Answering an antichoicer's blog and doing it right is like repairing a computer problem. I never know how long it's going to take. This took the entire day, and I know it's sloppy and needs an edit. The worst thing, due to an error, the parts of the answer went up out of order.
So, here's "NormanAbolition's" blog entry:
http://is.gd/Gpyoxc
Here's my answer, this time with an edit and in the proper order:
A logical argument is only as valid as the premises you put in it. Your “modus ponens” structures is solid, (if inefficient) but you give your premises as facts down to the very terms in which you've presented them. The problem is, your wording isn't clear at all, and you've manipulated the rhetoric so that they can't be question without bringing the questioner under moral attack.
What do you mean by “intrinsic” and “intrinsic rights.” How can an abstract, inorganic concept such as “rights” be intrinsic to a biological organism? Not even Thomas Jefferson and, as far as I could tell, Thomas Paine said rights were intrinsic. Jefferson said “unalienable,” meaning, even if you're an atheist, that if they were were alienated, you could fight the alienators and expect allies to help you. That's exactly what happened.
If rights are intrinsic, it means if you've “alienated” them from a person, then from that act alone you've either killed them or you've made them morphologically into a different species. Either way, this expresses a belief in black magic and it can't possibly be what you mean.
Also, what is meant by “Human life begins at conception?” The sperm and egg cells are human. Since the life is human before, during and after conception, what can this possibly mean? Do you mean genetically complete? Yes, two sets of genes have just met and started to cooperate, but it doesn't have a trillionth the number of genes it needs to survive, which is why it starts reproducing and making changes as fast as possible. Then it can twin becoming two individuals, which means that a unique human life did not begin at conception.
What you've presented here is nothing but moral relativism. Your choice is on when a human being begins is not more logical than choosing any other point. You just put God's name on the choice you're pretending not to make, just as kings once did to Divine Right before Jefferson corrected them with the concept of unalienable rights. Unlike Divine Right, there's nothing Biblical to support life beginning at conception, which adds moral dishonesty to your relativism. To paraphrase you, there's no convincing reason you've given why a zygote is a human being with rights. Birth is a much more compelling argument on the facts. Neural function is a more compelling argument. Viability falls someplace in between. Conception is dead last.
You point out that opinions vary other than at conception that without agreement on conception, nobody can agree. But this is a tautology that applies to every other opinion on the subject. One could also say that if you don't agree with birth being the beginning of a human being, then nobody can agree on whether it's at conception, neuro-maturity or viability. I'll add that there probably would be consensus as to when a fetus is too close to being a person to allow abortion if so much time and energy weren't committed to fighting people like yourself who think it ought to be at conception.
As for the “slippery slope” issues, or as you put it, “those definitons are notoriously hard to contain,” there's a huge difference between a fetus and all the examples you've given from Singers work, differences big enough to trump any similarities. People who are unconscious, have had strokes, who've become old, or who are just sleeping, these are people who either exist or have existed as persons who have gained consciousness prior. There is no slippery slope to this. I'll underscore this point by saying of all the genocides, death camps and mass killings in the 20th century, none started with legalized abortion. None. In fact, the Nazis were extremely anti-abortion. Plenty of countries have legalized discretionary abortion since, and of those, none have slipped into genocidal acts or mass euthanasia programs. None. So, not only is there no logical connection, there is no practical connection. None. Yet here you are advocating the prevention of abortion, something that would have stopped no other genocide, no other act of euthanasia, and wouldn't stop it today.
You've overlooked the fact that there are other compelling reasons besides nerve function to respect rights-- once a person is in the world and is unconsciously acknowledged as human being, we put them into a totally different category than a fetus, which is why we mark their lives with a birth certificate (not a conception certificate) and a death certificate. Once a person is actually there, then his or her peers and in response, society, has a different set of human emotions and motives which are expressed in the form of “rights.”
These emotions and motives simply aren't evoked by a fetus, and so you're not going to make rights apply to fetuses. You definitely aren't going to get people to care enough to fill out conception certificates except as a fad, and that's what you would need to legally give it rights.
“Most people have no trouble recognizing that all humans have an intrinsic right to life after birth. The idea is clearly articulated in the Declaration of Independence and is the philosophical bedrock for the legal definition of murder.”
Really? Nobody was ever charged with murder before the Declaration of Independence? Or did people have a legal definition for it for ten millennium before they had a philosophical bedrock? How did Greek philosophers make such an oversight? Really, if that's the philosophical basis, how is it that people were charged for thousands of years without ever articulating individual rights? Not only that, Jefferson wasn't clear. All he said was that among the unalienable rights he was talking about were the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He also didn't make a logical argument about it. He simply declared it, moral relativist that he was.
Also, I thought your philosophical basis against murder was that it usurps God's right to take somebody's life when He wishes. Or was that argument just inconvenient to your moral relativism then? Or maybe it's both and you can't decide?
