Exbeliever thinks he has an argument for abortion:
The term “murder” poisons the well
The term “fetus” poisons the well also. But why should I not consider abortion to be murder from the beginning of the discussion? Why should I abandon my beliefs, assume your beliefs, and then attempt to prove my beliefs? Why is the onus on the pro-life advocates to prove that the unborn are equally human, rather than the onus being on the pro-choice advocates to prove that they are not equally human? I mean, considering that the unborn are the biologically-like offspring of humans and remain so after birth, why should we start with the assumption that the period between conception and birth is subhuman rather than assuming that it is equally human with the burden of proof being on those who advocate otherwise?
so let’s take out the ambiguity of my statement (although I am a vegetarian), and state it:
Let:
M = the taking of innocent human life
W = an immoral action
a = abortion(x)[Mx –> Wx]
Ma
/WaSo that, “If any action is the taking of innocent human life, then that action is an immoral action. Abortion is taking of innocent human life, therefore abortion is an immoral action.”
This is in and of itself true, but exbeliever has changed the reference point (from “murder” to “an immoral action.” Yes, murder is an immoral action, but so is disobeying your parents. Would exbeliever put these two things on the same effectual level?). We must remember that exbeliever is a secular humanist with secular humanist presuppositions when it comes to morality. For exbeliever, it is simply a matter of what is less immoral than something else. So why not simply put this in terms of the Christian presuppositions? “If any action is the taking of innocent human life, then that action is murder. Abortion is taking of innocent human life, therefore abortion is murder.”
Now, let’s consider a different argument. Let:
F = forcing someone to endure pain and suffering for the sake of another
W = an immoral action
c = forcing a woman to carry a child to term(x)[Fx –> Wx]
Fc
/WcSo that, “For any action, if that action is forcing someone to endure pain and suffering for the sake of another, then that action is an immoral action. Forcing someone to carry a child to term is forcing someone to endure pain and suffering for the sake of another, therefore forcing someone to carry a child to term is an immoral action.”
This is extremely subjective. Who defines what “forcing someone to endure pain and suffering for the sake of another” means? Does this mean that fathers who need to sweat and work hard in order to support their families should not be “forced” to support their families? Can fathers kill their children and it not be considered murder?
You see, exbeliever likes to frame his argument apart from focusing on the centrality of the debate: the definition of human life. If the unborn child is human, then whether or not it “forces” the mother to endure pain is irrelevant. I wonder if prosecuting attorneys would agree with exbeliever’s principle that it is ok to take the life of another human if that human caused you to endure pain. Such an argument simply would not stand in the courts system. The only way, therefore, for exbeliever to make his case that abortion is not murder is to prove that the unborn are not humans. Exbeliever’s statements here are simply canards that are meant to distract us from the central issue of the debate, for exbeliever’s arguments depend upon the assumption that the unborn are not human.
Let me flesh that out for you a little.
Let’s say that your wife is playing with your son in your front yard. His soccer ball rolls into the street and as your wife runs out to get it a Porsche tops the hill. The driver of the Porsche swerves to avoid hitting your wife but, in doing so, hits a telephone poll. The driver staggers out of his car dazed, but not seriously injured. He starts frantically motioning toward the car and you see that the drivers young son is pinned inside the car.
Now, imagine that an ambulance comes and frees the child from the car. They see, however, that both of the child’s kidneys have been punctured and the child will die immediately if he doesn’t have a transplant. [At this point my lack of medical knowledge shines brightly through. The scenario is, of course, hypothetical.]
An EMT looks at your wife and grabs her. You yell, “What the hell are you doing to my wife?!” The EMT says, “We are going to take one of her kidneys and give it to the little boy.” The EMT pulls out a knife and starts to cut your wife.
The EMT’s action is immoral, correct? Your wife unintentionally caused the boy’s suffering, but it is wrong of the EMT to force her to endure pain and suffering for the sake of the other boy, even though it means his life.
This analogy fails terribly to represent the action of abortion. No, let’s put this in the proper perspective. The EMT arrives, sees the child pinned in the car, sees the wife standing over at the side, and thinks in his head “This child might cause the wife to need to donate a kidney. That would cause the wife to be uncomfortable.” So he goes over to the car and kills the child.
Is that a moral action, exbeliever? Maybe it is if the child isn’t human. But if the child is human, this action would be murder. So, let’s not distract ourselves with these red-herring analogies. Let’s focus on the central issue of the debate: the definition of human life.
…This brings up another issue. Are people morally required to be generous to the point of enduring pain and suffering for the sake of another?
This brings up another issue. Are people morally permitted to eliminate the life of another for fear of enduring pain and suffering for their sake?
In the above case, is your wife morally required to give her organs to save the child?
In the above case, is the EMT morally permitted to kill the child to spare the wife from having to decide whether or not she wants to donate her kidneys?
Are you morally required to give your money to every homeless person you see in need?
Are you morally permitted to kill homeless people because they might ask for money?
At some point your moral obligation to support your family or yourself takes precedent over your moral obligation to be generous.
At some point your moral obligation to not murder takes precedent over your personal comfort.
If I may detract into a theology discussion for just a moment, this is what is unique about the negative commands of God: “Do no murder, do not steal” etc. You see, Christians are called to give to the poor, to pray, to pursue Biblical fellowship, to engage in corporate worship, to support their families, etc. Obviously, you can’t pray and support your family at the same time. Therefore, God’s positive commands take a prioritization; you must decide when and how often you pray and when and how often you support your family. But this is not the case for God’s negative commands. It isn’t only completely physically possible, but it is morally required, that you obey all of God’s negative commands all of the time. You see, it may not be physically possible to obey the command to evangelize and to obey the command to support your family at the exact same time. But it is physically possible and morally required to obey the commands “Do not steal” and “Do not murder” at the same time.
Do you notice how exbeliever has changed the issue of abortion from a negative command to a positive command? He has changed the issue from “Do not murder” to the positive command “Be generous.” In other words, he tells us that it isn’t always possible to obey the command to be generous and to obey the command to support your families at the same time, and therefore it is not morally required. But this isn’t the case. There is no excuse for disobeying a negative command, for doing the action takes more energy than not doing the action.
Once again, the debate goes back to the definition of human life, for “Do not murder” applies to humans alone. One wonders, therefore, why exbeliever is distracting us all with these red herring arguments and wasting our time rather than focussing on where the actual issue lies.
This yields this argument:
P1: A person is not morally required to endure pain and suffering for the sake of another.
P2: Carrying a child to term requires a woman to endure pain and suffering for the sake of another.
C: Therefore a woman is not morally required to carry a child to term.
At this point, I think it should be clear that the issue of a woman’s reproductive freedoms is not settled by any one moral argument.
Exbeliever continues to transform a negative command into a positive command. We must update his syllogism:
P1: A person is not morally permitted to take the life of an innocent person.
P2: Carrying a child to term requires a woman to endure pain and suffering for the sake of another.
C: Therefore a woman is not morally permitted to eliminate the child’s life.
At this point I think it should be clear that the issue of a woman’s reproductive freedoms centers on the definition of human life.
The issue of a woman’s reproductive freedoms is an issue of competing moral claims. On the one hand, there is the moral claim of the pregnant woman. She does not want to endure the pain and suffering that carrying a child to term requires. On the other hand, there is the moral claim of an innocent child who deserves a chance to live. Whose moral claim should be respected?
Negative commands must be obeyed all of the time. Positive commands take prioritizing. We are not free to prioritize negative commands.
This is where our normative ethics may come into conflict. Normative ethics, however, rely on underlying meta-ethical beliefs. So, perhaps, we are creeping inevitably closer to a discussion of meta-ethics.
Then why have you been distracting us all along from the point?
I, obviously, respect the moral claim of the mother more than that of the unborn child.
I, obviously, respect the fact that negative commands cannot be prioritized.
Put another way, I will respect the wishes of an adult woman more than an unborn child’s.
Put another way, you think you can prioritize the command to not murder.
…This issue is about whether or not a woman has the freedom to make her own reproductive decisions.
This issue is about whether or not a woman has the freedom to prioritize murder. This issue is about what constitutes human life.
You are against a woman’s reproductive freedoms.
I’m against any “freedom” that removes the freedom of life from another. Murder cannot be prioritized.
You want her to reproduce on your time-table, not hers.
I want her to obey the command to not murder everywhere all the time. Such is the case with all negative commands. I want her to obey the command to not steal everywhere all the time. Do you not?
Second, if you want to decrease the number of abortions, you should work to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies.
I think the church has made a great effort at that. But, to tell you the truth, the mentality in the mind of a girl that she can slip and get pregnant but later have an abortion is not much motivation to not become pregnant. The cause of abortion opposes the cause of decreasing unwanted (as in outside of marriage) pregnancies.
The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the fewer abortions.
The fewer abortions, the fewer unwanted pregnancies.
What if we could come up with technology that allows doctors to remove a foetus from the womb (with very little invasiveness) and grow the child in surrogate mothers, in an artificial environment, or keep the child in a suspended state of growth until the “mother” is ready to be a mother? This would be a very effective means of respecting the moral claims of both parties.
Well, such technology raises questions in the minds of Christians concerning a mother’s responsibility to parent her child, but such technology would certainly be a better alternative to abortion. But this is besides the point that murder cannot be prioritized. This is besides the point that the unborn are humans. Yes, you could change the technology and means so that it no longer involves murder, but the same mentality of abortion would be present. The same mentality that the unwanted are expendable would be present. The same mentality that my decisions in life should be driven by my own concerns and emotions would be present. People don’t simply need alternative technology. They need a heart change.
No comments:
Post a Comment