“I don't see an overwhelming case for the simon-pure pro-life position. I can see both sides of the issue, and some of my moral intuitions suggest that you can't give the same right to life to something that is not conscious that you do to something that is.”
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/10/one-issue.html
So as long as you kill someone in his sleep, that’s not murder. And, while you’re at it, you can kill a comatose patient with impunity.
Let’s be grateful that Reppert is a second rate philosopher rather than an influential lawmaker.
Well, it's clear the civility issue is a lost cause.
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to point out that a person who is asleep is conscious in the relevant sense. That person has an active brain, and when dreaming, fully aware that he exists.
A comatose person is also conscious in the relevant sense, assuming he's not brain dead.
"and some of my moral intuitions suggest that you can't give the same right to life to something that is not conscious that you do to something that is.”
ReplyDeleteThat rather cements the almost 100% irrelevance I give to Reppert's appeals to his intuitions in his arguments against Calvinism.
But Steve, he's stalemated the debate now. Once Reppert appeals to intuitions, nothing you can say matters. It's his trump card. I mean, we're dealing with a guy that claims that since his intuitions are so strong, *whatever* certain passages Calvinists mean, they *can't* mean what the Calvinist claims they mean.
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDelete"Well, it's clear the civility issue is a lost cause."
Your appeal to civility would be more convincing if your pen weren't dipped in the blood of aborted babies.
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“I'd just like to point out that a person who is asleep is conscious in the relevant sense. That person has an active brain, and when dreaming, fully aware that he exists.__A comatose person is also conscious in the relevant sense, assuming he's not brain dead.”
If you don’t think that unborn babies are conscious in the “relevant” sense, if you don’t think that unborn babies have “active brains,” then why are you even touting Obama’s program for prenatal care? What is there to care for given your abysmal view of prenatal life?
"I'd just like to point out that a person who is asleep is conscious in the relevant sense. That person has an active brain, and when dreaming, fully aware that he exists."
ReplyDeleteIf this is so, then are both you and Reppert going to deny all abortions after brain development?
Further, I'd rather have thought that a substance dualist like Reppert wouldn't take the view that one's personhood was an accidental property. Furthermore, as Reppert is a Christian, I assume he believes in some sort of intermediate state...a time when humans persons will exist without brains. So, I highly doubt Reppert would agree with your take on the matter and thus you're shifting the goalposts for him.
But on to your argument, the brain-death laws are not that brain-dead persons are living human beings but not persons, they are that the death of the brain destoys the capacity for self-directed integral organic functioning of humans who have matured to the stage where the brain performs the key role in integrating the organism.
There's an obvious disanalogy, therefore, between the brain-dead and the embryo. The embryo has other parts that play that integral role. Clearly the embryo has a capacity to develop a brain and is moving, directedly, toward that goal, smae with an infant and how it's brain develops sufficiently for it to actually think, use language, etc. It has those *capacities* and moves with a telos toward that end. Thus the embryo is clearly exercising self-directed integral organic functioning, and so is a unitary orgamism.
The embryo is not therefore *dead*, but *alive*. *Other* factor(s) are what account for its integrated organic unity, but this is the same with *all* humans *at that stage* of their development. So the embryo is a life with potential, not a potential life. The embryo is a potential adult just like infants and teenagers are.
So, your defense of Reppert succeeds-- in so far as it can be said to succeed --by moving the goal posts, and your own non-Reppert position is flawed even on your own terms.
"Your appeal to civility would be more convincing if your pen weren't dipped in the blood of aborted babies."
ReplyDeleteWow.
Paul Manata, I wasn't making an argument. I don't even agree with what Reppert was saying here. I was just pointing out that Hays was factually wrong in his assertions.
ReplyDeleteTo put my cards on the table, it would be wrong to say I'm pro-Choice. I'd be happy if Roe got overturned. I'm just against putting all our eggs in that basket, as 1) I don't think Roe's overturn is likely and 2) I don't think it would be effective in reducing the abortion rate.
As I've said in other discussions, I think that an embryo has a right to be born. I just don't think an embryo has identical rights to persons. I don't think that having an abortion prior to viability is equivalent to, say murdering a toddler. And here, unfortunately, I am relying on my moral intuitions. My moral intuitions tell me that someone who murders a toddler should be subject to the death penalty. I don't think a woman who has an abortion deserves the same. She's committed an egregious moral wrong in my view, but she hasn't committed infanticide.
I think abortion is wrong at all stages, but my threshold in terms of when I think a child has full rights as a person would be viability.
I'm not a professional philosopher, so I don't know how I'm supposed to make this decision absent my moral intuitions. I do know that there is historical precedent for my position within the Christian tradition. I believe it was called the "quickening" view, and I believe at some point it enjoyed majority support.
I am open to being convinced otherwise.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIt was easy to take you as defending Reppert and abortion in general.
Anyway, constitutional or legal recognition of the rights of the black man didn't "take" right away, yet it was *right* to adjust laws and come clean wrt past policy.