You argue that human rights can't be simply invented because they're otherwise not guaranteed. I'll put this argument form in a different context: “If there's no Santa Claus, then I won't get any toys.” You'd have no problem seeing here that believing in Santa Claus even more isn't going to help. I'll point out that kids get toys at Christmas without Santa Claus. So, in other words, both statements in that form are invalid by form. We can do very well respecting rights whether we believe they are invented or not and do very well punishing and renouncing their violation.
If we believe rights are invented or not irrelevant to whether they are, in reality, invented. I think you'll agree with that. So, by your argument above (about rights or Santa Claus), then there are two possible conclusions: 1) either a person's belief in “intrinsic rights” means more than the reality of their actual existence, which means the reality of their existence does nothing anyway, and their existence is irrelevant; or 2) they don't exist but the self-deception will make us act like they do. I don't see how you can like the implications of either of these. I definitely don't.
Actually, we can do very well respecting rights whether we believe they are invented or not and do very well punishing and renouncing their violation, and far better when the rights aren't confused as the antichoicers have done so.
There are other entities that exists only in the minds of human beings that have an extremely stable effect on our everyday lives: nations. They have no existence outside of our minds. They are totally invented by human beings who build up whole bureaus and apparatuses around them, which themselves have no existence outside of the human mind. Despite that, we seem to have little problem judging which nation a person “belongs” in or where a certain nation exists or what its laws or customs are. If such judgments can be made about nations, your claim is blatantly false. Intrinsic rights are simply nonsense, or a way of saying you're really protective of rights, or really, really believe in them.
“Who are we to determine what another person thinks is right concerning killing another person or in some way treating them as a means rather than an end if people do not possess any rights?”
I simply don't understand this sentence. If rights are “invented” it does not mean that rights don't exist, and if human beings invent them to shape each others' social behavior, why should they take your humbleness argument, which really isn't humbleness but pure manipulation?
“This is the inevitable conclusion of the subjective morality that is driving the pro-abortion movement to define unborn babies as non-human.”
I believe you're mistaking the mental process involved in thinking about abortion and birth. One doesn't really “define” anybody into humanity, nor withdraw that definition, (for the latter not unless under duress or terror by some greater political force). At birth, people automatically begin to respond to a baby as a human being. They never respond to a fetus in such a way, otherwise, we would attach much more attention to conception and actually certify them. In the prochoice movement, we don't un-define fetuses. In actuality, your the one who's attempting to define them as human beings, as persons with rights, when it was never done before.
“However, if rights are function of some qualities defined by a culture, then it is irrational to claim American slavery is immoral for those individuals practicing and endorsing it.”
What? Can't I just say they were very immoral times and I'm glad I wasn't there? I think most people would agree with me. First, just as I could make a judgment about whether a person is a German or US citizen, I could make a judgment about whether a practice in a different time was moral or not.
“A better approach is to confer rights based on the ontology of the person. Humans are unique and deserve basic rights because God has implanted His image within them. “
First, what does theology have to do with ontology? Now you're bolstering a bunch of weak, historically misinformed arguments by pouring your righteous religion over them. Who could argue against something so holy? The only problem with this is, since God doesn't exist, it's less intrinsic than bullshit. It doesn't bolster the rest of your arguments. It weakens them in favor of affirming your faith, which is you're obligated to do as a Christian above all else. Opposition to choice is just a means of doing that.
“P1’: Humans should not be unjustifiably killed because humans are created in the image of God (Gen 1:26; 9:6).”
A zygote at conception looks like God? I thought human beings look like God, i.e. they have a face, two arms and two legs, but then again, God the Father's not supposed to have a material form, is he? Or is the image of God perfect so unchangeable but changeable? Or does he, too, have a zygote/fetal stage that he goes through regularly? How many of these contradictions can you face before you don't believe anymore?
Plus, you said the philosophical bedrock for murder was in “intrinsic rights” as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, now your contradicting that saying that the bedrock actually has do with acting against the image of God?
If God can look like both a zygote and a middle aged man or woman and you acknowledge no contradiction with that, can't he look like a corpse, too? If it's a mystery how God can do this, how can you use it as an argument if you don't know what you're talking about? Again, you seek the scripture to disguise what's really moral relativism.
“The problem is that people don’t live like that, and we know it. People have no trouble recognizing slavery as a clear example where an entire culture endorsed the dehumanization of people purely for pigment levels in their skin.”
Well, we had this discussion. Slavery was considered moral for thousands of years everywhere, and the Bible endorsed the chosen people practicing it on “those people” (non-Jews, but in our country's context, people who were of non-European descent). I've heard humanitarians in the classical age saw slavery as the only way to prevent mass slaughter-- genocide. What has amazed historians is that suddenly in the 19th century it was considered immoral, and people even found Bible quotes purportedly against it, even though others in earlier ages read the same passages and didn't see any objection.
In other words, for slavery, it had always been like that, but the fact that it became different when “The Declaration” and “Rights of Man” were written is suggestive. Strangely enough, those documents had more effect on Europeans than Americans.
