Is "Pro-Life" an Accurate Label?
This post is going to get controversial, so buckle in.
First off, my mother was active in the pro-life movement. I remember one time as a kid when she went to jail for participating in a peaceful sit-in at an abortion clinic, blocking the doors with a group of people. She did what she did because she believed she was saving a human life that day, one for every woman who couldn't get through the doors and have an abortion.
Unfortunately, my mom passed away from cancer in 2007 so I can't have this conversation with her. It would be such a good conversation because we always had good conversations. I have a different worldview today than I did growing up, in fact losing my eternity is a comparatively recent event for this 38 year old. For that same reason, I've begun to think differently about many things, including my perspective on abortion.
One of things I've thought a lot about is when human life actually starts. Many believe all human life is sacred and a spirit is breathed in at the moment of conception. At one point in history people thought Zeus threw lightening bolts down from Mount Olympus, but that didn't make it true. To my knowledge, we have no reason to think they believed in their religious stories any less than many billions today believe in theirs. It usually depends on where you are born as to which story you believe in, but I digress.
If there is no supernatural event taking place, then when does human life start? The term "Pro-Life" implies all life is sacred. By those who are Pro-Life are not Janists. They don't sweep the ground in front of them as they walk to avoid killing insects. In truth, all life is not equal. Our moral frameworks rely on segmenting conscious life into various categories. Kill a bug, you might be a hero. Kill a dog, you're an asshole. The ability for that being to feel and understand pain is a big part of this equation. I've talked about morality before and think it's an important topic everyone should explore deeply.
So with that framework, when do we start caring about human life? When is it "human" to begin with? In the very beginning, it's just a sperm and an egg. Then it's a fertilized egg. Then it's an attached, fertilized egg. Some don't make it this far. Should we morn those unattached, fertilized eggs as lives lost? As the cells start dividing, at what point is this a human worthy of the full rights of a human? Does a zygote have rights and is that life equal to more conscious life, or is this similar to comparing a bug to a puppy? To take the argument the other direction, why would some argue abortion is completely valid all the way up until the end of the term? To me, at that point, it's clearly two human beings occupying the same physical space. If we don't care about that life, then do we start caring the moment it leaves a woman's body? Legally it's now murder/infanticide if someone kills a newborn or even if they don't give it the proper care it needs to keep it alive. The act of birth alone (especially given how common c-sections are) seems like a rather arbitrary moment in time to make such an important distinction.
So where does that leave us? If we do care about conscious, human life, does the term "Pro-Life" make any sense regarding early term abortions? Are the wishes of the mother, the family, and the society impacted by this potential human more or less valid than dividing cells which don't yet have consciousness as we understand it? Is it just about potential and should we err on the side of calling it murder early on, just in case we got things wrong?
This is a tough issue with no simple answers. I do think conscious life is precious and sacred. I also think we need to value all members of our species (and others as well) because of what it does to our self image and how we act towards others. If it's just about consciousness, should we treat severely handicapped people as any less human or those currently in a coma? Arguing that potential matters is a good argument. I'd say, for example, the zygote of a mouse has far less potential than the zygote of a human. As I posted about recently, I'm trying not to fall into the trap of speciesism, but really think through how our ability to experience life at the level we do as humans factors into our moral calculus.
So maybe instead of "Pro-Life" a more accurate term would be "Pro Unborn Babies" which should imply we're talking about real humans, in the 24+ weeks category. Earlier than that, to me, is much harder to defend unless we include religious thinking which is non-falsifiable. In no way do I intend to downplay the very real sadness and grief millions of people feel at the thought of abortion being murder or even of a miscarriage being the termination of a life. Those are very real, very powerful emotions. Unfortunately, I've come to understand that our emotions are not always working in our best interests or in alignment with reality. We can suffer tremendously for reasons that don't make sense and, more importantly, if we are given the proper tools to understand, we might even be able to avoid that unnecessary suffering all together.
If you are strongly pro-life, was this a respectful conversation for you? Do you understand where I'm coming from and can you see my point? I'd love to know what you think and to have you better explain things in the comments if I didn't accurately communicate your views.
If you are pro-choice, are there any details you'd add to this conversation?
Thanks for keeping things respectful. These are difficult topics to discuss because one side literally thinks the other side is killing people while the other side thinks people who are calling them murders believe a clump of cells has more value than their own self-directed, adult lives.
Thanks for reading and letting me share my thoughts on this topic. It's one I've been thinking about for some time now.
If you refute the term pro-life because they are not pro-every-possible-life, you must refute the term pro-choice as well. They are obviously not pro-every-possible-choice.
I believe in graduated rights for humans of all ages. We do not allow children to own property or enter into contracts. They have limited rights. Unborn children have different restrictions placed on their rights, but just because they have fewer rights doesn't mean they have no rights. Life is the ultimate right, and even mitigated by unconsciousness or the lack of sensation, each genetically different human should have those rights respected to some degree. The woman has her rights, the child has their rights.
When differences between the rights of two humans are in conflict, we appoint a Judge to decide. Not an abortion profiteer. Not a TV commentator. Not a politician.
