Should Medical Abortion Be Restricted?

[Jeff K.]

That is not being disputed. What I am maintaining is that sentience and cognition are a few essential qualities which distinguish an individual whose constitutional rights should be protected, and a mass of tissues without such constitutional rights.

Sentience is not required, if you look at the Uniform determination of death act, you will note that one is not considered dead unless the brain function is irreperably dead. Unborn children are not in that catagory.

[AmorLibertas]

Aren't you glad your mom didn't abort you because of "very likely"?

As a matter of fact, I am; which doesn't change my argument in any way.

We are not computers and science is not able to demonstrate any of what you are saying without a doubt.

That's right. Absolute certainty about anything is not possible. We are all limited by subjectivity. The best we can do is work with probabilities of certainty, not absolute certainty.

We are talking about human life here. Do you want decisions based on "very likely"? Not that it has even been proven "very likely"!

Of course. The alternative is decisions based on such irrational thinking such as superstition, whimsical emotion, or random chance. I'll go with "very likely" every time.

Unbelievable. - what did you just do above??

I described a correlation. Perhaps you'd do well by refreshing your memory of the differences between correlation and identity, especially as they apply to the term "definition".

Unbelievable squared!

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you seem to think that it means.

You just said that electrical activity in the brain does not define anything, THEN you say it "indicates thinking"- on what basis- ??- and then you accuse me of "disregarding the scientific evidence" WHICH YOU SAY "doesn't define anything" (electrical activity) AND THEN YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO SAY I AM "IRRATIONAL"????

Yes. See above comment about the difference between correlation and identity. Perhaps a very common illustration would help. Where there's smoke, there's fire. The smoke is not fire, but it is a very reliable indicator of fire for certain flammable materials under most circumstances. In the case of electrical activity in the brain indicating thinking, I refer you to the decades of recent research on the brain, the now common use of the eeg machine for monitoring brain activity, the research involving P.E.T. scans for mapping the areas of the brain responsible for different types of thinking, etc. There is an extremely high correlation of electrical activity in specific regions of the brain to specific types of cognitive function. When specific areas of the brain are damaged, there is a very high correlation to predictable types of cognitive dysfunction. I suspect that just as computation is dependent upon the architecture of the copper and silicon pathways in a computer, thinking is dependent upon the architecture of the neural pathways of the brain.

I have to see my cardiologist soon........ I can't take this much longer. Self contradiction after self contradiction.

Wow. If my reasoning is having such an adverse affect on you, perhaps you should see a cardiologist. Or you might simply be so unused to critical thinking that you're mistaking the strain on your brain and it's propensity for imagining self-contradiction where none exists for a strain on your heart?

GOSH!!!

Careful now, that's bordering on the profane.

You have proven precisely NOTHING from electricity, much less a phenomenological state, and have ADMITTED that: ... What precisely is it that you find [infinitely more reliable and verifiable than ineffable feelings or thoughts alleged to come from God] ???????

The scientific method for determining fact from fiction, reality from wishful thinking, truth from error.

You find self contradiction more reliable than feelings from God? Good luck on that one.

No. However, I certainly find my own reasoning far and away more reliable than yours in this present conversation; as you are clearly deficient in discerning my argument which, upon review, should be clear to anyone with a reasonable command of the English language beyond the 8th grade, and certainly one who considers epistemology to be "their turf".

I'm about done. I can do my best to deal with irrationality when it is nicely presented- you just figure the poor guy is confused- but irrationality presented with nastiness and snide cracks just takes me beyond where I want to go.

I'm done with you.

Your loss (and mine). It seems to me there's still more that we could learn from each other. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

[mfbukowski]

The alternative is decisions based on such irrational thinking such as superstition, whimsical emotion, or random chance.

I don't think it means what you seem to think that it means.

The scientific method for determining fact from fiction, reality from wishful thinking, truth from error.

No. However, I certainly find my own reasoning far and away more reliable than yours in this present conversation; as you are clearly deficient in discerning my argument which, upon review, should be clear to anyone with a reasonable command of the English language beyond the 8th grade, and certainly one who considers epistemology to be "their turf".

Your loss (and mine). It seems to me there's still more that we could learn from each other.

Consistency seems to be a problem for you.

[AmorLibertas]

The point is irrelevant since certain inalienable rights exist, including that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The expectation of such a life is irrelevant to the right it(the child) has. The right exists outside the organism and is not controlled by the organism through presumed consciousness.

The right does not exist outside the organism. The right is inseparable from the organism which has them; that is the meaning of the term "inalienable". At issue is not whether a baby is a person with inalienable rights, but rather when the developing embryo or fetus becomes more than a mass of tissue and becomes a person with constitutionally protected rights.

[AmorLibertas]

Sentience is not required, if you look at the Uniform determination of death act, you will note that one is not considered dead unless the brain function is irreparably dead. Unborn children are not in that category.