“C’: Abortion is morally wrong in most situations from the moment of fertilization.”
In most situations? How can you bend on this? I thought it was homicide. If you kill somebody to save your life, (when they are not attempting to kill you) it's still a homicide and a prosecutor will at least look at it. If you kill an inbred kid or a kid conceived from rape, that should still be homicide outside the womb even if you're concerned for them medically or for their care when you do it. How can you believe that it's a human being at conception with a right to life and possibly qualify it like this?
I'll tell you: moral relativism is how. You want to feel you're not too barbaric to women so you give this as a show of your humanitarianism.
Plus I notice you don't quote the Bible for P2 or P3, because it's bullshit that the Bible supports your view on this. It's only role is to disguise your moral relativism and bolster your faith. Except from the fact that it will demand the woman be punished for her lust, but for some reason, you chose not to make that argument. I can't think why. Many antichoicers have no problem doing that.
“Of course, some argue that the image of God is not imputed at fertilization. However, I think there is compelling scriptural support that people possess the image of God from the moment life begins. The most notable is the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ. “
The “Immaculate Conception” refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus's. Does every Christian need an atheist to teach them their religious dogma? Look it up if you don't believe me.
And wasn't the Immaculate Conception, or the Virgin Birth (of Jesus) an exception to everything? If you believe, what possible bearing could they have on a normal conception? And what is “possessing” the image of God? If I look like you, you never say “He possesses my image.”
“The Penguin Dictionary of Biology provides an excellent, concise definition of biological life:
“'[Living organisms are] complex physico-chemical systems whose two main peculiarities are (1) storage and replication of molecular information in the form of nucleic acid, and (2) the presence of (or in viruses perhaps merely the potential for) enzyme catalysis.'”
Isn't this a functional definition of life? Haven't you argued with me that function shouldn't matter in considering something a human being or not? Now you're using it at an earlier point in your own argument. Why do you claim you're above making functional definitions of human beings while yours is functional, too? Again, moral relativism, but in a good Christian cause. If you can make functional arguments over the definition of life, it's dishonest then to reject functional arguments over human life. I'm going to remind you of this whenever you complain that I'm defining a human being by function.
“This definition unequivocally places a fertilized egg as a living organism. Furthermore, the moment of fertilization is marked by the slow block to polyspermy, which is a series of biochemical processes that limit the number of sperm that may penetrate the oocyte to one. This provides a clear point in time marking the formation of a new organism with its own unique life trajectory.”
Yes, but birth is also unique and you don't need an endo-microscope pointed in the right direction to see it. So, in practice, how clear is it? There's a good reason why we certify births and not conceptions. If the basis of your argument is that this event is “unique,” the zygote still has never attained consciousness and is not ready to. Consciousness is unique. Also, the zygote has no body, no brain, no nervous system. Why are you marking this event “unique,” but unobservable event above all other unique events in pregnancy? Answer: moral relativism disguised behind piety.
“Adding additional criteria to the definition of life is a grave mistake that can lead to bizarre and absurd conclusions. For example, some pro-abortion advocates claim that a fetus requires a functioning nervous system to be alive.
This is a simple lie, a strawman. All agree that the fetus is alive. It's whether it's a human being (in the normal definition, not the expanded one) that's we dispute. At least be honest about your opponents' arguments.
“A simple argument demonstrating that humans possess a right to life from conception was presented. It was further argued that each premise is more plausible than the corresponding negation. Thus, the conclusion of argument cannot logically be avoided. Murder is the unjustified killing of an innocent human. If the argument goes through, then what else would you call an abortion? Certainly the unborn baby is innocent. Abortion is legal in the US, but that does not make abortion any less immoral. Is lawfully killing a spouse in country where such actions are legal moral for those people? Clearly not! The law is in error and must be changed.”
But you said in “most situations” abortion was wrong. Again, if you believed your conclusion, you would have never made that qualification.
You're not going to get rid of abortion, or maybe you will for a generation and not any longer. Mostly for the same reason that 37 percent of women who receive abortions are Catholic. For the most part, no matter they say, when they have an unwanted pregnancy women will want the choice. That need is not going away. Guys, too, are not going to want to be stuck having to pay for unwanted children, not when they can easily prevent the creation of those children, and especially when their mothers don't want them either.
The worse thing that could happen to the prolife movement is if they make abortion illegal. It will destroy the movement and abortion will be legal again within thirty years, and they'll never gain the numbers who want it illegalized again. It will cause hardship for twenty, thirty years and then discredit the movement for centuries.
If I don't answer your blog that often, it's not because your arguments are so perfect that I'm too awed or too cowardly. It's that I usually don't have the time to correct all the errors and marshal the all the counter-arguments to anti-choicers. You're just so wrong in so many ways. I might have stopped at 300 words, but would have been merely heckling. Anything as wrong as this blog post requires something more thorough.
So, here ends my answer to "NormanAboliton" as he's know on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment