?
Good luck with the answer.
pboyfloyd:
Who would justify someone declaring war on a baby?
If as it sounds, your argument hinges on the fetus not being a human being, then maybe you should reserve your comments for Matt’s later post
“In my next post I will look at whether the fetus is human and the arguments that it is not.”
“Who would justify someone declaring war on a baby?”
Nono, the woman declaring her body sovereign property and de facto declaring war on the fetus IS the justification.
“If as it sounds, your argument hinges on the fetus not being a human being..”
Actually, as I stated it, my argument hinges on the fetus BEING a human being.
It’s almost embarrassing to watch people try to come up with examples that would justify open slather abortion.
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that in cases where the child posed a serious health risk to the mother (in the sense that it was one dies or the other does) or that the child was a product of rape, or of incest, an argument could be made for abortion. (To be honest, I’ve heard anecdotal evidence that victims of rape are quite resistant to inflicting violence on their children, and one of my sister’s friends has a son from such an event)
Would that justify 18,000 odd abortions a year in New Zealand? The vast majority of which are not for any of those reasons.
“Nono, the woman declaring her body sovereign property and de facto declaring war on the fetus IS the justification.”
No, the claim of her body as sovereign property is your justification for declaring war on the fetus. If you concede that the fetus is a human being, then replace fetus with baby, and you’re proposing that this claim is a justification for declaring war on a baby.
“Actually, as I stated it, my argument hinges on the fetus BEING a human being.”
Which argument would that be?
I was referring to the first half of your post, which you sum up as:
“Fine, your syllogism is consistent, but I believe premise two is not true.”
In the second half, you present an ?argument? for abortion that grants the truth of premise 2. Good on you for heading in two opposite directions in one post.
Jason, the topic is “The morality of feticide.”
Now I’m sure that we all have strong feelings about the issue, that’s fair.
But we all have strong feelings about a lot of moral issues like war and capital punishment.
Many people on one side of the issue will claim that their opponents are trying to justify the unjustifiable.
I think that the woman asserting her rights to her own body is just as justifiable as arguments justifying war and arguments justifying state-sanctioned homicide.
Not only that, we seem to be stuck with a definition of ‘human being’ that is so far, “beings who don’t have the right to end the lives of other beings of the same kind”. But there is an escape clause here, “..except in war.”
I’m sure that Matt will look down his disdainful nose and disdainfully say that I’m caricaturizing the issue and I’m sure that some of you will agree.
But so what? That just means that you don’t have a real answer.
Can war be justified? I say no.
Can abortion be justified then?
Under those rules, no.
But war IS justified, just not by me.
Therefore abortion IS justified, just not by me.
“Of course I disagree, moreover even if I did not abortion is not done by one nation against multiple people so the issue is moot.”
“I take it your being sarcastic. ”
Mostly sarcastic. It is a commentary on the rightwingers in the USA who are so “pro life” but also so “pro war” for reasons exactly like the ones you state.
ie. for economic reasons, out of the fear they might be attacked in the future, to maintain their careers, out of a fear of being poor etc… it is irrelevant to this discussion but an interesting aside I thought.
Matt has a disdainful nose?
“Can war be justified? I say no.
Can abortion be justified then?
Under those rules, no.
But war IS justified, just not by me.
Therefore abortion IS justified, just not by me.”
I think you have found the Achilles nose of the” pro life” movement there Pboy.
Colin.
8:28am “So, even granting the fetus human being status for the purposes of justification, the woman is de facto declaring sovereignty over her own body and declaring war on the fetus..”
Colin, “9:20 am
pboyfloyd:
Who would justify someone declaring war on a baby?”
Me, “9:58 am
Nono, the woman declaring her body sovereign property and de facto declaring war on the fetus IS the justification.”
Colin, “No, the claim of her body as sovereign property is your justification for declaring war on the fetus.”
Are you thick? There’s a cockatiel on my shoulder telling me to say these things.
No, wait, that doesn’t count, even if it were true. What I mean is, of course it’s MY justification, whose else’s would it be? My bird’s?
What kind of big sister argument is that? “That’s no justification, that’s no justification, that’s only YOUR justification.(which, no doubt, for some reason doesn’t ‘count’) NYA NYA!”
I could go that route for justification of war and/or capital punishment with about the same effect, yes?
“Matt has a disdainful nose?”
I suspect it’s a loner from Madeleine.
Abortion does not seem to be treated by pro-life advocates in the exact same way as the killing of, say, adolescents or adults. I’m wondering whether this is because there is some kind of claimed or assumed difference in the degree of personhood instantiated, or solely because abortion is legal.
Haha, it seems I’ve completely failed to communicate with you or your parrot.
What I was trying to say is that with regards to your statement
“the woman is de facto declaring sovereignty over her own body and declaring war on the fetus”
I interpreted this as that:
“the claim of her body as sovereign property is your justification for declaring war on the fetus.”
I suppose you could formally state it as:
The woman claims her body as sovereign property
Therefore war on the fetus/baby is justified
Therefore abortion is justified
The justification of #3 from #2 is obvious and uninteresting, so I presumed that you were trying to establish that #1 justifies #2
So naturally I responded that I didn’t think anything justified declaring war on a baby
Hopefully this makes sense to you now.
“So naturally I responded that I didn’t think anything justified declaring war on a baby”
Yes, well, it seems to me that the only thing that justifies a declaration of war is the other party waging a war, either declared or undeclared, against you.
This is where the propagandists and spin-doctors with their semi-reliable ‘intelligence’ and such, come in I suppose.
Speaking of spin-doctoring, we have this, “Therefore war on the fetus/baby is justified.” as your second premise.
“Certainly if we can’t understand that a fetus is a human being, surely we can understand that a fetus/baby is, yes?”
I’m pretty sure that it depends which side you’re on if that amounts to clarifying or muddying the waters there, don’t you think? (sadly Prettyboy Floyd, my bird, has gone for a nap, so I’m suitably mystified.)
If your conclusion is that a person, a human being is not necessarilly physically separate from another human being*, surely THAT ‘fact’ cannot be one of your premisses?
*discounting conjoined twins which is a whole ‘nother can of worms, yes?
Seems to me Colin(and everyone who likes Colin’s point of view), that if the question is whether a fetus is a human being, then the argument from your side can’t be, “Well, it just is, that’s all.”
My argument is that even granting that for the sake of argument, the women can justify having an abortion by a defacto declaration of war. Once war is declared, and the dead are dead, hashing over whether there was justification to declare war in the first place is a moot point, isn’t it?
The woman does, on a micro-level, exactly what nations do on a large scale.
Some will grumble about it being unjust and therefore war-crime, and so forth, but it’ll largely get passed over for pragmatic reasons. Hey, we’re not gonna imprison thousands or perhaps millions of women, right?
And the victims, they’re nameless, faceless, powerless, historyless, countryless (recall, you are a citizen of the country that you’re BORN into).
Discussion of personhood and violinist type objections (which seem to motivate most of the literature) forthcoming, I take it?
Nobody is advocating the killing of adolescents or adults, and only atheists like Peter Singer are advocating the killing of children. Also that doctor Gosnell, but no one cares about him.
Consequently the killing of the unborn is being opposed because that’s what’s being promoted.
@ Pboyfloyd
Your argument is very weak, in my opinion. Do you honestly believe what you wrote, that women who undergo abortions are “just doing a micro version of what nations do on a large scale”? If so, why should they be viewed or punished differently?
Any loss of innocent life is a tragedy, whether it be a victim of a war-crime or an abortion.
People who commit war-crimes are locked up or sentenced to death themselves for them and they are made to pay the penalty of inflicting death upon innocence. Women who have abortions are told it was their “choice”. When the leaders of Nazi concentration camps were captured and stood before the courtroom I’m pretty sure the judge didn’t say “oh, well it was your choice,” then let them go for pragmatic reasons
Personally, women who murder their unborn children should face exactly the same fate, if not worse, as those who commit war crimes.
Sheridan, why worse?
“Any loss of innocent life is a tragedy, whether it be a victim of a war-crime or an abortion.”
i notice you have shifted it from war deaths (what Pboy said) to “war crimes” – ie. you are isolating just a small (very small) subset of the people who die in wars. If tou want to keep your analogy going why not talk about “abortion crimes” which are of course just a small subset of abortions.
And Wow! Wow! That has to be the BEST GODWIN’S LAW EXAMPLE EVER!!! congratulations!
“Personally, women who murder their unborn children should face exactly the same fate, if not worse, as those who commit war crimes.”
You gonna pull the trigger? Is this a threat of violence against people in New Zealand… because it sure is getting close.
Paul,
““So why must abortion be stopped if say there is a technology that can assist fetus to survive outside the womb?”
Because then the fetus moves from being a fetus to a baby that can survive independently of it’s parent. The concerns of the mother with regard to the fetus being within her body no longer apply.”
Let’s dig deeper, why is dependency to the mother a justification for killing the fetus?
@ Anon:
“Let’s dig deeper, why is dependency to the mother a justification for killing the fetus?”
Excellent question. I’d say that in order for the fetus to survive dependent on the mother requires the mother to consent to continue to carry the fetus to birth. There is an obligation.
Once born that direct physical dependency no longer exists. There is no obligation.
If technology pushes back the time limit at which a premature baby can survive then the timeframe for that obligation diminishes.
Looking outside the envelope we could get to the point when the requirement for a woman to carry a fertilized egg from implantation to birth is no longer necessary as ihas been the case with the development of in vitro fertilization removing the absolute necessity of in utero fertilization.