As far as the rest of your post, I assume you weren't making an "argument" again. I guess I fail to see the relevant, non-arbitrary distinction at any stage of fetal development wrt personhood.
Your mention of "viability" is odd. The stages keep getting pushed back. At one time it was 24-28 weeks, now it's around 20 weeks. It's highly dependent on medical technology too. I don't see how something so dependent on medical technology can determine *humanity* or *personhood. Furthermore, I'm not of the opinion that infants are viable. If you just left them sitting there, they'd die. They need the proper environment and nutrition to stay alive. Same with the embryo. I see no non-arbitrary distinction. And then there's all the other arguments. I'm simply at a loss as to how one can thinking that a living member of the human species, with its own unique genetic code, directing itself by internal "power", is not a full member of the human race.
But then you mention quickening. That's not historically the same as viability. Traditionally this referred to the mother's first feeling of the child's movement. I'm unclear how the subjective qualia of one person determines the personhood or humanity of another. This criteria was also used for a variety of purposes in the pre-technological age. Anyway, John Warwcik Montgomery pointed out that those Christians who held to this notion were simply trying to give legal criteria, an evidentiary device. It was never intended to function as a substantive standard of the beginning of human life but had to do with what could be *proved* in a court of law.
So I find your position old and philosophically and scientifically absurd. But then it's not worse than any other pro-choice argument as I find them all to be absurd.
Furthermore, the information is out there and so it's not morally virtuous to rely on your unlearned "intuitions" on the matter...especially intuitions affected by the fall.
Perhaps the opening quote would be more precise, though less persuasive, if it said "a human life that is not yet conscious" instead of such a generic statement.
ReplyDeleteAn anonymous poster wrote:
ReplyDelete"I'm not a professional philosopher, so I don't know how I'm supposed to make this decision absent my moral intuitions. I do know that there is historical precedent for my position within the Christian tradition."
As Paul said, the arguments aren't difficult to access. And if you consider yourself a Christian, the Biblical evidence is relevant. And the earliest post-Biblical Christian consensus is against abortion, apparently without any distinction between stages of the fetus' development. See, for example, here.
"Anyway, constitutional or legal recognition of the rights of the black man didn't "take" right away, yet it was *right* to adjust laws and come clean wrt past policy."
ReplyDeleteDon't get the relevance of this comment. If you're comparing this to the Supreme Court approach, the civil rights movement didn't put all their eggs in the basket of an electoral strategy. They fought segregation on every front simultaneously, which is what I'm advocating re: abortion.
Sure, viability is dependent on technology, but many moral decisions are. Cloning wasn't a moral issue until it was possible. And now that it is, we have some decisions to make. Our moral obligations do change with technology, and nowhere is this more clear than in the medical arena. It may have been permissible at some point in the past to place the mentally ill in prison. But with gains in our ability to treat the mentally ill, that is no longer a permissible option.
The viability criterion is one of many moral intuitions I have that I couldn't give an exhaustive account of. I'm sure you'll say this is cheating somehow. All I can say is it just seems to me that killing something that could exist biologically independent from you (as in detached from your body, not detached from your care) is more wrong that destroying an embryo before it gets to that point.
Keep in mind, though, that this is not, as you'll later describe it, a "pro-choice" position. I am not pro-choice. I'm only giving you the threshold beyond which I feel an abortion crosses the line into something that is morally equivalent to murder. I think it's immoral at any stage, but only rises to the level of murder at the point of viability.
You have to define viability in a pretty exotic manner to suggest that infants aren't viable. Viable infants can survive with proper nutrition and care, non-viable infants can't. That's just what viability means.
"I'm unclear how the subjective qualia of one person determines the personhood or humanity of another."
I don't think it reduces to qualia. The relevant fact isn't that the mother feels the baby moving, the relevant fact is that it *is* moving. And moving in a roughly volitional way, as I understand it.
"It was never intended to function as a substantive standard of the beginning of human life but had to do with what could be *proved* in a court of law."
But if these Christians thought that full personhood rights began at conception, then why would they need any other substantive standard beyond the fact that the woman was pregnant?
"So I find your position old and philosophically and scientifically absurd."
If by "old" you mean "traditional" then I don't see how that's a criticism.
Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder. I think pinning all our hopes for reducing abortion on a Supreme Court appointment is absurd.
"Furthermore, the information is out there and so it's not morally virtuous to rely on your unlearned "intuitions" on the matter...especially intuitions affected by the fall."
I think my opinion is informed. I think it's much better informed than the opinion of most pro-lifers.
Besides, my analysis of the information (like my interpretation of Scripture) would be just as affected by the fall as my moral intuitions. So I don't see why it's reasonable to think I can trust one over the other. Either they're both affected by sin or neither of them are. (I guess you can tell I'm not a Calvinist.)
"As Paul said, the arguments aren't difficult to access. "
ReplyDeleteI think neither you nor Paul are grasping what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, telling me to make a moral decision by ignoring my moral intuitions is, so far as I can see, *absurd*. I have no idea how a person would do such a thing. Even if you are choosing to obey Scripture over your own personal biases, you are relying on the moral intuition that Scripture trumps your personal biases.