Not generally, no. However, you're dealing with the other end of the spectrum... that of cessation of brain activity. What is at question is not the cessation of brain activity but its commencement.

[USU78]

What I am maintaining is that sentience and cognition are a few essential qualities which distinguish an individual whose constitutional rights should be protected, and a mass of tissues without such constitutional rights.

Tautologies are such fun.

[Mudcat]

Thanks for all your thoughts and votes on matter, regarding the OP everyone.

Just a heads up, I plan to close the thread mid week, next week. (Unless you guys get the thread locked of your own accord.) Everyone seems to have stated their own positions well and I don't think there is much to add in that way. However, there is a bit of intractable back and forth amongst posters still.

I know intractable discussions are fun at times and I wanted to give room for that, but I also would like to put this one behind us so we can move forward with some new stuff... or at least move sideways with some different intractable stuff .

All due respects,

Mudcat

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

...and which statistic sounds like it's far-fetched? I agree that everyone has an agenda. After camping out at a couple of clinics on days they were performing abortions, I'm not too surprised by the numbers listed.

No doubt...just pointing out how many (most) will use their numbers to reflect their agenda. I pray for a world with no abortion in it some day. But I take a stats with a grain if slat.

[AmorLibertas]

Tautologies are such fun.

It's not a tautology. An example of a tautology would be: Babies have inalienable rights protected by the Constitution; therefor, it's unconstitutional to infringe upon a baby's inalienable right to life.

My post was clarifying a key point of my argument justifying elective abortion in the first trimester, namely that I am disputing the argument that a mass of living tissue which is not sentient and thinking ought to be considered a person with inalienable rights.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 21 April 2011 - 09:50 PM, said:

The point is irrelevant since certain inalienable rights exist, including that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The expectation of such a life is irrelevant to the right it(the child) has. The right exists outside the organism and is not controlled by the organism through presumed consciousness.

The right does not exist outside the organism. The right is inseparable from the organism which has them; that is the meaning of the term "inalienable". At issue is not whether a baby is a person with inalienable rights, but rather when the developing embryo or fetus becomes more than a mass of tissue and becomes a person with constitutionally protected rights.

You misunderstand. My point was the right exists wihtout the invocation or volition of the organism or the society around the organism, it is a natural right that exists by the nature of right. Humans as a mass of tissue have an inalienable right by their nature of being human. The context of that mass of tissue is defined as a human being and thus retains those rights. What is an unborn child if that child is not human?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 21 April 2011 - 09:59 PM, said:

Sentience is not required, if you look at the Uniform determination of death act, you will note that one is not considered dead unless the brain function is irreparably dead. Unborn children are not in that category.

Not generally, no. However, you're dealing with the other end of the spectrum... that of cessation of brain activity. What is at question is not the cessation of brain activity but its commencement.

The other end of the spectrum is exactly like the beginning end with the difference only being in a positive change rather than a static one.

[mfbukowski]

All due respects,

I love that phrase!

[WalkerW]

The following is from my blog:

The purpose of this post is not to dispute the possible necessity of abortion in some cases [1], but to address the following argument:

It is the woman's right to choose. Women have the right to do whatever they choose with their bodies.

This line of argumentation is rhetorically redundant and absurd. Of course the woman has a right to choose. Every action is the result of a choice. No one is contending against the woman's right to choose. A woman has every right to choose whether or not to rob a grocery store, to eat that fattening bowl of ice cream, or to murder her obnoxious husband. What she does not have the right to choose is the consequences of her actions (such as getting pregnant after having unprotected sex). The question is not whether the woman has the right to choose. The question is whether that choice is ethical and if legal consequences should follow.

The second part of the argument regarding the woman's body is completely false. How can this be so? The late philosopher Richard Sharvy answered, "...Because one thing that a woman might choose to do with her body is to strangle me or stomp on my face, yet the fact that this is something she does with her body does not give her any special privilege to do either of these things" [2]. Now one may object that this is not what is meant by the claim that women have a right to their bodies. However, this is what is most often said and "we should do him the courtesy of taking him to mean precisely what he says, and of noting that what he has said is an ethical claim which is just plain false. I disapprove of trying to rewrite what someone else has claimed...Such people should be forced at the very least to speak more carefully" [3]. That this supposed right is utterly false is a "moral fact" according to Sharvy.

Forced to speak more accurately, a pro-choice advocate may rephrase the argument to say, "Women have the right to do whatever they choose with their bodies as long as it doesn't harm someone else." The implication is that the human embryo or fetus doesn't count as "someone else." In other words, a human embryo is not human. This too is absolutely false. The findings of the Human Genome Project have demonstrated that: Publication of the human genetic blueprint has forever transformed the way we think about humanity and, indeed, about early human life...The human embryo, from the moment of conception, possesses a complete and distinct human genome...Every embryo of human origin is genetically a member of the human species, is genetically male or female, and, with the exception of identical twins and (hypothetically) clones, is genetically unique...Moreover, through the genome the continuity of human genetic identity is maintained throughout an individual's lifetime. The genome seated within the zygote, the first cell of the human life span, is the very same genome a person will have in old age. The Orwellian terms "pre-embryo" and "potential human being" no longer have any scientific validity...Science informs us that the human embryo is, objectively speaking, an early human life, and the same kind of being, a human being, as the scientist. [4]

In summary, a human embryo "is a distinct, self-developing, complete (though immature) human organism" [5].

While one may concede that the biology for the claim on the label Homo sapien is there, the identity or personhood is not. Without the ability to choose, speak, or think, can such a being truly be called human? This invites a kind of dualistic way of thinking; a separation between body and personhood or identity. Essentially, the body and mind become two distinct things. I find it to be a matter of common sense that our minds and bodies make up a unified entity, not distinct ones. But even if we were to concur with the dualistic view of mind and body, one must follow it to its logical conclusion if one is to remain intellectually honest. Princeton professor Robert P. George points out, "If 'I' [i.e. a self's true identity] was not an embryo or fetus, neither was 'I' once an infant...To have destroyed the fetus or infant that later became 'me' would not have been to destroy me. So at what point then do we say 'I' began to exist? At what point do we draw the line on killing? ...If dualism is true, the answer won't be 'birth'" [6]. To be consistent, one would have to embrace infanticide along with feticide. Most will not want to do that (unless you're Peter Singer).

1. For example, the LDS Church lists the following exceptions: (1) Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or (2) A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or (3) A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. Nonetheless, "the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions...The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct." ("Abortion," LDS Newsroom) An excellent article that reviews the Church's stance is Russell M. Nelson, “Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,” Ensign (Oct. 2008). The reasoning for these exceptions will not be addressed in this post.

2. Richard Sharvy, "Who's To Say What's Right or Wrong? People With Ph.D.s in Philosophy, That's Who," Journal of Libertarian Studies 21:3 (Fall 2007). Sharvy's philosophical reasoning for the claim "there is no right to life" in this article can shed some light on the arguments for the Church's exceptions to abortion. He distinguishes between "the right to life" (false) and "the right to the free exercise of life" (true).

3. Ibid.

4. William P. Cheshire, Jr., "Human Embryo Research After the Genome," The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity (November 14, 2002). Cheshire further explains, "Much more than a genetic repository, the embryo is actively engaged in transcribing and translating the genome, synthesizing proteins and macromolecules, arranging intracellular architecture, taking in nutrition, burning oxygen for cellular metabolism, and strategically directing the complex process of cellular specialization on a deliberate trajectory toward actualization of all the functional capacities that typify a being of the species Homo sapiens. Life has begun." He concludes, "Thanks to science, arguments that dehumanize the human embryo now belong to a withering and overturned paradigm of the past. Those who choose to cling to that paradigm may find their place in history alongside the U.S. Supreme Court justices who, in the 1857 Dred Scott case, ruled that African-American slaves were not persons but personal property."

5. Robert P. George, Maureen Condic & Patrick Lee, "The Grail Searchers," National Review (July 20, 2009).

6. Anne Morse, "Conservative Heavyweight: The Remarkable Mind of Robert P. George," Crisis (September 2003). This dualistic argument also implies that all men are not created equal.

Further reading: Robert P. George, "

," Lecture given at Case Western Reserve University School of Law on Jan. 24, 2007; Edward Feser, "Self-Ownership, Abortion, and the Rights of Children: Toward a More Conservative Libertarianism," Journal of Libertarian Studies 18:3 (Summer 2004); Robert P. George & Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (Doubleday, 2008).

[WalkerW]

The following is from my blog:

The purpose of this post is not to dispute the possible necessity of abortion in some cases [1], but to address the following argument:

It is the woman's right to choose. Women have the right to do whatever they choose with their bodies.

This line of argumentation is rhetorically redundant and absurd. Of course the woman has a right to choose. Every action is the result of a choice. No one is contending against the woman's right to choose. A woman has every right to choose whether or not to rob a grocery store, to eat that fattening bowl of ice cream, or to murder her obnoxious husband. What she does not have the right to choose is the consequences of her actions (such as getting pregnant after having unprotected sex). The question is not whether the woman has the right to choose. The question is whether that choice is ethical and if legal consequences should follow.

The second part of the argument regarding the woman's body is completely false. How can this be so? The late philosopher Richard Sharvy answered, "...Because one thing that a woman might choose to do with her body is to strangle me or stomp on my face, yet the fact that this is something she does with her body does not give her any special privilege to do either of these things" [2]. Now one may object that this is not what is meant by the claim that women have a right to their bodies. However, this is what is most often said and "we should do him the courtesy of taking him to mean precisely what he says, and of noting that what he has said is an ethical claim which is just plain false. I disapprove of trying to rewrite what someone else has claimed...Such people should be forced at the very least to speak more carefully" [3]. That this supposed right is utterly false is a "moral fact" according to Sharvy.