If instead of a woman going to an abortion clinic for a surgical termination she instead goes there for a fetal transfer (to a donor womb or artificial womb) then the fetus is not terminated and the woman also does not have to carry a fetus to term when she does not want to (for whatever reason).
Therefore I’d argue that the best anti-termination or anti-abortion argument is not the moral or ethical argument, but the development of technology.
But surely it’s the mother who has obligation when the fetus is the result of her action/decision/consent/carelessness? No?
If you caused someone to depend on you and only you for their survival for 9 months, then surely you don’t have the right to kill the person?
Max, actually Sheridan’s basic point is sound. You and pboy seem to think that conservatives who reject pacifism allow nations to kill civilian populations for economic reasons and hence are inconsistent.
The problem is this is not the typical conservative position. The standard just war tradition, allows war only in certain circumstances and has certain prohibitions on the use of violence. One of these is that one can only go to war if another nation is agressively threatening the innocent. Another is that the violence used must be proportional to the threat being neutralised. Third, and this was Sheridan’s key point, there is the principle of non combatant immunity, which prohibits deliberately targeting civilians or non combatanats, the reason we have “war crimes” legislation reflects this.
So even under the standard conservative position, someone who killed a child, for economic reasons, would be commiting a crime. He would be targeting a non combatant and using disproportionate force, without a just cause.
The other point is that even if the conservative position on war is inconsistent with there position on abortion, this means one of the positions are mistaken, the only way one could argue that there stance on abortion is mistaken is if one contends there stance on war is correct, but this is precisely what the liberal critic usually denies.
@ Anon:
“If you caused someone to depend on you and only you for their survival for 9 months, then surely you don’t have the right to kill the person?”
That’s not the point that I’m addressing. I’m saying that it’s a physical obligation which ends at birth and that if technology can change the nature of that physical obligation then that would be a better argument against a termination.
“Max, actually Sheridan’s basic point is sound. ”
Arguments can be sound or not sound. Not “points.”
“The problem is this is not the typical conservative position. The standard just war tradition, allows war only in certain circumstances and has certain prohibitions on the use of violence. One of these is that one can only go to war if another nation is agressively threatening the innocent.”
B*llshit. Sorry to swear on your blog Matt – but this is just b*llshit. This maybe the official line of conservative “philosophers” but it is not the way that governments run by conservatives act. In actual fact they don’t even pretend to act this way. They are quite open about the fact that the USA has and does and will go to war to protect the economic interests of the USA.
“So even under the standard conservative position, someone who killed a child, for economic reasons, would be commiting a crime.”
Do you really believe the world runs along these lines and that the wars of the last century were really to protest the “innocent” rather than largely for economic reasons? Are you really that naive?
“The only way one could argue that there stance on abortion is mistaken is if one contends there stance on war is correct, but this is precisely what the liberal critic usually denies.”
No Matt – what I was doing was pointing out that there is no consistancy in the minds of the conservatives. The people I am talking about are the ones who manage to hold in their little ninds a whole raft of contradictory ideas: (i) stopping a fertilized egg from implanting is a crime worth execution (ii) it is OK to execute people who commit crimes as children (iii) it is OK to kill using cluster bombs/crippling sacnctions/ and carpet bombing of people in the millions to protect “our” economic interests.
@ Matt:
“The problem is this is not the typical conservative position. The standard just war tradition, allows war only in certain circumstances and has certain prohibitions on the use of violence. One of these is that one can only go to war if another nation is agressively threatening the innocent. Another is that the violence used must be proportional to the threat being neutralised. Third, and this was Sheridan’s key point, there is the principle of non combatant immunity, which prohibits deliberately targeting civilians or non combatanats, the reason we have “war crimes” legislation reflects this. ”
I can see lots of problems with that, particularly from a USA perspective regarding Iraq.
I think that there is a point to be made that it is hypocritical of the USA conservatives to campaign for por-life policies in the USA and yet behave so badly, and in contravention of most of the definitions that you’ve set out, elsewhere in the world – and then make a moral argument justifying both.
Paul –
Would you support it being illegal to have an abortion post feasible cesarean dates?
Reed, I sure would and I thought most countries already made that illegal. In fact, I would have no problem calling the abortion of an 8 month old fetus a murder because that is exactly what it is. This gets much more unclear as we move back towards the moment of conception.
In any event, I’m still waiting for someone to explain the moral difference between a rape victim who wants an abortion and a person who refuses a blood or organ transplant in circumstances where they are the only viable donor.
@ Reed:
“Paul –
Would you support it being illegal to have an abortion post feasible cesarean dates?”
I think that you’ve answered your own question. The issue is not the procedure that produces a baby that is viable and physically independent of it’s mother, but the principle.
In the UK, there have been cases where premature babies born at 23 and 24 weeks are viable, eventhough the abortion limit is 24 weeks.
Below 22 weeks the technology is insufficient and guidelines have been issued accordingly. There is a BBC News story on the matter from 2006.
The highlighted report mentioned
Born before 22 weeks: No intensive care
22-23 weeks: No intensive care, unless parents request it after a thorough discussion of the risks and doctors agree
23-24 weeks: Parents, after a thorough discussion with the healthcare team, should have the final say
24-25 weeks: Give intensive care, unless the parents and the doctors agree there is no hope of survival, or the level of suffering is too high
Above 25 weeks: Intensive care as standard
If medical technology continues to progress then those time limits will need to be revised downwards.
From my perspective – this is where the debate should be happening. I’m not at all comfortable with the 24 week time limit and I think it should be reduced to 18 weeks based on current technology.
Pboy, it seems like all I’m doing these days is correcting your philosophy homework, which isn’t much fun. So I’ll try once more:
“Yes, well, it seems to me that the only thing that justifies a declaration of war is the other party waging a war, either declared or undeclared, against you.”
So you’re anti abortion. Right?
“Speaking of spin-doctoring, we have this, “Therefore war on the fetus/baby is justified.” as your second premise.:”
That’s not a premise. The clue should be the giant “therefore” at the front.
And yes, I added the word ‘baby’ not as a secret spin move, but as a clearly stated use of your previously granted premise.
Seriously, are you even reading this stuff?
Atheist Missionary: What would you do if you found your enemy’s baby on your doorstep? (see above)
“Therefore war on the fetus/baby is justified.” as your second premise.:”
That’s not a premise. The clue should be the giant “therefore” at the front.”
Stop it Colin. the notion that a fetus is a baby is a general premise of you pro-lifers argument.
What’s next, you going to start correcting my typos??
“Personally, women who murder their unborn children should face exactly the same fate, if not worse, as those who commit war crimes.”
Sherridan, that’s what I was saying back in Matt’s last pro-life post, but it seems a lot of pro-lifers think it’s a ridiculous position, unless of course it’s the abortionist that we’re talking about, don’t you think?
I’m not saying that the womens’ war on fetuses is a good argument at all. All that I was saying is that it is a justification, as surely as this, “The standard just war tradition, allows war only in certain circumstances and has certain prohibitions on the use of violence.”, is a moot point when the troops are standing on that ocean of sweet, sweet oil, there’s not a WMD to be found and those blown-to-bits innocents are now simply to be sloughed off as a ‘blame game’ tactic by the bleeding-heart libruls.
No deed was or is too evil in the ongoing War On Terror and, sure, we can alter our perspective and ask if, in principle, the declaration of war was just even if the execution of it may have some collateral damage.
Point is, weak or no weak, the woman can argue the same thing and often enough can later regret what was simply collateral damage and now might have been her teenage son or daughter.
As has been pointed out, conservatives spoon-feeding us their weak-ass justification for war expecting us to lap it up surely can’t just hop the fence and claim womens’ rights justifying abortion is too weak-ass to be taken seriously.
Seems to me that conservatives are saying that ‘in principle’ their stance is consistent but when it comes down to actualities in war, principles get thrown under the bus.( or blowed up real good.)
Pboy
Out of interest could you provide any argument in favour of the notion that a person can declare war on another person.
In seems to be suggested that rather than sending you hate mail and then kill you, I need to send you a declaration of war and then kill you. The former would be “wrong”, the latter “justified”.
“Stop it Colin. the notion that a fetus is a baby is a general premise of you pro-lifers argument. ”
“And yes, I added the word ‘baby’ not as a secret spin move, but as a clearly stated use of your previously granted premise. ”
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Let’s try to make this slightly more real to you guys.
The scenario is that you are a parent of a wonderful, beautiful daughter and she comes home and tells you straight out that she has been knocked up and, after much heart-wrenching consideration she has decided that she is going to get rid of it and that is that. It is no longer an abstract point with her and though she agrees with the pro-life position, when it comes down to herself, she is willing to give up the high moral ground and she is going through with it or else! (basically, “It’s WAR!”)
You of course are heart-broken and explain that you cannot allow this to happen, and what could this ‘or else’ be?
Then she gives you the ultimatum. If you do not agree to let her have an abortion, she will kill herself!
So, what’s the plan, what could your plan possibly be?
“I added the word ‘baby’ not as a secret spin move..”
Secret? You imagine somehow that I thought your ‘spin’ was supposed to be ‘secret’??
Adding the word ‘secret’ gives your spin a spin.
“Let’s try to make this slightly more real to you guys.
The scenario is that you are a parent of a wonderful, beautiful daughter and she comes home and tells you straight out that she has been knocked up and, after much heart-wrenching consideration she has decided that she is going to get rid of it and that is that. It is no longer an abstract point with her and though she agrees with the pro-life position, when it comes down to herself, she is willing to give up the high moral ground and she is going through with it or else! (basically, “It’s WAR!”)