"And if you consider yourself a Christian, the Biblical evidence is relevant. And the earliest post-Biblical Christian consensus is against abortion, apparently without any distinction between stages of the fetus' development. See, for example, here."
You seem to be under the impression that I'm pro-choice. I'm not pro-choice. I agree with the post-Biblical consensus. I agree that abortion is morally wrong at all stages of pregnancy.
My only disagreement with you good people is whether the abortion of a non-viable fetus is equivalent to murder. If it is, then someone who aborts a fetus pre-viability should be eligible for the death penalty. Do you think that's the case? I don't, and thus while I think abortion should be illegal in all stages, I only think it's murder after viability.
"Don't get the relevance of this comment."
ReplyDeleteThat it doesn't matter if overturning RvW will "take" or not. I'm on the side of truth, and it should be overturned for that reason alone. I can't control people's sinfulness if they choose to get back alley abortions. All races should have the same rights as others. I can't help if it doesn't "take" with some backwoods hicks.
"Sure, viability is dependent on technology, but many moral decisions are."
Whether some entity is a human isn't a *moral* question. A "moral question might be," given that S is a full-member of S-species, how *should* we treat it?"
"The viability criterion is one of many moral intuitions I have that I couldn't give an exhaustive account of. I'm sure you'll say this is cheating somehow. All I can say is it just seems to me that killing something that could exist biologically independent from you (as in detached from your body, not detached from your care) is more wrong that destroying an embryo before it gets to that point."
That's not an *argument*. I might as well say "it seems to me" one can kill toddlers.
"You have to define viability in a pretty exotic manner to suggest that infants aren't viable. Viable infants can survive with proper nutrition and care, non-viable infants can't. That's just what viability means."
The only difference is *location*. I don't assume a human's *location* determines it's *humanity*. Defining who is and who isn't human based on their *location* seems irrelevant. One's proper environment and care takes place inside the womb, the other's doesn't. What other relevant difference is there? Suck either into a vacuum with blades, they both die.
"I don't think it reduces to qualia. The relevant fact isn't that the mother feels the baby moving, the relevant fact is that it *is* moving. And moving in a roughly volitional way, as I understand it."
FYI, they move way before mother's feel them.
I don't understand why *ability* to move determines personhood. That seems rather ridiculous and arbitrary. Furthermore, fetuses *move* BEFORE they become "viable." So, you can't even keep your arguments straight...par for the course with pro-choicers. At least that's been my experience. Furthermore, ability to feel movement is highly dependent upon body fat. I doubt humanness is dependant on whether a woman skipped those late night bob bon sessions!
"But if these Christians thought that full personhood rights began at conception, then why would they need any other substantive standard beyond the fact that the woman was pregnant?"
I'm unsure if you're questioning the actual words they used themselves, as it is fairly easy to find their own quotes on the matter: Hall v Hancock, 1834: "The distinction between a woman being pregnant, and being quick with child is applicable mainly, not exclusively, to criminal cases." Again, it had to do with evidence in court cases. What could be *proved*. Furthermore, all the examples from these times or the Middle ages are based on the ignorance of the people in those times. I am highly confident that given what we know today they would not pin their views on a fetus's humanity based upon the mother's subjective feelings. Indeed, with a microscope we can see *movement* viz. cleavages, compaction, hatching, etc. So by your own lights, those Christians would grant life right away...first week.
"If by "old" you mean "traditional" then I don't see how that's a criticism."
I meant moldy, dusty, and rotted. Rusted.
"Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder."
I never pretended I could force you to see things my way. I think solipsism is absurd, but if a man persists in that, I won't be very convincing. So I don't argue for your sake, others here may benefit and use the pro-life arguments on their friends or family.
"I think pinning all our hopes for reducing abortion on a Supreme Court appointment is absurd."
I've never once brought this issue up. It's your straw-man, red herring talking point. It's quite irrelevant to the points I'm making.
"I think my opinion is informed. I think it's much better informed than the opinion of most pro-lifers."
Doesn't sound like it, especially when you hold two criteria for humanity that conflict. But hey..."Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder."
"Besides, my analysis of the information (like my interpretation of Scripture) would be just as affected by the fall as my moral intuitions."
It would be, that's why I don't advocate a "me and my Bible" approach to hermeneutics.
"So I don't see why it's reasonable to think I can trust one over the other."
It's fairly easy: If you believe, say, Scripture teaches X, and you believe Scripture is infallible, and your moral intuitions tell you ~X, then you either need to conclude: ~~X or ~infallibility. Anyway, the issue of when life begins can't be decided on by a moral intuition. That's absur...oh, "Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder."
"(I guess you can tell I'm not a Calvinist.)"
Well, I couldn't tell by anything you said that you weren't a Calvinist (did you contradict some Calvinist teaching?); but, I had my suspicions. I'm not surprised that you'd reject Calvinism given your penchant for the absurd.
"What I'm saying is, telling me to make a moral decision by ignoring my moral intuitions is, so far as I can see, *absurd*."
ReplyDeleteBut that's not exaactly what was said. We gave you reasons to suppose your intuitions wrong.
But, moral decisions are and can be made all the time while rejection previously held moral intuitions. A brief foray into the relevant ethical literature should have told you that.
My only disagreement with you good people is whether the abortion of a non-viable fetus is equivalent to murder."
Quite obviously:
[1] Murder is immoral.
[2] Some aboritons are murder.
[3] Some abortions are immoral.
I say "some" to cover any odd, rare, what if situation, not 99.999% of abortions.
If it is, then someone who aborts a fetus pre-viability should be eligible for the death penalty.
That depends on if you think every murder deserves the death penalty.
But, generally, any human that murders another human is eligible for the death penalty. Yes.
"Do you think that's the case? I don't,"
So what?
"I don't, and thus while I think abortion should be illegal in all stages, I only think it's murder after viability."
If it is not a human being put to death, why should it be illegal? Should removing a wart be illegal?
"That it doesn't matter if overturning RvW will "take" or not."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you on about? Who said anything about it "taking"? I think it does matter quite a bit whether overturning Roe would reduce abortions or not. And that's what I was disputing. If it won't reduce abortions, and some other strategy would, I think we should pursue the latter strategy.
I'm fitting the urge to add "Duh!". I think I lost that fight.
"Whether some entity is a human isn't a *moral* question. A "moral question might be," given that S is a full-member of S-species, how *should* we treat it?"
Okay, great. What kind of question is "Given S can't survive independently of being connected to its mother, is it a full member of the species"?
Cuz whatever kind of question that is, technology impacts upon it, in my view.
"That's not an *argument*"
I said as much.
"I might as well say "it seems to me" one can kill toddlers."
But you don't actually have that intuition. No sane person does. On the other hand, the intuition that viability changes the moral status of abortion is so widespread, it's even encoded in the FOCA, a bill more or less written by Planned Parenthood. That doesn't make it right, but it does mean it's not analogous to an intuition that everyone regards as absurd. I'm sorry that it bothers you that many moral decisions reduce to intuitions, and can't profitably be chased beyond that point.
"The only difference is *location*."
Are you anywhere near approaching serious?! The difference isn't just location, it's pesky little things like whether or not you have functioning lungs.
"FYI, they move way before mother's feel them."
Dude, I don't really care. It's not relevant to my position, as I'll explain in my next comment. I'm simply playing devil's advocate here. I'm sure the people who supported "quickening" weren't resting their argument on qualia. I'm just pointing out that your criticism of a position I don't hold was lacking. I've learned my lesson now, and won't criticize any argument except those against positions I hold, since you seem to assume that if I question the validity of your critique, I hold the position you were critiquing.
"Furthermore, fetuses *move* BEFORE they become "viable." So, you can't even keep your arguments straight..."
My argument is straight. My criteria is viability, and I thought that's what "quickening" was. We can drop the quickening discussion if you want. In fact, given your next comment, maybe we should just drop discussing things, period.
"par for the course with pro-choicers."
I'm not pro-choice. Did you just read that sentence? I can use a larger font, if it will help. I'll try repetition first:
I'm not pro-choice.
I'm not pro-choice.
I'm not pro-choice.
I'm not pro-choice.
I'm not pro-choice.
A person who is pro-choice thinks that abortion is morally permissible and should be legally permissible. I don't fit either category. Thus, I'm not pro-choice. Three more times, just for emphasis:
I'm not pro-choice.
I'm not pro-choice.
I'm not pro-choice.
"I am highly confident that given what we know today they would not pin their views on a fetus's humanity based upon the mother's subjective feelings. Indeed, with a microscope we can see *movement* viz. cleavages, compaction, hatching, etc."
You mean technology impacts our moral decision making?!
Stunning.
Re: movement, I mentioned the criteria of "volition" in my first comment on the matter. Sure, fetuses move when they grow. But that's not the movement I was referring to. I was referring to volitional movement, i.e., wiggling one's hands or toes, or "kicking".
"I meant moldy, dusty, and rotted. Rusted."
Could a belief be moldy, dusty, rotted, rusty... and true?
Nuff said.
"It's fairly easy: If you believe, say, Scripture teaches X, and you believe Scripture is infallible, and your moral intuitions tell you ~X, then you either need to conclude: ~~X or ~infallibility."
But of course, that's not actually the situation, is it? Let's try a realistic example, that spells out all the actual relevant dilemmas.
I believe Scripture teaches X, and I believe Scripture is infallible. My moral intuitions say to me ~X.
However, others who hold to the infallibility of Scripture say that Scripture teaches ~X.
I know that my moral intuitions and my ability to properly interpret Scripture are equally affected by sin.
So I can't decide whether to trust my moral intuition or my interpretation of Scripture, since both sources are suspect on more or less the same grounds.
So what's the "simple" solution?
"But that's not exaactly what was said. We gave you reasons to suppose your intuitions wrong."
ReplyDeleteIn your comments towards Reppert, you insinuated that an appeal to moral intuitions makes one impervious to correction. That suggested to me you thought there was some other way to make moral decisions that didn't involve moral intuitions. And I don't see how that's possible.
"But, moral decisions are and can be made all the time while rejection previously held moral intuitions."
Great. That's not what I was objecting to. I was objecting to the suggestion that we could make moral decisions while ignoring our moral intuitions. I was objecting to your insinuation that if the only argument you have for a moral position is your moral intuition, then you've erred in some way. As far as I can see, every moral position will reduce to a moral intuition that isn't reducible to anything else.
"[1] Murder is immoral.
[2] Some aboritons are murder.
[3] Some abortions are immoral."
Is this supposed to be an argument proving abortion is murder? Because if it is, I think your number 2 is kind of a howler. If it's not, I can't imagine what you think it shows.
I agree that some abortions are murder. The question was whether pre-viability abortions are murder. On that score, the argument you present is kinda sorta useless, as it asserts what it was meant to prove.
"If it is not a human being put to death, why should it be illegal? Should removing a wart be illegal?"
Really? Really?
You're seriously arguing that only things which result in the death of a human being should be illegal? That I couldn't possibly have any other reason for wanting something to be illegal?
Seriously?
An anonymous poster wrote:
ReplyDelete"I agree with the post-Biblical consensus. I agree that abortion is morally wrong at all stages of pregnancy."
That's not all that the early sources say. They repeatedly use terms like "murder" and speak of abortion in general, without the sort of qualifiers you've added. For example, here's part of what was said by one of the sources I cited in the article I linked:
"Christians viewed the fetus as God’s creation. They insisted that the destruction of the fetus was murder and that the perpetrators should be punished as murderers." (Frederick Norris, in Everett Ferguson, ed., Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 7)
Here's an example I gave later in the article:
“Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time!” (Hippolytus, The Refutation Of All Heresies, 9:7)
Hippolytus uses the term "murder" and doesn't make the distinctions you've made between different stages of the fetus' development. That's not your position.
And the Biblical evidence I discussed doesn't suggest your view when children in the womb are described as identifiable individuals (Job, David, etc.), as being sinful, etc.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete"What are you on about? Who said anything about it "taking"? I think it does matter quite a bit whether overturning Roe would reduce abortions or not. And that's what I was disputing. If it won't reduce abortions, and some other strategy would, I think we should pursue the latter strategy.
"
See, you said something about it taking. I argued, ex hypothesi, that *even if it didn't take*, the law should *still* be overturned. To offer the analogy that I've tried to offer you repeatedly: Say we had a *law* that said "Whites can beat blacks." Now, would you want that law overturned? Presumably. Even if it didn't "take" right away? Presumably. I don't know about you, but I think cases the give the legal right for one group of people to murder another should be overturned. But hey, I'm a wild and crazy guy.
"Okay, great. What kind of question is "Given S can't survive independently of being connected to its mother, is it a full member of the species"?
For starters, it's a stupid question. It bases membership on a species on a contingency. Furthermore, you could never say that *you* had a point in your life where you couldn't survive outside the womb, which is absurd. Other than that, given its vagueness, it's either a scientific or ontological question. Ontological if you reject the universal scientific consensus that it *is* a full member of the *species* and get into philosophical notions of personhood*. But, it is clearly a *non-normative* question (i.e., "what *is*"), and hence *not* a *moral* question.
"But you don't actually have that intuition. No sane person does."
That's not the point. It's called testing for validity by counter-example. I used the exact same *form* as your "argument" and simply changed the *terms*. So if your argument were valid, mine was. If yours could persuade, mine could.
"Are you anywhere near approaching serious?! The difference isn't just location, it's pesky little things like whether or not you have functioning lungs."
I am serious since you're ignoring my point about *non-arbitrary*. So, tack on to "location" criteria like "level of development." That's priceless since that's the same kind of argument slave owners used. Same with Hitler. Somehow the less developed members of society can be killed. Perhaps you think retarded people should be killed? Or is a "developed" lung more essential to one's *humanity* than improperly functioning chromosomes?
Moreover, infants are *viable* WITHOUT "functioning" lungs. Take a trip down to the ER and see the little babies having machines breath for them because their lungs can't "function" on their own. I suppose if I killed one of them you'd say it's "illegal" but I shouldn't get charged with murder.
I said: "FYI, they move way before mother's feel them."
Dude, I don't really care. It's not relevant to my position, as I'll explain in my next comment.
It's not relevant to your position *anymore* since you *dropped* it admitting you didn't know what you were talking about.
"I'm sure the people who supported "quickening" weren't resting their argument on qualia."
Well, you're wrong. Quickening was precisely when the mother *felt* the child move.
"My argument is straight. My criteria is viability, and I thought that's what "quickening" was. We can drop the quickening discussion if you want. In fact, given your next comment, maybe we should just drop discussing things, period."
Your argument wasn't straight when I said it wasn't. You're backpedaling and *making* it straight. Anyway, viability is just as easy to rebut, as I've shown, but I'll be happy to continue.
"I'm not pro-choice. Did you just read that sentence? I can use a larger font, if it will help. I'll try repetition first:"
Par for the course with pro-choicers. As if all you have to do is say, "But I don't think they're living at time t, so it's not the same as killing it at time t2." Based on method of reasoning, I could develop some criteria, as some have, that claim the fetus doesn't receive rights until birth and so can kill the fetus 1 minute before it's born and claim, "Dude! I'm like, pro-life, man."
"You mean technology impacts our moral decision making?!
Stunning."
Despite your equivocations and vagueness, I never said otherwise. The situation should be taken into account. But when speaking of *humanity* or *personhood* we are looking for *essentials* and not *accidents*. That's precisely one of the reasons to reject the viability thesis, it makes the question of essentiality dependent on the contingent, which is philosophically absurd.
"Could a belief be moldy, dusty, rotted, rusty... and true?
Nuff said."
Not if I gave reasons to suppose it's false, as I did and why you dropped the argument. And, no, it couldn't, sorry you didn't catch my sarcasm.
" believe Scripture teaches X, and I believe Scripture is infallible. My moral intuitions say to me ~X.
However, others who hold to the infallibility of Scripture say that Scripture teaches ~X.
I know that my moral intuitions and my ability to properly interpret Scripture are equally affected by sin.
So I can't decide whether to trust my moral intuition or my interpretation of Scripture, since both sources are suspect on more or less the same grounds.
So what's the "simple" solution?"
Then you have an inconsistency since you said you believe that X is infallible. Thus you would have to, to be consistent, reject *any* ~x. You can do so humbly, though. I reject the idea that there mere possibility of error renders something unknowable.
"In your comments towards Reppert, you insinuated that an appeal to moral intuitions makes one impervious to correction."
My comments toward *Reppert* were based on a *history* with *Reppert* such that my comments made sense in that context. This has nothing to do with you. I gave you reasons to suppose your intuitions false, so I never said: "Make a moral decision by ignoring it."
"Great. That's not what I was objecting to. I was objecting to the suggestion that we could make moral decisions while ignoring our moral intuitions."
But you can. _If_ God came down and told you to your face that you should x, but x was against your moral intuition, you should ignore ~x and go about x-ing. For example, put yourself in Abraham's shoes. Would you obey or not?
"I agree that some abortions are murder. The question was whether pre-viability abortions are murder. On that score, the argument you present is kinda sorta useless, as it asserts what it was meant to prove."
Other than the fact that I've (a) argued for the humanity of pre-viable fetuses and (b) given arguments against the viability thesis. Your comments only ignore the 99.999% qualifier I through in. It was clear I counted "non-viables" into the some. If you promise not to play I "what if there was" game, then you can change my some to all. Furthermore, the argument was meant to show how one like me could reason that those who commit abortions should be guilty of murder. If my premises are true, that's how we can. So your incredulity as to how we could think someone who commits an abortion is guilty of murder was the real question beggar.
I wrote: "If it is not a human being put to death, why should it be illegal? Should removing a wart be illegal?"
You emoted:
"Really? Really?
You're seriously arguing that only things which result in the death of a human being should be illegal? That I couldn't possibly have any other reason for wanting something to be illegal?
Seriously?"
That didn't answer my question. Try again. And, no, I'm not arguing that. I simply asked *why*? What is the *crime*? Is there *precedence* on the books?
How am I'm pro-choice when I say abortion is morally wrong at all stages and should be illegal at all stages?
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, I didn't me "ER", I meant "NICU." Make appropriate changes above.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHow am I'm pro-choice when I say abortion is morally wrong at all stages and should be illegal at all stages?
10/20/2008 9:59 AM
Anonymous, I frankly don't care about how you want to label yourself.
You called me pro-choice. I'm asking you what criteria you are using to declare me pro-choice. I oppose abortion. I think abortion is morally wrong at all stages. I think abortion should be illegal at all stages. I think Roe vs Wade should be overturned.
ReplyDeleteYet you accuse me of being pro-choice. Based on what criteria?
If you're not intellectually honest enough to provide your criteria or withdraw your charge, then I'll know that discussing anything with you is a waste of time.
Incivility I can take, but when your opponent just accuses you, without evidence and without argument, of being of the opposite position than the one you profess, it's time to move on.
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDeleteYou called me pro-choice. I'm asking you what criteria you are using to declare me pro-choice. I oppose abortion. I think abortion is morally wrong at all stages. I think abortion should be illegal at all stages. I think Roe vs Wade should be overturned.
Yet you accuse me of being pro-choice. Based on what criteria?
If you're not intellectually honest enough to provide your criteria or withdraw your charge, then I'll know that discussing anything with you is a waste of time.
Incivility I can take, but when your opponent just accuses you, without evidence and without argument, of being of the opposite position than the one you profess, it's time to move on.
******************************************
Your claim to be anti-abortion is a throwaway argument which is vitiated by the practical implications of your actual position.
it's time to move on
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
Given how our above debate has gone for you, I can appreciate how you'd like to sieze on any opportunity to drop out of the debate, post-haste!
Move on...
I'm not dropping out of anything. I'll stay here and respond to your last lengthy post point by point. I'm especially eager to eviscerate your comments on Scripture (here's a free preliminary: that X is infallible doesn't mean my interpretation of X is infallible). But as that would be a large investment of my time, you can see how I'm hesitant to do so if I feel you're intellectually dishonest enough to ignore my comments and label as holding the opposite position to the one I profess. I'm asking you to assure me that that I won't be wasting my time.
ReplyDeleteSo, by what criteria are you calling me pro-choice? Is it just a petty argumentative strategy, or is there a rational principle behind it? If the former, I expect you to do the honorable thing and drop the charge. If the latter, please explain your reasoning.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteNext thing I know you'll say that you're not pro-choice when it comes to women removing unsightly moles.
I should add that being pro-life doesn't simply mean, "Abortions shouldn't happen." Plenty of *pro-choice* people take that stand. Pro-life reasons that abortions should not be allowed *because* the fetus is a full member of the human race, with the rights inherent in belonging to that class.
"I'm not dropping out of anything. I'll stay here and respond to your last lengthy post point by point."
Good, then knock off the repeated childish threats about "leaving."
"I'm especially eager to eviscerate your comments on Scripture (here's a free preliminary: that X is infallible doesn't mean my interpretation of X is infallible)."
Well, eager beaver, here's a free preliminary of my response: "No &*^%, Sherlock."
"But as that would be a large investment of my time, you can see how I'm hesitant to do so if I feel you're intellectually dishonest enough to ignore my comments and label as holding the opposite position to the one I profess."
I've already given arguments why your claim to not be pro-choice is irrational and arbitrary. I've argued that based on your own position, you logicaly should be pro-choice. I don't hold to a magic view of the world like you do, where the mere uttering of *words* somehow changes reality.
" I'm asking you to assure me that that I won't be wasting my time."
I can't assure you of anything. Remember, it was you who said: "Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder."
I can promise you this, you'll get better treatment here than the treatment you'd afford to the babies you'd consign to death.
"So, by what criteria are you calling me pro-choice?"
Look, I'm not calling you pro-life. And, I already gave you the reasons why I'm gonna call you pro-choice. I'm unsure why you're throwing all your weight behind this aspect of the debate. I've given you sufficient reasons, which you've not addressed, to become a full-fledged pro-lifer.
"If the latter, please explain your reasoning."
You have the job of distilling arguments.
What babies am I consigning to death?
ReplyDeletePoint me to a comment of mine that even suggests that.
When I say abortion should be illegal at all stages, what babies am I consigning to death?
The substance of my disagreement with you folks on the issue is that I don't believe that a woman who has an abortion pre-viability should be executed. (Whereas you folks apparently think being "pro-life" means executing millions of women...and their boyfriends... and their doctors. Because goshdarnit, life is precious, and you're going to prove that no matter how many people you have to kill!)
So simply because I don't want to replace the wholesale slaughter of the unborn with the wholesale slaughter of mostly poor women (and their boyfriends, and their doctors), you accuse me of consigning babies to death?
I'm beginning to think it's you who wants to get out of this discussion, and thus you're trying to drive me away with these ridiculously over the top comments.
Can I just ask a question or two here? I've been confused about a couple of things for a while now.
ReplyDelete1. I often see posts in the combox from liberals along the lines of "wow". Or sometimes it's "wow just wow." How is it that "wow" is a response to a statement/argument? And what does "wow" mean anyway?
2. What does it mean to call something a "howler"?
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“What babies am I consigning to death?__Point me to a comment of mine that even suggests that.__When I say abortion should be illegal at all stages, what babies am I consigning to death?”
The babies you consign to death by voting for a militantly proabortion candidate.
Yes, you like to *say* you oppose abortion, but your *actions* support abortion. So you’re dissembling.
“The substance of my disagreement with you folks on the issue is that I don't believe that a woman who has an abortion pre-viability should be executed.”
No, that’s not the issue, and you know very well that’s not the issue. That’s a diversionary tactic on your part. It goes to show that your own position is indefensible when you can’t defend it through honest means.
Making abortion a capital offense for all parties concerned is not politically feasible in the foreseeable future.
“(Whereas you folks apparently think being "pro-life" means executing millions of women...and their boyfriends... and their doctors. Because goshdarnit, life is precious, and you're going to prove that no matter how many people you have to kill!)”
i) I don’t assume that all T-bloggers have the same position on what penalty would be appropriate.
ii) You disregard the distinction between innocent life and those who take innocent life. That’s a paradigm case of how morally corrupt you must be to defend your support for Obama.
The distinction between guilt and innocence is the fundamental distinction in just or unjust treatment.
iii) As a practical matter, penalizing “abortion providers” can be a very effective method of reducing abortion. One doesn’t have to legally target all parties concerned to deter the misconduct.
“So simply because I don't want to replace the wholesale slaughter of the unborn with the wholesale slaughter of mostly poor women (and their boyfriends, and their doctors), you accuse me of consigning babies to death?”
i) A straw man argument (see above).
ii) You also have a very patronizing view of women. Do you think women are too stupid to know where babies come from?
Grown women are responsible moral agents. You treat them like little children. Have you always be so sexist?
iii) If we had the opportunity to do so under law, why shouldn’t we execute a murderous doctor or the pushy boyfriend?
Mothers and fathers have a responsibility to protect their kids, not kill them. Indeed, mothers and fathers have a duty to die for their kids (if need be), not make the kids die for them.
If you were a real Christian you’d understand that elementary parental obligation.
“I'm beginning to think it's you who wants to get out of this discussion, and thus you're trying to drive me away with these ridiculously over the top comments.”
You keep threatening to bow out as if that would be a terrible deprivation.
"The babies you consign to death by voting for a militantly proabortion candidate."
ReplyDeleteIf that were a reasonable case to make, then I could suggest you consign multiplied millions more babies to death by sitting on your hands and hoping that overturning Roe vs Wade would magically end abortion, when we have evidence that the legality of abortion doesn't affect the abortion rate.
"Yes, you like to *say* you oppose abortion, but your *actions* support abortion."
Right back at ya.
"No, that’s not the issue, and you know very well that’s not the issue."
It is the issue. It's the place where my disagreement with you folks stems. What else do we disagree on, on this particular issue?
"Making abortion a capital offense for all parties concerned is not politically feasible in the foreseeable future."
Neither is overturning Roe vs Wade.
"ii) You disregard the distinction between innocent life and those who take innocent life."
I don't think the distinction justifies the state in killing people. Well, I say that like the overwhelming majority of Christians worldwide don't agree with me on the issue.
"As a practical matter, penalizing “abortion providers” can be a very effective method of reducing abortion."
We don't disagree here. Our disagreement is over whether women who have abortions should be put to death.
"Grown women are responsible moral agents. You treat them like little children. Have you always be so sexist?"
If not wanting women who have had abortions to be executed makes me sexist, then yes. I've always been that sexist.
I'm all for them being punished in some other way, but putting electricity through their bodies until their eyeballs pop out of their skulls and they bleed through their ears? Yeah, I'm too sexist to support that.
"If we had the opportunity to do so under law, why shouldn’t we execute a murderous doctor or the pushy boyfriend?"
No.
"If you were a real Christian you’d understand that elementary parental obligation."
Here we go.
Sorry, I missed the "why" in the last comment, so I read it as "shouldn't we execute the murderous doctor and the pushy boyfriend?"
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't we? I don't know, life is sacred? Everyone is created in God's image? Outside of deaths caused in the commission of a robbery, accessories to murder aren't generally subject to the death penalty in any other capital cases? Stuff like that.
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“If that were a reasonable case to make, then I could suggest you consign multiplied millions more babies to death by sitting on your hands and hoping that overturning Roe vs Wade would magically end abortion, when we have evidence that the legality of abortion doesn't affect the abortion rate.”
You’re very selective with your statistics. Abortion rates in the US rose as the laws liberalized. This started with a few liberal states, then accelerated when Roe v. Wade was handed down.
“Neither is overturning Roe vs Wade.”
Several of justices are likely to retire in the next 4-8 years.
“I don't think the distinction justifies the state in killing people.”
An example of you made-up morality. And you’re not even consistent with your made-up morality. If you oppose the state killing people, then you should oppose a president who supports the state-sponsored murder of millions of infants.
“Why shouldn't we? I don't know, life is sacred? Everyone is created in God's image?”
Another example of you made-up morality. In Scripture (Gen 9:6), the imago Dei is given as the reason *for* capital punishment, not *against*.
“Outside of deaths caused in the commission of a robbery, accessories to murder aren't generally subject to the death penalty in any other capital cases? Stuff like that.”
Not to mention stuff like the fact that abortion was a capital offense for accessories to abortion in Biblical law (Exod 21:22-25).
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“I'm all for them being punished in some other way, but putting electricity through their bodies until their eyeballs pop out of their skulls and they bleed through their ears? Yeah, I'm too sexist to support that.”
In other words, if it were death by lethal injection, you wouldn’t object. You object to certain methods, but not to the death penalty, per se. Is that it?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI'm just gonna sit back and wait until you respond to the substantive issues I've raised... If you can't, or won't, I'll take that as a tacit admission of defeat.
Anonymouse tries to justify his claims that's he not pro-choice by saying things like:
ReplyDelete"I'm all for them being punished in some other way.”
But yet has been unable to justify this claim.
If the aborted fetus is not a "full-human" (his term), then what is the basis upon which these people will be punished for removing non-human stuff from their own body?
I address viabilism here:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/contra-viabilism.html