Forced to speak more accurately, a pro-choice advocate may rephrase the argument to say, "Women have the right to do whatever they choose with their bodies as long as it doesn't harm someone else." The implication is that the human embryo or fetus doesn't count as "someone else." In other words, a human embryo is not human. This too is absolutely false. The findings of the Human Genome Project have demonstrated that: Publication of the human genetic blueprint has forever transformed the way we think about humanity and, indeed, about early human life...The human embryo, from the moment of conception, possesses a complete and distinct human genome...Every embryo of human origin is genetically a member of the human species, is genetically male or female, and, with the exception of identical twins and (hypothetically) clones, is genetically unique...Moreover, through the genome the continuity of human genetic identity is maintained throughout an individual's lifetime. The genome seated within the zygote, the first cell of the human life span, is the very same genome a person will have in old age. The Orwellian terms "pre-embryo" and "potential human being" no longer have any scientific validity...Science informs us that the human embryo is, objectively speaking, an early human life, and the same kind of being, a human being, as the scientist. [4]

In summary, a human embryo "is a distinct, self-developing, complete (though immature) human organism" [5].

While one may concede that the biology for the claim on the label Homo sapien is there, the identity or personhood is not. Without the ability to choose, speak, or think, can such a being truly be called human? This invites a kind of dualistic way of thinking; a separation between body and personhood or identity. Essentially, the body and mind become two distinct things. I find it to be a matter of common sense that our minds and bodies make up a unified entity, not distinct ones. But even if we were to concur with the dualistic view of mind and body, one must follow it to its logical conclusion if one is to remain intellectually honest. Princeton professor Robert P. George points out, "If 'I' [i.e. a self's true identity] was not an embryo or fetus, neither was 'I' once an infant...To have destroyed the fetus or infant that later became 'me' would not have been to destroy me. So at what point then do we say 'I' began to exist? At what point do we draw the line on killing? ...If dualism is true, the answer won't be 'birth'" [6]. To be consistent, one would have to embrace infanticide along with feticide. Most will not want to do that (unless you're Peter Singer).

1. For example, the LDS Church lists the following exceptions: (1) Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or (2) A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or (3) A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. Nonetheless, "the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions...The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct." ("Abortion," LDS Newsroom) An excellent article that reviews the Church's stance is Russell M. Nelson, “Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,” Ensign (Oct. 2008). The reasoning for these exceptions will not be addressed in this post.

2. Richard Sharvy, "Who's To Say What's Right or Wrong? People With Ph.D.s in Philosophy, That's Who," Journal of Libertarian Studies 21:3 (Fall 2007). Sharvy's philosophical reasoning for the claim "there is no right to life" in this article can shed some light on the arguments for the Church's exceptions to abortion. He distinguishes between "the right to life" (false) and "the right to the free exercise of life" (true).

3. Ibid.

4. William P. Cheshire, Jr., "Human Embryo Research After the Genome," The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity (November 14, 2002). Cheshire further explains, "Much more than a genetic repository, the embryo is actively engaged in transcribing and translating the genome, synthesizing proteins and macromolecules, arranging intracellular architecture, taking in nutrition, burning oxygen for cellular metabolism, and strategically directing the complex process of cellular specialization on a deliberate trajectory toward actualization of all the functional capacities that typify a being of the species Homo sapiens. Life has begun." He concludes, "Thanks to science, arguments that dehumanize the human embryo now belong to a withering and overturned paradigm of the past. Those who choose to cling to that paradigm may find their place in history alongside the U.S. Supreme Court justices who, in the 1857 Dred Scott case, ruled that African-American slaves were not persons but personal property."

5. Robert P. George, Maureen Condic & Patrick Lee, "The Grail Searchers," National Review (July 20, 2009).

6. Anne Morse, "Conservative Heavyweight: The Remarkable Mind of Robert P. George," Crisis (September 2003). This dualistic argument also implies that all men are not created equal.

Further reading: Robert P. George, "

," Lecture given at Case Western Reserve University School of Law on Jan. 24, 2007; Edward Feser, "Self-Ownership, Abortion, and the Rights of Children: Toward a More Conservative Libertarianism," Journal of Libertarian Studies 18:3 (Summer 2004); Robert P. George & Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (Doubleday, 2008).

[WalkerW]

The following is from my blog:

The purpose of this post is not to dispute the possible necessity of abortion in some cases [1], but to address the following argument:

It is the woman's right to choose. Women have the right to do whatever they choose with their bodies.