You of course are heart-broken and explain that you cannot allow this to happen, and what could this ‘or else’ be?
Then she gives you the ultimatum. If you do not agree to let her have an abortion, she will kill herself!
So, what’s the plan, what could your plan possibly be?”
I though you said that you are going to make it more real. How is this more real for me?
Give an argument that a position constitutes war – pboy’s response is let me type the word war in capitals.
What do call that argument by caps lock?
@pboy
if she would rather be dead than carry a baby to term , she is in need of serious pyschiatric help. Terminating the pregnancy artificially early probably wont change this and would probably make it worse as the subsequent guilt compounded her mental health issues.
And that is REAL as studies at Otago University here in NZ have shown.
cj_nza.. well are you going to answer the question?
I can only assume that Sheridan answer is that if they did go through it she would want her daughter executed.
Is that correct Sheridan?
“What do call that argument by caps lock?”
Nono, you’re arguing against my style of writing now?
I’m still in ‘the scenario’ there and impressing on mom/dad that the girl is SERIOUS! (see what I did there?)
So, you’re going to dance away from my little scenario. Why bother pretending to confront it then?
“if she would rather be dead than carry a baby to term , she is in need of serious pyschiatric help.”
So, given your beautiful daughter confronting you with an either/or scenario like this, you’d argue the her state of mind with me?
Nono Jeremy, in the scenario, I’ve got no say.
Hey Matt – what is the fallacy called where you basically go:
“Boohoo hoo! I have had a life experience which vaguely relates to what this argument is about so reading your point of view makes me feel sad THEREFORE your argument is invalid”
TAM –
In any event, I’m still waiting for someone to explain the moral difference between a rape victim who wants an abortion and a person who refuses a blood or organ transplant in circumstances where they are the only viable donor.
The difference is making someone die as opposed to not preventing someone dying.
“Nono, you’re arguing against my style of writing now?”
Maybe if enough of us point it out, you’ll accept that your ‘style of writing” is logical gibberish.
“The difference is making someone die as opposed to not preventing someone dying.”
That sounds like a very murky distinction. Do you suppose you could offer some clarification of why you think these don’t mean the same thing?
“logical gibberish.”
No one is twisting your arm to respond Colin.
Which part of my scenario is unrealistic?
You can’t imagine being a parent at all?
You can’t imagine having a daughter?
You can’t imagine your daughter getting pregnant?
You can’t imagine your pregnant daughter considering an abortion?
Was it the monkeys flying out of your butt part?
No wait, I didn’t include butt-dwelling flying monkeys.
Was it the lack of monkeys flying out of your butt when your daughter told you that she was determined to have an abortion?
Surely gibberish is by definition illogical? Just sayin’.
Paul,
You avoided the more important question: surely the mother has obligation when the pregnancy is due to her decision/consent/action/carelessness?
If you cause someone to need a blood transfer and you’re the only one who can supply it at that very moment or else the person dies. Surely you have the obligation to give your blood to save that person?
Paul,
“Therefore I’d argue that the best anti-termination or anti-abortion argument is not the moral or ethical argument, but the development of technology.”
Technology advancement should not determine whether it’s okay to kill a human being or not.
Do you think it’s okay to murder someone with chronic illness where no cure currently exists? Would you say they’re just wasting resources, we’ll make it legal to kill such person until we have the technology to cure that illness?
“cj_nza.. well are you going to answer the question?”
What question was that? Are you referring to the hypothetical situaion where my daugter gives me an altumatum: either I leave her to kill my grandchild or she will kill herself?
Don’t know how about : if you kill the baby I will kill myself.
Then we have a real Mexican standoff, no!?
Colin –
That sounds like a very murky distinction. Do you suppose you could offer some clarification of why you think these don’t mean the same thing?
Killing someone is not the same as not saving someone’s life.
Not killing someone is not the same as saving someone’s life.
Whether you are obliged to save someone’s life or not is a different moral question than whether you are obliged not to kill someone.
The violinist defense of abortion exploits blurring the distinction between not killing someone and saving someone’s life.
A question for those that oppose abortion being legal at 3 months and support abortion being illegal at 8 Months…
What precisely is wrong with abortions being illegal at 3 months gestation?
“The violinist defense of abortion exploits blurring the distinction between not killing someone and saving someone’s life.”
But the distinction is fundamentally blurred. Let me come up with an example off the top of my head:
You are in an accident, you’re rushed to hospital, the only surgeon in the hospital, who needs to operate on you to save your life, recognizes you as the guy who shagged his sister, and refuses to do it.
By the way, why violins?
@ Anon:
“Technology advancement should not determine whether it’s okay to kill a human being or not.
Do you think it’s okay to murder someone with chronic illness where no cure currently exists? Would you say they’re just wasting resources, we’ll make it legal to kill such person until we have the technology to cure that illness?”
I am putting foward a position that technology may well make this whole argument redundant by removing the need for a physical obligation from the mother to the fetus. All that you seem to have to offer is the endless repetition of the mantra “all abortions are murder”. It does nothing to move the debate forward or to change public policy.
If you want to now go on to discuss the case for assisted suicide for painful, chronic and incurable conditions then let me know
@ Anon:
“If you cause someone to need a blood transfer and you’re the only one who can supply it at that very moment or else the person dies. Surely you have the obligation to give your blood to save that person?”
that’s an interesting ethical question.
I used to be on the Anthony Nolan Trust Bone Marrow Donor Register – I’m too old now. I was notified several years ago that I was a close enough match to proceed to the second stage of screening and I was asked if I still wanted to continue.
I was happy to say ‘Yes’. I’m not sure how I would have felt if the opportunity to volunteer my consent was removed and the government of the day told me that I had no choice in the matter and I would be donating regardless. Nonetheless no obligation was inferred by my being on the register and I felt no obligation in the way that I think you mean. I said ‘Yes’ because I wanted to help someone, not because I thought I had to.
The same issue arises from organ donation – whether, from a moral standpoint, the option should be to opt in or to opt out.
@ Anon:
Sorry I missed the bit where you say I caused the need for the blood transfusion.
So if the rapist causes the pregnancy then the rapist should carry the child ?
Or is that not what you meant ?
@ Reed:
“A question for those that oppose abortion being legal at 3 months and support abortion being illegal at 8 Months…
What precisely is wrong with abortions being illegal at 3 months gestation?”
I think that I’ve answered in some detail when detailing premature babies survival timescales.
If the technology exists such a that fetus at 12 weeks can be successfully removed from the womb and placed into an environment where it can survive to the normal gestation time of 40 weeks without harm or detriment then you have a case.
That technology does not exist.
The technology does exist for a fetus at 32 weeks. Therefore the cases are different.
Colin –
But the distinction is fundamentally blurred.
Only if you choose not to focus. Your example is clearly an example of “not saving someone’s life.”
By the way, why violins?
Thrasymachus mentioned violins so I googled it and found this. I guess whoever came up with the analogy likes violins.
Paul –
Your answer missed my question.
Paul,
“Sorry I missed the bit where you say I caused the need for the blood transfusion.
So if the rapist causes the pregnancy then the rapist should carry the child ?
Or is that not what you meant ?”
No, I think you’re just trying to avoid answering the question.
Let me paraphrase: when a pregnancy is caused by the woman’s own decision/consent/carelessness, surely she can not use the excuse that the fetus can not survive without her and use that to justify killing it?
Just like if you caused someone to need your blood transfusion to survive, surely you can’t say that you have a case to kill the person because he/she can not survive independent of you?
Paul,
“I am putting foward a position that technology may well make this whole argument redundant by removing the need for a physical obligation from the mother to the fetus. All that you seem to have to offer is the endless repetition of the mantra “all abortions are murder”. It does nothing to move the debate forward or to change public policy.”
Sure, if such technology exists, people can no longer use the excuse that because fetus can not survive outside of the mother’s womb therefore it’s okay to kill it.
But that excuse is not valid to begin with. So there is no need to wait for the technology to make the above invalid argument redundant.
@ Anon:
“But that excuse is not valid to begin with. So there is no need to wait for the technology to make the above invalid argument redundant.”
That would be in your opinion and the opinion of other Pro-Lifers, but there any many millions of others who take a different view. If all that you’ve got is the stark statement that all abortion is murder then that is hardly going to change anyone’s mind.
Today and everyday (except Sundays as far as I know) women are going to clinics and having terminations because, for whatever reason, they do not want to carry the pregnancy to term and the law provides a framework where that can happen.
If you want to effect a change then you need to provide a realistic alternative. Forcing women to carry to term is not the way to do it.
@ Reed:
“Paul –
Your answer missed my question.”
I think that actually it did answer your question and in some detail.
@ Anon:
“Let me paraphrase: when a pregnancy is caused by the woman’s own decision/consent/carelessness, surely she can not use the excuse that the fetus can not survive without her and use that to justify killing it?”
You’d need to show that it was the woman’s intent to get pregnant or that she was negligent in becoming pregnant and that that means she must then carry the pregnancy to term.
I’d be interested to see how you might frame that as a statute.
I can’t see a legislator accepting that a reason to make terminations illegal.
I knew that I’d seen this stuff somewhere.
It’s the development of 3D printing to create human tissue such as a new heart (as I have hypertension I should declare an interest).
If the same process can be used to create a copy of the womans womb then use similar bio-chemical processes to sythesis the amniotic fluid then the only thing left is the blood transfer mechanism currently provided by the placenta.
Can it be done ? I don’t why not. The only problem might be cost but if the cost of the artificial womb and the surgical procedure for the fetal transfer are under £1000 then I’d suggest that you have a viable alternative to either a termination or compulsory pregnancy to term.
Just my tuppenceworth.
Why was my second comment on this thread removed?
Hi Paul,
“You’d need to show that it was the woman’s intent to get pregnant or that she was negligent in becoming pregnant and that that means she must then carry the pregnancy to term.
I’d be interested to see how you might frame that as a statute.
I can’t see a legislator accepting that a reason to make terminations illegal.”
You’re still avoiding my questions
Here they are again
When a pregnancy is caused by the woman’s own decision/consent/carelessness, surely she can not use the excuse that the fetus can not survive without her and use that to justify killing it?
Just like if you caused someone to need your blood transfusion to survive, surely you can’t say that you have a case to kill the person because he/she can not survive independent of you?
TAM Based on this reasoning, do you agree that a mother impregnated by a rapist owes no more moral obligation to the fetus than the blood/kidney donors would owe if it could be established that they were the only viable donors to save a life? If not, why?
I have gone back and forth on this one, at one stage I was convinced that that the kind of argument you refered to did justify abortion on the grounds of rape. However, I would simply add what I noted above such cases are extremely rare and make up less than 0.5% of all abortions . To defend permissive abortion laws by appealing to the tiny amount of hard cases is a bit like allowing people to commit homicide whenever it suits them on the grounds that there exist rare cases of justifiable homicide in self-defence.
However, I am not so convinced any more, one difference Dongan raises is that in the “pregnancy case” the women stand in a parent child relationship to the fetus. It seems to me that while one normally aquires this relationship through voluntarily engaging in intercourse, it sometime a person can find themselves under an obligation to adopt take on the parental role. Suppose for example I am living in a remote area by myself, I discover a baby on the door step of my house, it seems plausible that I am under an obligation to assume the obligation of a parent until one can find someone else who is available to do so. This would hold even if one has not had sexual intercourse and did not intend the child to be left on the door step. So I am not so sure any more.
paul you write“You’d need to show that it was the woman’s intent to get pregnant or that she was negligent in becoming pregnant and that that means she must then carry the pregnancy to term.
I’d be interested to see how you might frame that as a statute.
I can’t see a legislator accepting that a reason to make terminations illegal.”
This seems to me to be mistaken, take current child support laws, all that’s required to determine whether a man has a duty to support his child is to determine the man brought the child into existence through voluntary intercourse. The fact the man did not intend, to do this or used a condom, or does not wish be a father does not make a difference. If he is the father he is required to support his child, and if he refuses to take this responsibility he can be required to pay monetary compensation to the women who does.
So the suggestion that a person must intend to become a parent, before they are required to provide the basic necessities of a child they bring into existence is false.
Colin You ask “Thanks for your reply Matt. I wonder then if it is fair to call abortion the killing an entity (which implies that the intention was to kill) where the intention may be to preserve / withhold one’s own bodily resources. ” If you accept Dongan’s argument this distinction makes no difference, this is because parents have a duty to provide the basic necessities of life to their children, a parent who refused to feed a child, or provide it with shelter, and refused it any other resources, would be commiting homicide. Failure to provide resources when one has a duty of care to do so is in many instances on par with homicide.
This is one reason why the relationship between a fetus and the pregnant mother differs from the relationship between a man who has been attached to another without his consent. Parents have duties of care to their offspring which they do not have to other people who are not their offspring.
Paul you write “Excellent question. I’d say that in order for the fetus to survive dependent on the mother requires the mother to consent to continue to carry the fetus to birth. There is an obligation. Once born that direct physical dependency no longer exists. There is no obligation.”
This seems to equivocate on the meaning of the word ‘requires” if you mean moral requirement so that the sentence is “in order for the fetus to survive dependent on the mother morally requires the mother to consent to continue to carry the fetus” then the conclusion follows, however the premise simply asserts that a womens consent is morally required to carry the pregnancy to term and so the argument starts with the assumption its supposed to prove.
If you by “requires” you simply mean that in fact the fetus cannot in fact survive unless the women chooses to allow it, the premise is true, but then the conclusion does not follow. Why does the fact that someone cannot survive without someone else’s support , entail one is permitted to withdraw this support.
Finally, I don’t see why if what you say is true, this argument can’t be applied post birth. After all a new born infant cannot survive unless its parents or guardians support it, giving it food , sleep, clothing, getting up around the clock to feed it, chaning it and so forth, does the fact the baby depends on others this way entail that one is permitted to kill them if one chooses?
Or consider a person in a temporary coma on life support, they are unable to physically survive independently of the hospitals machinery, does it follow that the hospital can choose to kill them if they want to?
The mere fact that one person depends on another for survival does not provide grounds for the claim that the latter has a right to kill the former.
Pboy, if someone tells you to that they want you to kill your newborn child and if you don’t they kill themselves, would this lead you to support infanticide?
If not then your argument does not provide any reason for supporting feticide either.
Max you write “Arguments can be sound or not sound. Not “points.”” As the term “sound” is used in logic yes, however I was using it in a more colloquial sense.
You add “B*llshit. Sorry to swear on your blog Matt – but this is just b*llshit. This maybe the official line of conservative “philosophers” but it is not the way that governments run by conservatives act. In actual fact they don’t even pretend to act this way. They are quite open about the fact that the USA has and does and will go to war to protect the economic interests of the USA.”
I disagree, those on the left have an ideology which attributes war ( and a whole host of social ills) to economic motives and forces. But the actual reasons conservatives give for support ( or opposing) a given war is not economic reasons, nor do I know of any representative conservative thinkers who deny the principle of non combatant immunity.
Moreover, even if the real motives (as opposed to the official reasons) were as you say. Surely you know that attacking a person’s motives as opposed to the actual argument they offer does not show the argument they offer is unsound. If the conservatives arguments are sound then the fact there motives are otherwise does not change the fact there are good reasons for the war. And if there are not good reasons, motives are irrelevant, even if their motives were lilly white you can’t kill without good reasons.
Finally, even if one granted your point, I am not sure what it proves, suppose conservatives who oppose abortion also think it’s ok to kill non combatants for purely economic reasons, then they are mistaken about the killing of non combatants. Nothing in this inconsistency forces us to conclude they are wrong about abortion.
“I disagree, those on the left have an ideology which attributes war ( and a whole host of social ills) to economic motives and forces. ”
It is not a left/right issue. It is a matter of historical fact – and a fact about present USA military strategy – this is no surprise or secret. It is only those who live in a fantasy land who think otherwise.
“But the actual reasons conservatives give for support ( or opposing) a given war is not economic reasons, nor do I know of any representative conservative thinkers who deny the principle of non combatant immunity.”
So you don’t know of any conservative thinkers who are not fibbers?
“Moreover, even if the real motives (as opposed to the official reasons) were as you say. Surely you know that attacking a person’s motives as opposed to the actual argument they offer does not show the argument they offer is unsound.”
I was talking about the motives of the individuals – not tehir arguments. Different issue. But as you note – even the arguments are self contradictory.
“And if there are not good reasons, motives are irrelevant…”
This is one of the most bizarre statements I have ever heard about politics… motives are irrelevant??? What the,….
“Nothing in this inconsistency forces us to conclude they are wrong about abortion.”
No – it but one can conclude that they are self righteous, greedy, and hypocritical.
“No – it but one can conclude that they are self righteous, greedy, and hypocritical.”
One can wrongly conclude that, absolutely.
“But the actual reasons conservatives give for support ( or opposing) a given war is not economic reasons, nor do I know of any representative conservative thinkers who deny the principle of non combatant immunity.”
So you don’t know of any conservative thinkers who are not fibbers?”
I don’t generally assume people are fibbing unless I have a good reason for thinking so.
But suppose I am mistaken, I addressed this point in my post. Suppose a person defends a particular action with a certain line of argument, then if that argument is sound the action is defensible. The fact they are insincere and really have other reasons does not change this.
“Moreover, even if the real motives (as opposed to the official reasons) were as you say. Surely you know that attacking a person’s motives as opposed to the actual argument they offer does not show the argument they offer is unsound.”
I was talking about the motives of the individuals – not tehir arguments. Different issue. But as you note – even the arguments are self contradictory.
Well I don’t think the just war theory is self contradictory nor do I think it entails that abortion is permissible so I fail to see the force of this argument.
“And if there are not good reasons, motives are irrelevant…”
This is one of the most bizarre statements I have ever heard about politics… motives are irrelevant??? What the,….”
Well its not bizarre, if there is no good reason for killing someone, then one should not kill. Whats bizarre about this? The fact one might have good political motives for doing so does not change this.
”No – it but one can conclude that they are self righteous, greedy, and hypocritical.”
I agree, if a person held it was ok to bomb civilian population centres for economic reasons and condemned abortion they would be greedy and hypocritical (though not necessarily wrong about abortion). I simply don’t think many conservatives actually contend this. The suggestion for example that the only reason someone might want to depose the baathist regime or remove the Taliban from power is “oil” does not seem plausible. It’s not hard to think of some reasonably plausible reasons why these regimes should be taken out, or why someone informed about these regimes might support removing them by force for reasons other than “oil” .
pro abortion side just can’t stick to the topic
Anon, I have noticed that as well, the topic is abortion and they want to talk about how some people who oppose abortion are really evil because of other views they allegedly hold.
@ Matt:
“If you by “requires” you simply mean that in fact the fetus cannot in fact survive unless the women chooses to allow it, the premise is true, but then the conclusion does not follow. Why does the fact that someone cannot survive without someone else’s support , entail one is permitted to withdraw this support. ”
That is what I meant, a physical obligation, not a moral obligation. The alternative is coercion. This is true especially in the example of the IVF paring to increase the likely success of one fetus.
Are you suggesting that the state should enforce the physical obligation of the birth mother carry all 8 implanted eggs ?
The principle is the same for a single implanted egg. To continue the pregnancy to term requires the mother to accept that physical obligation.
“Finally, I don’t see why if what you say is true, this argument can’t be applied post birth. After all a new born infant cannot survive unless its parents or guardians support it, giving it food , sleep, clothing, getting up around the clock to feed it, chaning it and so forth, does the fact the baby depends on others this way entail that one is permitted to kill them if one chooses? ”
That is a different matter but I can understand the suggestion that they are similar.
The major difference comes back to the technological argument that I continually mention.
Post birth ANYONE can fulfill that physical obligation.
Pre-birth only ONE person can fulfill that physical obligation.
If the techological solution that I’ve poposed were to be technically feasible then it would reconcile the post-birth and pre-birth physical obligations.
Anyone could do it.
@ Matt:
“Or consider a person in a temporary coma on life support, they are unable to physically survive independently of the hospitals machinery, does it follow that the hospital can choose to kill them if they want to?”
Aside from the emotive language that does happen everyday, after due consultation with relatives and following the hospital ethical procedures. How you differentiate between a temporary coma and a persistant vegetative state is another matter.
@ Matt:
“This seems to me to be mistaken, take current child support laws, all that’s required to determine whether a man has a duty to support his child is to determine the man brought the child into existence through voluntary intercourse. The fact the man did not intend, to do this or used a condom, or does not wish be a father does not make a difference. If he is the father he is required to support his child, and if he refuses to take this responsibility he can be required to pay monetary compensation to the women who does. ”
I’ve had quite some dealings with the CSA in the UK over very many years, both as an absent parent and as the parent with care and I have to say that that is an incredibly simplistic analysis of the intent and the implementation of child support legislation.
Obviously things may be different in NZ, but I suspect not.
“I agree, if a person held it was ok to bomb civilian population centres for economic reasons and condemned abortion they would be greedy and hypocritical (though not necessarily wrong about abortion).”
Then we are in agreement. For the subset of conservatives who support wars for economic reasons and oppose abortion – we both hold them to be hypocritical and greedy. Now you think this is a small subset of conservatives… I think it is a large subset. This is an empirical matter – but essentially you do agree.
“I think it is a large subset”
Any proof that back it up?
Paul, you write Aside from the emotive language that does happen everyday, after due consultation with relatives and following the hospital ethical procedures. How you differentiate between a temporary coma and a persistant vegetative state is another matter.
note the qualification “following the hospital ethical procedures” the reality is a hospital would not kill a person on life if they knew the person would wake up in a few months time. Its when treatment is futile and the coma is considered to be irreversible that this occurs. Or where its believed the person has no real prospect of recovering. All situations which are not applicable in the abortion situation.
“Then we are in agreement. For the subset of conservatives who support wars for economic reasons and oppose abortion – we both hold them to be hypocritical and greedy. Now you think this is a small subset of conservatives… I think it is a large subset. This is an empirical matter – but essentially you do agree.”
Yes we agree, we often do when side issues are clarified. I think we also agree that whether they are hypocrites or not is a separate question to whether they are incorrect about abortion
@ Anon:
“You’re still avoiding my questions
Here they are again
When a pregnancy is caused by the woman’s own decision/consent/carelessness, surely she can not use the excuse that the fetus can not survive without her and use that to justify killing it?
Just like if you caused someone to need your blood transfusion to survive, surely you can’t say that you have a case to kill the person because he/she can not survive independent of you?”
No I’m not. I suspect we’re talking at cross purposes sometimes though.
Ok, in each case there is a physical obligation – for some reason I have caused X.
X requires me to do something that I do not have to do, Y.
Why should I do Y ?
What is missing from the statement is what is the effect of perfoming Y on me, and are there any alternatives to Y, and are there any other implications for allowing Y to happen and what will happen if Y is not performed.
I can understand why you want to reduce the moral argument to one that is as simple as you’re putting forward, however, I think more information is needed. How old is the fetus ? I’m assuming that this is post implantation ?
Paul, is it your position that if a man admits to voluntarily having sex but stated he did not want to be a father he is exempt from paying child support.
(BTW my analysis is borne out by the common law history of child support laws.)
So Paul,
Keep on avoiding my questions huh?
When a pregnancy is caused by the woman’s own decision/consent/carelessness, surely she can not use the excuse that the fetus can not survive without her and use that to justify killing it?
Just like if you caused someone to need your blood transfusion to survive, surely you can’t say that you have a case to kill the person because he/she can not survive independent of you?
@ Matt:
“note the qualification “following the hospital ethical procedures” the reality is a hospital would not kill a person on life if they knew the person would wake up in a few months time. Its when treatment is futile and the coma is considered to be irreversible that this occurs. ”
So, is it ethical then when the patient is in PVS to switch off life support ? I cannot see the difference. A physical obligation is being withdrawn causing loss of life, or would you argue that quality of life is a mitigating factor ?
@ Matt:
“Paul, is it your position that if a man admits to voluntarily having sex but stated he did not want to be a father he is exempt from paying child support. ”
that’s not the position that you first put forward. Now you’ve adding a voluntary statement of responsibility, which is a different matter altogether.
@ Anon:
I have now answered your questions several times. You just don’t seem to like the answers.
@ Matt:
“BTW my analysis is borne out by the common law history of child support laws.”
I’m assuming that that is NZ only ? If you want to discuss the UK aspect then I’m happy to go into that.
Paul, you still haven’t answered the questions.
You argued that abortion is justified because the fetus can not survive without the mother. But in majority of cases, the fetus is in the situation of needing the mother because of the mother’s consensual activity or decision or carelessness.
Just like if you caused someone to need your blood transfusion, and it happen that only you who can provide it or else the person dies. Surely you can not use this as a justification to kill the person since you caused him/her to be in that situation?
“What is missing from the statement is what is the effect of perfoming Y on me, and are there any alternatives to Y, and are there any other implications for allowing Y to happen and what will happen if Y is not performed.”
It really doesn’t matter. You will still not have any justification to pay a hitman to kill that other person just because that other person is dependent on you
Paul you write
“That is a different matter but I can understand the suggestion that they are similar.
The major difference comes back to the technological argument that I continually mention.
Post birth ANYONE can fulfill that physical obligation.
Pre-birth only ONE person can fulfill that physical obligation.”
Thats false, there are plenty of cases post birth where a human being cannot survive independently of another and there is no other person who can provide the support. I gave one in my response to Pboy in a previous post. A man on an airliner cannot physically survive independently of the plane, does this mean the pilot can kill him or throw him out the door?
Or imagine that a person is on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic, they cannot survive independently of the boat, or the food and shelter it provides does the owner of the boat have a right to kill him?
Or imagine a companion of mine who is injured while hiking in the woods, I am the only person who can care for them until help comes, they cannot survive independently of me, does it follow I can kill them?
Or take a case of conjoined twins, one cannot live independently of the other, does it follow they can kill each other?
Moreover, even in infant case what you say is not true, it’s true when other people are willing and able to adopt the child. But there can easily be situations in which this is not the case, particularly for certain minority children or children with disabilities, no one may want to adopt them, and even if they do, it might take months for the adoption to occur, in the meantime can the mother kill her children?
Or if the mother lives in a remote area by herself, can she kill her children because she is the only one able to breast feed them?
The point is the claim that one is permitted to kill someone if they cannot live independently of them seems subject to some straightforward counter examples.
@ Anon:
“You argued that abortion is justified because the fetus can not survive without the mother. But in majority of cases, the fetus is in the situation of needing the mother because of the mother’s consensual activity or decision or carelessness.”
No, what I am arguing is that under current legislation, which is after all what you must change if you are to succeed, the definition for whether a termination can legally take place or not, health issues aside, is based upon the time at which a fetus can independently survive without a physically connection to it’s mother.
All that I’ve read so far in countering this is a long list of moral arguments that, in summary, state that no abortion is justifiable under any circumstances, none of which will persuade legislators here in the UK or, I suggest, elsewhere, to change the legislation currently in force.
In order for a pregnancy to proceed to term you either need the mother to voluntarily agree to continue with the physical obligation of the pregnancy, or you need to coerce her from the moment of conception to term using legislation, and ultimately physical force.
Paul “that’s not the position that you first put forward. Now you’ve adding a voluntary statement of responsibility, which is a different matter altogether.”
No Paul, that was the position I first put forward.
It sounds like your admitting that if a person voluntarily had sex then he is responsible for bringing the child into existence, and also that the fact he did not intend to do this is not enough to exempt him from being legally required to provide for that child.
So???
This is true after birth as well, if we want parents to not neglect or abuse there children then either the parents voluntarily choose to do this, or the law forces thme to using legislation and ultimately force.
Similarly with rape, in order for women to not be raped by men you either need men to voluntarily refrain from rape, or you need to coerce her from the moment of conception to term using legislation, and ultimately physical force.
Find any action X, its true that if we want people to do X either they need to do it voluntarily or we coerce them by law. Does this mean X is justified, not at all.
@ Matt:
An interesting series of questions
“A man on an airliner cannot physically survive independently of the plane, does this mean the pilot can kill him or throw him out the door? ”
I’d like to read the aviation law, but it really would not surprise me if the answer was ‘yes’ especially in extremis.
“Or imagine that a person is on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic, they cannot survive independently of the boat, or the food and shelter it provides does the owner of the boat have a right to kill him? ”
I think under maritime law the answer might be ‘yes’, but I’d have to check. I’m sure that I heard of a couple of cases where the justification proposed was murder by necessity.
“Or imagine a companion of mine who is injured while hiking in the woods, I am the only person who can care for them until help comes, they cannot survive independently of me, does it follow I can kill them?”
I think that that would depend on the circumstances, but I would think a case could be made.
“Or take a case of conjoined twins, one cannot live independently of the other, does it follow they can kill each other?”
That doesn’t necessarily work as an analogy.
“Moreover, even in infant case what you say is not true, it’s true when other people are willing and able to adopt the child. But there can easily be situations in which this is not the case, particularly for certain minority children or children with disabilities, no one may want to adopt them, and even if they do, it might take months for the adoption to occur, in the meantime can the mother kill her children? ”
The child would have an existance physically independent of it’s mother, if you then want to introduce additional complications then please feel free, but they do not diminish my line of argument.
“Or if the mother lives in a remote area by herself, can she kill her children because she is the only one able to breast feed them?”
There are circumstances where that would be justifiable – where trying to save all of the children would mean that they would all die whereas killing one might cause the rest to stand a better chance of survival – that would be the IVF example.
In summary I don’t think any of your examples rebut my line of argument.
@ Matt:
“It sounds like your admitting that if a person voluntarily had sex then he is responsible for bringing the child into existence, and also that the fact he did not intend to do this is not enough to exempt him from being legally required to provide for that child.”
No, Matt but it’s a good try.
Paul, I think you’ll find that English common law states that a parents duty to provide the basic necessities of life to their children is grounded in the fact that the parents brought them into existence via voluntary intercourse.
I think you’ll find that most child support laws also reflect this, which is why once a man admits he had sex with the women and it is biologically his child he can be liable to pay child support, complaints about the fact he did not intend the women to get pregnant does not make him exempt.
In case of abortion, if the women has not been raped, she is carrying a being she is responsible for bringing into existence.
Your suggestion seems to be that you can bring a person into existence whom you know will be dependant on you and then kill that person because they depend on you. I don’t find that claim self evident at all.
Paul perhaps then you can be clear to us, suppose a man has sex with a women, he finds out she is pregnant, he does not want to be a father, is it acceptable for him to simply walk away, and to provide no support either to the women or child?
If the mere fact that he voluntarily had sex does not give him obligations to care for the child its hard to see how one can claim this is not the case.
@ Matt:
“This is true after birth as well, if we want parents to not neglect or abuse there children then either the parents voluntarily choose to do this, or the law forces thme to using legislation and ultimately force. ”
That’s ever so slightly irrelevant.
The care provided to a child can be provided by anyone, not just the birth parents. All parties providing care to the child are indeed under varying legal duties of care, but it is not necessarily just the birth mother and indeed, at times, the child can be left alone to look after itself.
The womb provided to a fetus can only be provided by one person – the birth mother. The fetus can never be left to look after itself.
I’m sorry Matt, but we will keep coming back to this central point, before birth it’s only the birth mother who has a duty to the fetus, and after birth it can be anyone, who has a duty to the child.
@Paul
“A man on an airliner cannot physically survive independently of the plane, does this mean the pilot can kill him or throw him out the door? ”
I’d like to read the aviation law, but it really would not surprise me if the answer was ‘yes’ especially in extremis.”
I doubt very much that aviation law allows a pilot to kill passengers on the plane, he might be able to in extreme circumstances where the passenger is a threat to the life of the pilot, but the mere fact that person is a passenger and hence unable to survive independently of the plane would not be sufficient.
“Or imagine that a person is on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic, they cannot survive independently of the boat, or the food and shelter it provides does the owner of the boat have a right to kill him? ”
I think under maritime law the answer might be ‘yes’, but I’d have to check. I’m sure that I heard of a couple of cases where the justification proposed was murder by necessity.
Again this is false, as you point out, they can do this only when its a case of “necessity” that is when the person on the boat’s continued presence constitutes a threat to the life of the human beings on the boat, the mere fact that the person is on the boat and can’t survive in the middle of the atlantic indepdently of it does not give a captian the right to kill passengers.
“Or imagine a companion of mine who is injured while hiking in the woods, I am the only person who can care for them until help comes, they cannot survive independently of me, does it follow I can kill them?”
I think that that would depend on the circumstances, but I would think a case could be made.”
Again your answer shows that what the fact one person depends on another does not mean you can kill them, as you note it depends on the circumstances in other words you accept killing only when certain extreme situations occur, the mere fact of physical dependence is not sufficient.
“Or if the mother lives in a remote area by herself, can she kill her children because she is the only one able to breast feed them?”
There are circumstances where that would be justifiable – where trying to save all of the children would mean that they would all die whereas killing one might cause the rest to stand a better chance of survival – that would be the IVF example”.
Again what your response shows is that the mere fact one person depends on another for survival is not sufficient. What your example shows is that one can kill such people when there existence poses a threat to our existence or the existence of other.
“In summary I don’t think any of your examples rebut my line of argument.”
Actually I think they do, what you responses show is that one can kill another person who is dependent on you, in extreme circumstances when they poses a threat to your life. In each case its highly implausible that you can kill the person merely because they are dependent.
At best your argument shows that abortion is justified prior to viability when the fetus constitutes a credible threat to the life of the mother. Less than 0.5% of abortions fit this criteria.
I’m sorry Matt, but we will keep coming back to this central point, before birth it’s only the birth mother who has a duty to the fetus, and after birth it can be anyone, who has a duty to the child.
And Paul I have pointed out several cases post birth where this distinction is not true and yet one cannot kill the person unless they threaten our existence.
And as I noted earlier its not a given that other people will volunteer to look after the child, your position makes the morality of infanticide depend on wether other people want the infant, if they don’t infanticide by your logic is permissible.
@ Matt:
“Paul, I think you’ll find that English common law states that a parents duty to provide the basic necessities of life to their children is grounded in the fact that the parents brought them into existence via voluntary intercourse. ”
Could you cite the statute ? I’d like to read where the text says that in those precise terms. I don’t doubt that something along those general lines exists in a number of statutes and statutory instruments but I don’t think it’s that explicit particularly in regards to the voluntary intercourse.
I think it might be a bit like the fallacy of a common law marriage.
“I think you’ll find that most child support laws also reflect this, which is why once a man admits he had sex with the women and it is biologically his child he can be liable to pay child support, complaints about the fact he did not intend the women to get pregnant does not make him exempt. ”
Yes, that would be admission of responsibility. The fact of the matter is that in most cases the absent father was the ex-husband of the mother so that’s not in dispute.
I think that what you’re proposing is that Mr X meets Miss Y, they have consensual sex and Miss Y becomes pregnant. The only time when Mr X becomes liable for child support is if Miss Y proceeds to term, names Mr X as the father and Mr X is proven to be the father and the CSA manage to locate him.
In theory, that’s fine. The implementation is somewhat different with Miss Y refusing to identify Mr X for whatever reason or Mr X not being traceable.
One of the reasons why the CSA in the UK has undergone the reforms that it had was that it was persuing the ex-husbands and leaving the more difficult cases unresolved.
@ Matt:
“I doubt very much that aviation law allows a pilot to kill passengers on the plane, he might be able to in extreme circumstances where the passenger is a threat to the life of the pilot, but the mere fact that person is a passenger and hence unable to survive independently of the plane would not be sufficient.”
Well, that is one example that correlates with the continuation of a pregnancy threatening the life of the mother.
“Again this is false, as you point out, they can do this only when its a case of “necessity” that is when the person on the boat’s continued presence constitutes a threat to the life of the human beings on the boat, the mere fact that the person is on the boat and can’t survive in the middle of the atlantic indepdently of it does not give a captian the right to kill passengers.”
and again.
“Again what your response shows is that the mere fact one person depends on another for survival is not sufficient. What your example shows is that one can kill such people when there existence poses a threat to our existence or the existence of other.”
and again
“At best your argument shows that abortion is justified prior to viability when the fetus constitutes a credible threat to the life of the mother. Less than 0.5% of abortions fit this criteria.”
0.5% sounds like such a small percentage but what are the real numbers behind that ?
If you are going to accept that 0.5% of all terminations are morally justifiable on that basis then the moot that all feticide is morally unjustfiable homicide fails. Yet that is the line that is being put forward repeatedly by the Pro-Life lobby – all abortion is murder.
I can appreciate the arguments that you’re putting up Matt and the tone in which you’re putting them but I do not see how they will persuade legislators to alter the status quo to either reduce the time limit for terminations below 18 weeks or make all abortions illegal.
I’m no expert in all of the lines of argument in this field, but I know enough of the outlines of some of them to put them forward here such that you can see what you’re going to be up against if you are intending to change the law, which I’m assuming, is your ultimate intent.
@ Matt:
“And as I noted earlier its not a given that other people will volunteer to look after the child, your position makes the morality of infanticide depend on wether other people want the infant, if they don’t infanticide by your logic is permissible.”
Final response before the rugby starts (France v Ireland), pre-birth I have stated my own views, indeed based on my moral standpoint.
Post-birth I ‘m stating a view based on my understanding of UK law, specifically English law, my own experiences with official organisations and my own knowledge of English history and some specific cases. Please do not assume that the comments that I have made with regards to infanticide reflect my own morals.
They do not.
@Paul
I think i’m getting my head around your problem.
You seem to fundamentally confuse law and morality.
Just because the law allows something doesnt make it moral, nor does something being immoral make it illegal. I am sure you actually know this. Adultery is a good example. Legal, immoral and no-one likes to be the victim.
No amount of contemporary practice or current law permitting abortion actually defines the morality of abortion.
“Only if you choose not to focus. Your example is clearly an example of “not saving someone’s life.””
Bizarre that you would say that, sure sounded like murder to me.
So matt, my point is that now your third assertion becomes:
In the case of a mother allowing their fetus to die as a side effect of the mother’s choices, (at least in the majority of cases) insufficient or no justification is forthcoming.
So in order to prove that abortion is wrong, all you have to do is prove that abortion is wrong.
Colin –
As I said earlier… whether you are obliged to save someone’s life or not is a different moral question than whether you are obliged not to kill someone.
You must realise this, otherwise your analogy would have involved a passerby instead of a doctor (ie. someone with an obligation to save lives).
Reed, you might want to correct your last post.
You said that the difference between a doctor and a passer-by illustrates the difference between not saving someone’s life and killing someone. How are those two differences related? You said yourself that the doctor was in the category of not saving, so you must be thinking the passer-by is a killer?
Now if you had proposed the difference between a doctor deciding to operate on his enemy, and a mugger, deciding not to shoot his victim, then that would make more sense.
But then at a deeper level there is no difference.
And I’m guessing that the doctor who intentionally fails an operation would in fact be liable for murder
You said that the difference between a doctor and a passer-by illustrates the difference between not saving someone’s life and killing someone.
No I didn’t. You brought up the surgeon (doctor) analogy to illustrate a supposed lack of distinction between not saving someone’s life and killing someone.
However, instead of showing a lack of distinction your analogy posited a life saving situation and a person with an obligation to save lives.
The reason why you didn’t propose a life saving situation and someone without an obligation to save lives (eg. a passerby) must be that you realise that whether you are obliged to save someone’s life or not is a different moral question than whether you are obliged not to kill someone.
You’re confusing two very different distinctions.
1. The distinction between not saving someone’s life, and killing someone
2. The distinction between having a moral obligation, and not having a moral obligation.
These two apparent distinctions are certainly not the same thing, and only loosely related. I’m not sure why you’re bringing #2 into a discussion of #1.
Bringing in a passer-by (which you’re welcome to do) doesn’t bring you any closer to demonstrating the difference between not saving someone, and killing them. If the surgery was replaced with CPR, and the passer-by knew how to perform it, and chose not to out of malice, they’re just as much a killer as the surgeon would be.
@ Jeremy:
“You seem to fundamentally confuse law and morality.
Just because the law allows something doesnt make it moral, nor does something being immoral make it illegal. I am sure you actually know this. Adultery is a good example. Legal, immoral and no-one likes to be the victim.”
Perhaps, but what is it that the Pro-Life movement trying to do ? Win a moral argument or change the law to prevent abortions ?
What I’ve read so far is a convoluted line of moral argument which, if I were a legislator, I would not accept as being justification for reducing the time limit for terminations from 24 weeks to nil.
If that change is not the ultimate aim of the conference then what exactly is the point of it ?
@Paul
Both.
In the context of this blog, we are having/making a moral argument.
I dont see it as complicated at all. The human foetus is nothing other than human, its really that simple. All the arguments from the pro-choice side all come down to attempts to dehumanise the human foetus so people can pretend they are not killing another human being. I would have far more respect if they would just be honest, yes we are killing a baby because we dont want it, it doesnt suit us, etc. This wouldnt make doing so any better , but it would be much less hypocritical.
And of course pro-life groups want to see the law changed. We cant call ourselves a civilised or moral society when we deliberately kill the most defenceless among us in such vast numbers.
Previous discussions on this blog have discussed genocide in ancient Canaan, religiously motivated war is regularly brought up , and recently Abraham and Isaac got a good going over concerning the possibility of one person being sacrificed. Yet the number of people who died in these situations are as a drop in the bottom of a very large bucket, when compared to the number of lives taken each year through abortion. All of them innocent defenceless children, not a soldier, not an enemy adult, not a false worshipper not even a political opponent among them. More life is shed each day,[ more children sacrificed each day to the twin gods of convenience and economics], than at any time in our past human history. We have nothing to be proud of . All of human advance, science and culture has lead us to the greatest bloodbath the world has ever seen [all babies] and most people dont know or care that its happening. And its done in the name of choice and rights.
@ Jeremy:
“I dont see it as complicated at all. The human foetus is nothing other than human, its really that simple.”
I still don’t accept that the case for enforcing the physical obligation to carry to term has been made. Arguing that reducing the time limit from 24 weeks to nil is justifiable needs to overcome that hurdle.
The difficulty for the Pro-Life camp is indeed appreciating that the argument is more complex than the one that they present.
One of the most ironic things about the whole debate is that every pro-choice voice is able to speak because and only because no-one aborted them.
There you go Jeremy, if you feel the need to ask the ‘big question’, “Why am I here?”, now you know.
Ironic that it’s that simple, isn’t it?
Previous discussions on this blog have discussed genocide in ancient Canaan, religiously motivated war is regularly brought up , and recently Abraham and Isaac got a good going over concerning the possibility of one person being sacrificed.
Another factor of interest here, is how when one discusses these other topics skeptics tend to take an absolutists stance, its never justified to kill an infant or a non combatantant and anyone who suggests in narrow or rare circumstances a perfectly good being might command this is expressing the indefensible.
When its the topic of abortion, often the same skeptics will then say “its not so simple to say its wrong to kill human beings” or will suggest moral issues are complex, and various factors need to be weighed, and so forth. I don’t really get this.
I don’t think this is really what is going on Matt.
What the skeptic is saying is that:
“according to your own traditions morality (not mine) it is always wrong to kill – and here is an example where your tradition (not mine) presents killing in a positive light. Therefore your tradition (not mine) is contradictory.”
This argument says nothing about the skeptics view of killing in general or abortion in particular.
@ Paul “If you are going to accept that 0.5% of all terminations are morally justifiable on that basis then the moot that all feticide is morally unjustfiable homicide fails. Yet that is the line that is being put forward repeatedly by the Pro-Life lobby – all abortion is murder.”
Well that was not the argument I put forward at all, I accepted that there are rare cases where abortion is justified, nor does the “pro life” lobby deny this, even the roman catholic church accepts abortions to save the mothers life are licit, moreover I know of no pro-life ethicist who holds the view that abortion is never in any circumstance acceptable.
The point is you cannot argue that because there are rare cases where abortion is justified, cases which make up less than 0.5 % of all cases , it follows the current law which allows abortion in 99.5% of the other is justified
“I can appreciate the arguments that you’re putting up Matt and the tone in which you’re putting them but I do not see how they will persuade legislators to alter the status quo to either reduce the time limit for terminations below 18 weeks or make all abortions illegal.”
Ok two things here, first you talk of a time limit below 18 weeks , in fact in NZ abortions can be legally done post viability, in the US abortion can be done at any stage in the pregnancy, partial birth which is performed in the last trimester was banned under bush, there was a huge fight against this ban from the pro choice lobby and Obama opposed it. Most European countries also allow abortion post viability. So your assumption that there is such a time limit and we are only asking legislators to lift it, seems dubious to me.
Second, you simply assert my argument does not persuade, but you have failed to show what is wrong with it. You suggested that when abortion was acceptable because a fetus depends on its mother for its existence. I pointed numerous other cases where people depend on others for there existence and noted this fact does not entail its permissible to kill them. You responded that in rare circumstances where these people are a threat to others lives one could kill them. So, the argument you provided shows at best that prior to viability abortion is acceptable in those rare cases where a fetus threatens the mothers life. But that does not even remotely refute my position, which was that abortion is unjustified homicide in vast majority of cases.
If the law was such that abortion was only allowed prior to viability and when the fetus posed a threat to the mothers life then you have defended it. But of course the law does not do this, it allows abortion post viability and it allows it practically on demand. If , on the basis of your arguments,legislators are unpersuaded to change this its not because any arguments given here have justified it. Its only because they have illegitimately jumped from a conclusion than in rare cases X is justified to the contention that in most or majority of cases it is.
Thats a breathtakingly bad inference, any legislator who believes this should not be in office, after all if a small number of people voted for the opposition party this logic should lead him to assume that the majority voted for the opposition and hence he is not legitimately in power. Funny how they never make this conclusion when they vote on laws to liberalise abortion.
@ M
“according to your own traditions morality (not mine) it is always wrong to kill”
well there is a problem straight away, the skeptic is immediately wrong when he says this and has failed to correctly ascertain or understand Christian belief. He is making an assumption and basing his disagreement on that assumption
Don’t disagree with you Jeremy. But that is a different sort of error.
Max “according to your own traditions morality (not mine) it is always wrong to kill – and here is an example where your tradition (not mine) presents killing in a positive light. Therefore your tradition (not mine) is contradictory.”
Yes I wondered about that possibility, the problem is this is I don’t think its an accurate picture of the tradition. I think the case can be made that Christian theologians accepted it was OK to kill in rare circumstances if God commanded it.
So I guess one asks is this supposed to be an external criticism or an internal one. If its external then the sceptic needs to defend absolutist views of killing and not simply adopt them when its useful in an argument. If its internal then it seems the Christian tradition is more nuanced and when these nuances are taken into account its not clear that the position is incoherent.
I agree the skeptic is caught upon the bulls horn – I just think they are being gored by the right horn not the left.
@ Matt:
“I know of no pro-life ethicist who holds the view that abortion is never in any circumstance acceptable.”
I can, which is why I make the point. I have seen, time and again, the mantra posted “Abortion is murder, is murder, is murder” with no equivocation.
I’m not making this stuff up for the sake of having an argument with you.
“it follows the current law which allows abortion in 99.5% of the other is justified ”
Well, actually it does. It’s a law that is regularly reviewed and because of the contentious nature of the subject matter is always decided on a free vote in the UK.
“Ok two things here, first you talk of a time limit below 18 weeks , in fact in NZ abortions can be legally done post viability”
Similar guidelines exist in the UK, but I think you need to expand on what those circumstances are.
“So your assumption that there is such a time limit and we are only asking legislators to lift it, seems dubious to me. ”
Not at all. There is a an accepted difference in the purpose of the legislation pre and post viability. Would it not help to cite the specific parts of the relevant statutes and the guidance notes for clinicians in the US, NZ and UK ? The UK stuff is all online.
“If the law was such that abortion was only allowed prior to viability and when the fetus posed a threat to the mothers life then you have defended it.”
That is the point that I have been trying to make again and again Matt, and it is evidenced by the legislators continued reconsiderations of the time limits based on viability.
To assert simply that all terminations from the moment of inception, even pre-implantation, bar those to save the life of the mother, are murder is not going to persuade any legislator to practically reduce the time limit. The default position is to leave the status quo in place, and your position is so extreme and impractical in it’s application that legislators will simply ignore it.
“Thats a breathtakingly bad inference, any legislator who believes this should not be in office,”
Then the solution is very simple and one I recommend to anyone who complains about the unfairness of the legislative system – STAND FOR OFFICE !
This news article was published in the Daily Mail (not known for holding liberal views)>
I support the mothers decision – she was presented with the information necessary to make a choice. I would have supported her decision equally if she had decided to terminate the pregnancy.
@ Paul,
You and I are agreed that the position that its never under any circumstances permissible to kill a fetus is false. However, as I noted the fact abortion is justified in rare circumstances does not entail its justified in all the circumstances which are currently legal. You claim this does follow ’s because “a law that is regularly reviewed and because of the contentious nature of the subject matter is always decided on a free vote in the UK.” But this is simply false, the fact a large number of politicans support a law does not mean the inference above is valid. It clearly is invalid. Nor does telling me to get elected really change the fact that the inference is invalid. You welcome to support irrational nonsense simply because its politically popular but don’t pretend its rational to do so.
The rest of your comment seems essentially to be an assertion that lots of legislators don’t accept this or accept differences between viability and non viability. But that again tells us only that certain opinions are widely accepted by politicans. I could just as easily point out that few bio-ethics either defenders or proponents of abortion see viability as having any significance, nor are the “middle of the road” positions the ones typically defended in the philosophical literature largely because they are often ad hoc mixtures of contradictory or opposing views.
The point is the fact a large number of legislators think something tells us little about wether its just or unjust. If my argument is flawed you need to show where it is, and why, simply stating that politicans ( people I have little respect for anyway) think otherwise really is not an answer.
[…] who have been following Matt’s series Abortion and the Morality of Feticide might enjoy this video featuring Francis Beckwith of Baylor University’s Philosophy faculty […]
@ Matt:
“You and I are agreed that the position that its never under any circumstances permissible to kill a fetus is false.”
Good, but as I’ve posted already, other Pro-Lifers do not take such a view and hold that all abortions are morally unjustifiable.
“But this is simply false, the fact a large number of politicans support a law does not mean the inference above is valid. ”
I’m sorry but I strongly disagree with that viewpoint. We elect our officials to enact laws on our behalf based on our morals (amongst other things). Therefore, based on the mechanism used – informed debate followed by a free vote it is most certainly morally justifiable.
You may think differently, obviously, but unless you intend to do something about it, as in standing for office or running a political campaign to get public policy changed then all that you have is the assertion that you are morally right and the legislature is morally wrong, and nothing will change.
“I could just as easily point out that few bio-ethics either defenders or proponents of abortion see viability as having any significance, nor are the “middle of the road” positions the ones typically defended in the philosophical literature largely because they are often ad hoc mixtures of contradictory or opposing views.”
I wish you would, and then also show whether or not they have been called as expert witnesses or supplied expert testimony for legislators to consider prior to any vote.
I suspect that they have been and their views taken into account. Whether or not ‘middle of the road’ positions are typically defended in philosophical literature is neither here nor there – do you want to change the law or not ?
If so then choose the correct arena for your argument. It isn’t academia or a one sided conference.
In the UK we have the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. What input did your philosophers or bio-ethics experts have on those two Acts ? It’s a serious question.
You can ‘win’ your argument Matt, but unless you intend having an actual impact on the debate then you need to stop trying to ‘win’ and start trying to change things, and to do that – you need to engage with some stupid legislators and start discussing from the standpoint of viability.
“We elect our officials to enact laws on our behalf based on our morals (amongst other things). Therefore, based on the mechanism used – informed debate followed by a free vote it is most certainly morally justifiable.”
Seriously Paul, do you believe this—–“that if it has passed a free vote following informed debate, it is by definition morally justifiable”
This seems to assume that all parlimentarians will always make morally good choices, it seems to assume that majority makes right, it also seems to assume that there is no such thing as right or wrong, just what is contemporarily acceptable.
RAther than use the “Hitler was elected by the German people” argument how about the case of William Wilberforce and black slavery in Britian and her dominions. It took Wilberforce the better part of his life to persuade the British parliment to outlaw slavery. Are you suggesting slavery was morally justifiable before he began his campaign and that this changed during his lifetime simply because he persuaded people otherwise?
@ Jeremy:
“This seems to assume that all parlimentarians will always make morally good choices, it seems to assume that majority makes right, it also seems to assume that there is no such thing as right or wrong, just what is contemporarily acceptable.”
As a line of argument that might work if the particular issue was only decided the once or even only a handful of times, the truth of the matter is that the abortion debate is ongoing and will no doubt be discussed in the current Parliament and once again the matter will be put to a free vote.
So, from your perspective, at what stage does the repeated expression of the will of House become morally justifiable particularly when on each occasion Members are lobbied by both sides of the argument and they hear expert submissions ?
After 20 votes ? A hundred ? Two hundred ? A thousand ?
I’d suggest that, from the perspective of the Pro-Life camp, it is after one vote – the vote that enacts a ban on abortion from conception with the exceptions already discussed.
Would you approve of any further debates or discussions after that ?
Parliamentary democracy, such as it is, works because the Law is morally justifiable because it can be enacted, amended and revoked based on the expressed views of the People.
Your Wilberforce example fails though – you’d need to look at the 1832 Reform Act as the start of an explanation as to why.
“In the UK we have the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. What input did your philosophers or bio-ethics experts have on those two Acts ? It’s a serious question.”
I don’t live in the UK, in NZ while I was studying at Otago the professor I was teaching assistant for headed the NZ committee for bioethics which advised the NZ government. In 2006, he was regularly called away to advise the minister of health so I taught his 2nd year history of philosophy courses and his 3rd year ethical theory courses in his absence.
A few years earlier when there was a bill before select commitee about human reproductive technology, I delievered a submission before a select commitee. The professor I worked for new I was doing this and gave me time off teaching so I could present a conservative view to select commitee ( I don’t think he was conservative but he considered it important that my view was presented).
You are misunderstanding me Paul.
I dont believe that passing a free and informed vote in Parliment makes anything morally justifiable even with extensive public debate. This would mean right and wrong changes with the will of the majority.
I think the concept of a successful parlimentary democracy is predicated on a self disciplined and moral population that has a pre-existing fundamental understanding of right and wrong.
Otherwise all you actually have is “might is right”, where the might is the tyranny of the majority rather than the power of force[guns].
If the free and informed vote of our freely elected representatives, determines that some people are sud-human, that the elderly should be euthanised for economic reasons and the same done to handicapped children, that only genetically perfect people should be allowed to breed and only if they have demonstrated economic independence, that persecuting various minorities was ok because the alternative was too costly, you would be okay with these things. Just as long as it came about through free votes and informed discussion.
[…] my last post, Abortion and the Morality of Feticide: Part I, I briefly sketched an argument against […]
@ Jeremy:
“I think the concept of a successful parlimentary democracy is predicated on a self disciplined and moral population that has a pre-existing fundamental understanding of right and wrong.”
and there we disagree. Public morality is fluid and malleable on a number of issues and the Government of the day has to take a longer term view.
The changes to the law on Abortion in 1967 had a long history of public debate. All of the participants were able to marshall their own expert opinions as part of the Parliamentary process – that’s how it works.
In subsequent reviews further expert advice has been sought and given and the contentious nature of the legislation recognised such that any measures are passed on a free vote (you do not seem to appreciate the importance of that).
To suggest that that process does not confer a moral justification on the resultant Act is, I think, absurd.
“If the free and informed vote of our freely elected representatives, determines that some people are sud-human, that the elderly should be euthanised for economic reasons and the same done to handicapped children, that only genetically perfect people should be allowed to breed and only if they have demonstrated economic independence, that persecuting various minorities was ok because the alternative was too costly, you would be okay with these things. ”
Sorry, but that is just a desperate appeal to emotion, in complete denial of the evidence, and otherwise unworthy of a response.
i liked it. it is good work towards feticide
[…] POSTS: Abortion and the Morality of Feticide: Part I Abortion and the Morality of Feticide: Part II My Body, My Choice? The Inconsistent Paternalism of […]
hi matt, have you ever responded to judith’s thompson’s violinist thought experiment?
Mark, yes there is a long section in my PhD dissertation on that. I must rework it for the blog sometime.
[…] and the Morality of Feticide (MandM) (Part I, Part […]
I read this piece of writing fully regarding the comparison of newest and previous technologies,
it’s awesome article.