This line of argumentation is rhetorically redundant and absurd. Of course the woman has a right to choose. Every action is the result of a choice. No one is contending against the woman's right to choose. A woman has every right to choose whether or not to rob a grocery store, to eat that fattening bowl of ice cream, or to murder her obnoxious husband. What she does not have the right to choose is the consequences of her actions (such as getting pregnant after having unprotected sex). The question is not whether the woman has the right to choose. The question is whether that choice is ethical and if legal consequences should follow.

The second part of the argument regarding the woman's body is completely false. How can this be so? The late philosopher Richard Sharvy answered, "...Because one thing that a woman might choose to do with her body is to strangle me or stomp on my face, yet the fact that this is something she does with her body does not give her any special privilege to do either of these things" [2]. Now one may object that this is not what is meant by the claim that women have a right to their bodies. However, this is what is most often said and "we should do him the courtesy of taking him to mean precisely what he says, and of noting that what he has said is an ethical claim which is just plain false. I disapprove of trying to rewrite what someone else has claimed...Such people should be forced at the very least to speak more carefully" [3]. That this supposed right is utterly false is a "moral fact" according to Sharvy.

Forced to speak more accurately, a pro-choice advocate may rephrase the argument to say, "Women have the right to do whatever they choose with their bodies as long as it doesn't harm someone else." The implication is that the human embryo or fetus doesn't count as "someone else." In other words, a human embryo is not human. This too is absolutely false. The findings of the Human Genome Project have demonstrated that: Publication of the human genetic blueprint has forever transformed the way we think about humanity and, indeed, about early human life...The human embryo, from the moment of conception, possesses a complete and distinct human genome...Every embryo of human origin is genetically a member of the human species, is genetically male or female, and, with the exception of identical twins and (hypothetically) clones, is genetically unique...Moreover, through the genome the continuity of human genetic identity is maintained throughout an individual's lifetime. The genome seated within the zygote, the first cell of the human life span, is the very same genome a person will have in old age. The Orwellian terms "pre-embryo" and "potential human being" no longer have any scientific validity...Science informs us that the human embryo is, objectively speaking, an early human life, and the same kind of being, a human being, as the scientist. [4]

In summary, a human embryo "is a distinct, self-developing, complete (though immature) human organism" [5].

While one may concede that the biology for the claim on the label Homo sapien is there, the identity or personhood is not. Without the ability to choose, speak, or think, can such a being truly be called human? This invites a kind of dualistic way of thinking; a separation between body and personhood or identity. Essentially, the body and mind become two distinct things. I find it to be a matter of common sense that our minds and bodies make up a unified entity, not distinct ones. But even if we were to concur with the dualistic view of mind and body, one must follow it to its logical conclusion if one is to remain intellectually honest. Princeton professor Robert P. George points out, "If 'I' [i.e. a self's true identity] was not an embryo or fetus, neither was 'I' once an infant...To have destroyed the fetus or infant that later became 'me' would not have been to destroy me. So at what point then do we say 'I' began to exist? At what point do we draw the line on killing? ...If dualism is true, the answer won't be 'birth'" [6]. To be consistent, one would have to embrace infanticide along with feticide. Most will not want to do that (unless you're Peter Singer).

1. For example, the LDS Church lists the following exceptions: (1) Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or (2) A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or (3) A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. Nonetheless, "the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions...The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct." ("Abortion," LDS Newsroom) An excellent article that reviews the Church's stance is Russell M. Nelson, “Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,” Ensign (Oct. 2008). The reasoning for these exceptions will not be addressed in this post.

2. Richard Sharvy, "Who's To Say What's Right or Wrong? People With Ph.D.s in Philosophy, That's Who," Journal of Libertarian Studies 21:3 (Fall 2007). Sharvy's philosophical reasoning for the claim "there is no right to life" in this article can shed some light on the arguments for the Church's exceptions to abortion. He distinguishes between "the right to life" (false) and "the right to the free exercise of life" (true).

3. Ibid.

4. William P. Cheshire, Jr., "Human Embryo Research After the Genome," The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity (November 14, 2002). Cheshire further explains, "Much more than a genetic repository, the embryo is actively engaged in transcribing and translating the genome, synthesizing proteins and macromolecules, arranging intracellular architecture, taking in nutrition, burning oxygen for cellular metabolism, and strategically directing the complex process of cellular specialization on a deliberate trajectory toward actualization of all the functional capacities that typify a being of the species Homo sapiens. Life has begun." He concludes, "Thanks to science, arguments that dehumanize the human embryo now belong to a withering and overturned paradigm of the past. Those who choose to cling to that paradigm may find their place in history alongside the U.S. Supreme Court justices who, in the 1857 Dred Scott case, ruled that African-American slaves were not persons but personal property."

5. Robert P. George, Maureen Condic & Patrick Lee, "The Grail Searchers," National Review (July 20, 2009).

6. Anne Morse, "Conservative Heavyweight: The Remarkable Mind of Robert P. George," Crisis (September 2003). This dualistic argument also implies that all men are not created equal.

Further reading: Robert P. George, "

," Lecture given at Case Western Reserve University School of Law on Jan. 24, 2007; Edward Feser, "Self-Ownership, Abortion, and the Rights of Children: Toward a More Conservative Libertarianism," Journal of Libertarian Studies 18:3 (Summer 2004); Robert P. George & Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (Doubleday, 2008).

[WalkerW]

From my blog:

The purpose of this post is not to dispute the possible necessity of abortion in some cases [1], but to address the following argument:

It is the woman's right to choose. Women have the right to do whatever they choose with their bodies.

This line of argumentation is rhetorically redundant and absurd. Of course the woman has a right to choose. Every action is the result of a choice. No one is contending against the woman's right to choose. A woman has every right to choose whether or not to rob a grocery store, to eat that fattening bowl of ice cream, or to murder her obnoxious husband. What she does not have the right to choose is the consequences of her actions (such as getting pregnant after having unprotected sex). The question is not whether the woman has the right to choose. The question is whether that choice is ethical and if legal consequences should follow.

The second part of the argument regarding the woman's body is completely false. How can this be so? The late philosopher Richard Sharvy answered, "...Because one thing that a woman might choose to do with her body is to strangle me or stomp on my face, yet the fact that this is something she does with her body does not give her any special privilege to do either of these things" [2]. Now one may object that this is not what is meant by the claim that women have a right to their bodies. However, this is what is most often said and "we should do him the courtesy of taking him to mean precisely what he says, and of noting that what he has said is an ethical claim which is just plain false. I disapprove of trying to rewrite what someone else has claimed...Such people should be forced at the very least to speak more carefully" [3]. That this supposed right is utterly false is a "moral fact" according to Sharvy.

Forced to speak more accurately, a pro-choice advocate may rephrase the argument to say, "Women have the right to do whatever they choose with their bodies as long as it doesn't harm someone else." The implication is that the human embryo or fetus doesn't count as "someone else." In other words, a human embryo is not human. This too is absolutely false. The findings of the Human Genome Project have demonstrated that: Publication of the human genetic blueprint has forever transformed the way we think about humanity and, indeed, about early human life...The human embryo, from the moment of conception, possesses a complete and distinct human genome...Every embryo of human origin is genetically a member of the human species, is genetically male or female, and, with the exception of identical twins and (hypothetically) clones, is genetically unique...Moreover, through the genome the continuity of human genetic identity is maintained throughout an individual's lifetime. The genome seated within the zygote, the first cell of the human life span, is the very same genome a person will have in old age. The Orwellian terms "pre-embryo" and "potential human being" no longer have any scientific validity...Science informs us that the human embryo is, objectively speaking, an early human life, and the same kind of being, a human being, as the scientist. [4]

In summary, a human embryo "is a distinct, self-developing, complete (though immature) human organism" [5].

While one may concede that the biology for the claim on the label Homo sapien is there, the identity or personhood is not. Without the ability to choose, speak, or think, can such a being truly be called human? This invites a kind of dualistic way of thinking; a separation between body and personhood or identity. Essentially, the body and mind become two distinct things. I find it to be a matter of common sense that our minds and bodies make up a unified entity, not distinct ones. But even if we were to concur with the dualistic view of mind and body, one must follow it to its logical conclusion if one is to remain intellectually honest. Princeton professor Robert P. George points out, "If 'I' [i.e. a self's true identity] was not an embryo or fetus, neither was 'I' once an infant...To have destroyed the fetus or infant that later became 'me' would not have been to destroy me. So at what point then do we say 'I' began to exist? At what point do we draw the line on killing? ...If dualism is true, the answer won't be 'birth'" [6]. To be consistent, one would have to embrace infanticide along with feticide. Most will not want to do that (unless you're Peter Singer).

1. For example, the LDS Church lists the following exceptions: (1) Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or (2) A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or (3) A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. Nonetheless, "the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions...The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct." ("Abortion," LDS Newsroom) An excellent article that reviews the Church's stance is Russell M. Nelson, “Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,” Ensign (Oct. 2008). The reasoning for these exceptions will not be addressed in this post.

2. Richard Sharvy, "Who's To Say What's Right or Wrong? People With Ph.D.s in Philosophy, That's Who," Journal of Libertarian Studies 21:3 (Fall 2007). Sharvy's philosophical reasoning for the claim "there is no right to life" in this article can shed some light on the arguments for the Church's exceptions to abortion. He distinguishes between "the right to life" (false) and "the right to the free exercise of life" (true).

3. Ibid.

4. William P. Cheshire, Jr., "Human Embryo Research After the Genome," The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity (November 14, 2002). Cheshire further explains, "Much more than a genetic repository, the embryo is actively engaged in transcribing and translating the genome, synthesizing proteins and macromolecules, arranging intracellular architecture, taking in nutrition, burning oxygen for cellular metabolism, and strategically directing the complex process of cellular specialization on a deliberate trajectory toward actualization of all the functional capacities that typify a being of the species Homo sapiens. Life has begun." He concludes, "Thanks to science, arguments that dehumanize the human embryo now belong to a withering and overturned paradigm of the past. Those who choose to cling to that paradigm may find their place in history alongside the U.S. Supreme Court justices who, in the 1857 Dred Scott case, ruled that African-American slaves were not persons but personal property."

5. Robert P. George, Maureen Condic & Patrick Lee, "The Grail Searchers," National Review (July 20, 2009).

6. Anne Morse, "Conservative Heavyweight: The Remarkable Mind of Robert P. George," Crisis (September 2003). This dualistic argument also implies that all men are not created equal.

Further reading: Robert P. George, "

," Lecture given at Case Western Reserve University School of Law on Jan. 24, 2007; Edward Feser, "Self-Ownership, Abortion, and the Rights of Children: Toward a More Conservative Libertarianism," Journal of Libertarian Studies 18:3 (Summer 2004); Robert P. George, Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (Doubleday, 2008).

Yes, I know: I like George. But it is difficult to find a serious argument against abortion that he is not involved in.

[LeSellers]

From my blog:

It's great, W, but it's not four times as good as anything else here.

Heehee.

Lehi

[AmorLibertas]

Humans as a mass of tissue have an inalienable right by their nature of being human. The context of that mass of tissue is defined as a human being and thus retains those rights. What is an unborn child if that child is not human?

A mass of human tissues may or may not be a "human being" or person with unalienable rights. It depends most importantly on the number of functioning brains. When there is one functioning brain but multiple bodies or partial bodies, we say there is only one person or baby. When there are two functioning brains, but only one body, we say there are two people or babies. When there are no functioning brains, no matter hopw many bodies, we say there are no people... just a mass or masses of tissue. Having a functioning brain capable of sentience and cognition seems to me the proper determining factor for personhood with the attendant inalienable rights.

The other end of the spectrum is exactly like the beginning end with the difference only being in a positive change rather than a static one.

By that reeasoning a human corpse has inalienable rights.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 22 April 2011 - 09:37 AM, said:

The other end of the spectrum is exactly like the beginning end with the difference only being in a positive change rather than a static one.

By that reeasoning a human corpse has inalienable rights.

By that definition alone, its potential has been eliminated.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 22 April 2011 - 09:34 AM, said:

Humans as a mass of tissue have an inalienable right by their nature of being human. The context of that mass of tissue is defined as a human being and thus retains those rights. What is an unborn child if that child is not human?

A mass of human tissues may or may not be a "human being" or person with unalienable rights. It depends most importantly on the number of functioning brains. When there is one functioning brain but multiple bodies or partial bodies, we say there is only one person or baby. When there are two functioning brains, but only one body, we say there are two people or babies. When there are no functioning brains, no matter hopw many bodies, we say there are no people... just a mass or masses of tissue. Having a functioning brain capable of sentience and cognition seems to me the proper determining factor for personhood with the attendant inalienable rights

.

No, a mass of human tissue before it is born is still human. You cannot say what the mother carries is not human, such makes no sense, scientifically or otherwise. If it is human, then it must also hold certain rights since humans, those not dead, and even those who may be brain dead, are still not actively killed, but are allowed to die. The same right is not extended to children not yet born.

[USU78]

It's not a tautology. An example of a tautology would be: Babies have inalienable rights protected by the Constitution; therefor, it's unconstitutional to infringe upon a baby's inalienable right to life.

Human organisms that are self-aware have the right not to be killed. Human organisms in utero during the first three post-conception months are not self-aware; therefore, it's okay to kill human organisms in utero during their first three post-conception months.

Kinda like that, eh?

[AmorLibertas]

Human organisms that are self-aware have the right not to be killed. Human organisms in utero during the first three post-conception months are not self-aware; therefore, it's okay to kill human organisms in utero during their first three post-conception months.

Kinda like that, eh?

Kinda, but not quite. That is a syllogism. If you wish to attack the premises, you may reasonably (or unreasonably depending on your skill) do so; but the argument is logically constructed with a conclusion that follows the premises, not a conclusion which merely restated the premesis.

[AmorLibertas]

No, a mass of human tissue before it is born is still human. You cannot say what the mother carries is not human, such makes no sense, scientifically or otherwise.

If you read what I wrote and have written, you will see that nowhere do I say that what is growing in the woman's uterus is inhuman, I merely use various different terms to point out that before the embryo or fetus reaches a specific level of development I believe it ought not be regarded as a person with unalienable rights anymore than one might regard a dermoid tumor or any other non-sentient, non-thinking mass of tissue one might find growing in or connected to their body.

If it is human, then it must also hold certain rights since humans, those not dead, and even those who may be brain dead, are still not actively killed, but are allowed to die. The same right is not extended to children not yet born.

And I maintain that your definition is too broad and inclusive as too extend rights to any living mass of human tissue. Furthermore, how is allowing the brain-dead to starve to death or suffocate to death or die of exposure any more moral than allowing an infant to likewise die unless you do make a distinction between those that are sentient and thinking and those that are not? And if such a distinction is made at the end of life, why not at the beginning as well?

[USU78]

Kinda, but not quite. That is a syllogism. If you wish to attack the premises, you may reasonably (or unreasonably depending on your skill) do so; but the argument is logically constructed with a conclusion that follows the premises, not a conclusion which merely restated the premesis.

I merely crafted a syllogism that describes your position, and quite accurately if I may be so bold. Underlying your position is a circular bit of reasoning that the syllogism accurately demonstrates: You accept on faith and without evidence that self-awareness is the sine qua non of personhood and, therefore, the right not to be killed at the whim of mom.

If your first premise, that self-awareness and not genetics makes us human, were self-evident or at least demonstrable other than as expression of secular faith, you might be on to something. It's not. Indeed, given biology's clear answer on a zygote's status as fully human organism, you bear the burden of establishing your premise before making your syllogism worthwhile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR2vGJSX0xo

[AmorLibertas]

I merely crafted a syllogism that describes your position, and quite accurately if I may be so bold. Underlying your position is a circular bit of reasoning that the syllogism accurately demonstrates: You accept on faith and without evidence that self-awareness is the sine qua non of person-hood and, therefore, the right not to be killed at the whim of mom.

First, it is not circular reasoning, it is a matter of opinion. Second, I am not asserting that "self-awareness", which is generally accepted as developing sometime in the first few months or sometimes years after birth (if ever), is the sine qua non of person-hood, nor am I accepting such a proposition on faith or without evidence. I am suggesting that the existence of sentience and cognition ought to be the sine qua non of person-hood from a legal standpoint, and I support or justify my rationale by pointing to the fact that we recognize person-hood by the presence, not of individual bodies, but rather, individual sentient and cognitive experiences. I have submitted examples of such by referring to the phenomena of conjoined twins. All that I have seen offered by way of an alternative position is that we should arbitrarily declare every human zygote a person by virtue of the fact that it might potentially develop into one or more babies.

If your first premise, that self-awareness and not genetics makes us human, were self-evident or at least demonstrable other than as expression of secular faith, you might be on to something. It's not. Indeed, given biology's clear answer on a zygote's status as fully human organism, you bear the burden of establishing your premise before making your syllogism worthwhile.

Again, you misrepresent my position as well as erroneously discharge yourself of making the argument for your position that a human zygote should be recognized as a person for no other reason than its human DNA. I have never once denied that genetics are the determining factor for what makes us human (as opposed to some other species or race, etc.), nor have I suggested that self-awareness (which most experts believe develops only after birth or physical separation from the womb) is the essential condition; I have stated sentience (sensory experience) and cognition (thinking) are the essential conditions; and I have maintained that genetics is insufficient in and of itself; that if we were to go on genetics alone, we should be calling every dermoid tumor a baby as well.

You suggest that a zygote is a fully human organism, and I agree and have not disputed the identification of the zygote as a fully human (As opposed to partially human? Part human and part what?) organism. It certainly isn't an insect or a fish or even a virus. However, to suggest that a zygote is equivalent to a fully developed, sentient and thinking fetus ignores or minimizes the significance of what I believe to be the sine qua non of person-hood which you reject based on precisely what you accuse me of, unsubstantiated religious belief (which incidentally is not the same thing as religious faith). Your belief that the human zygote is a person is not even based on LDS doctrine. Furthermore, I ask you precisely how many human beings a zygote is upon fertilization? Is it one? Is it more? Surely you are aware that a single zygote can fully divide and become identical twins or identical triplets or possibly even identical quadruplets. Furthermore, if a zygote is fertilized, but is never implanted, do you mourn the passing of a child?

You may assert that the zygote is a person with inalienable rights based on the fact that the zygote is a human organism, but as far as I have seen, you are unable to do more than that without resorting to religious sentiments. I, on the other hand have given reasons to suppose that sentience and cognition makes for a better starting and ending point, and have illustrated my point with examples and reasoning of why this should be so. That you disagree with me is of course your prerogative, as is your attempt to persuade others to your way of thinking and even to attempt to impose your beliefs on the whole of society through legislation. I, of course, am free to oppose such efforts as I deem unreasonable, irrational, or both.

And with that, I feel satisfied with my discussion of the subject and will now cease from this thread, even if others may attempt to take what I have written and twist my words, misrepresent my position with a straw-man argument, or disparage my intelligence, beliefs, or character.