If it's the difference between the life of the woman and the life of the child, obviously the life of the woman would be held to higher regard. But if it is the life of the child against a momentary confusion or hesitation of the woman, then a different judgment might be made.
Very well said! I think this is my favorite comment so far. Thank you @baerdric. I also agree graduated rights makes the most sense and is a really good framework for thinking about this.
I would agree, "Pro-Choice" could be picked apart in the same way, but, contextually, that's a very specific choice they are talking about. In the case of "Pro-Life" they are also talking about a very specific type of life. I attempted to show how that life is very similar to other simple life which is not complex and we have no moral issues with terminating. That, to me, was the confusing part. But again, I see your point and I think the "unique DNA" perspective carries some weight. "Rights" are a human construct, but if we are to be consistent with them, we should extend them (to some degree or another) to unborn babies.
To me, it's like a complicated trolly problem. How do we weight the value of the dividing cells against the wellbeing of the woman and her family? Weighing a fully-functioning viable, completely innocent human being against the wellbeing of the woman takes on some different values.
Comparative and graduated rights are the only way not to argue fruitlessly about this. The other option leaves us in two hopelessly separated camps,
There's no room for rationality between those two groups. Unfortunately, the most vocal members of those groups will not take a step back and attempt mediation.
Interesting line of reasoning, @baerdric.
Part of the challenge is how we view life. If, indeed, abortion is murder, then how can there be mediation?
It is an extremely rare case where the mother's life is in danger. I couldn't imagine having to face the choice of killing my unborn child vs the probable end of my own life. Even in cases where the mother's life is in some way threatened, death is almost never inevitable. It's merely a potential. We're talking about an incredibly tiny segment of pregnant women, yet this is the argument given for all women to have a choice.
Perhaps, if the doctors tell the woman that she most likely will die during childbirth, or as a result of it, she should be given the choice. Should there be any mediation beyond that?
Since murder is the unlawful killing of a human, and since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder. It is killing, I agree there is a life, but at this point, it is not murder. It may be manslaughter or self-defense. That depends on the varying levels of rights involved.
If you hit me with a baseball bat, then haul back to hit me again, I can kill you. Your right to life is decreased by your actions, but mine are in full force. Although I don't know that your next blow will kill me, my rights extend to cover the risk. The mediation goes in my favor.
A fertilized human egg is a life, it is human (deserving of moral regard), but it is not yet "a human". It may become a human, or two humans, or a cyst, or a cancer. Until we know, it does not have full personhood.
Personhood (IMO) can only be assigned to creatures with a functioning nervous system and only to the extent of that nervous system's full development. For instance, we do not allow children to own property partly because their brains are not fully developed yet. On the other extreme we do not expect a brain dead man on life support to have the right to vote or get married.
The rights assigned to a fertilized egg must be very low, but those rights still exist. Within that range, mediation can be fruitful.
The life of a fertilized egg should not (perhaps) be destroyed for cosmetic purposes, but if it poses a significant health, safety, economic or other risk to the woman or the family, a judge may (or may not) find in favor of the woman's rights. Until reimplantation of removed unborn babies is possible, abortion is the only fair method of redress in her favor.
There is a wide range of mediation available once you remove the false term "murder" from the equation.
There's a lot of inconsistency in regard to what constitutes murder in when it comes to the unborn.
If a doctor commits malpractice on a pregnant woman and the unborn child dies, it can be considered murder.
If a pregnant woman is murdered, it can be considered a double-murder.
If a pregnant woman is attacked and loses the child, it can be considered murder.
The only one who really has the right to kill the unborn without it being "called" murder by the court is the mother.
If we let the legal system change the meanings of words, eventually the legal system itself becomes irrelevant. We're living much of this today, where someone can question the meaning of the word "is" in court, with a straight face. Murder has historically been the taking of an innocent life, period. Only in recent years has the issue of "legality" been brought into the definition.
This inconsistency in how "murder" is used points to the disingenuity of how it is charged. It is either murder or it isn't. If the taking of an unborn life is murder, then abortion is clearly wrong, regardless of what any court says.
Well, you are simply wrong about that, "murder" has always been about legality and never about the innocence or lack of innocence of the person murdered. Criminals, rapists and even murderers can be murdered, if they are killed illegally - and women and children can be killed legally in war, self-defense, accidents, etc and it's not murder.
But I see that you are in one of those two irreconcilable camps that further the polarity of the issue. Have a good day.
Haven't read a ton of comments yet, but so far I've not seen anyone mention prevention. From my experience, no one I've ever met or talked to claiming to be pro life also agrees that contraceptives should be available - as it "leads to children having sex", etc. When all the studies done all over the world prove that the most religious parts of any country, and even city, where sex (outside of a religious marriage) is seen as dirty, disgusting, dangerous, etc... THAT'S where the most teen pregnancies, abortions, etc all exist. VS the areas where sex and the education around it is seen as more natural and not to be feared, where birth control and other contraceptives are taught and made available, all of those numbers drop so significantly it's almost unbelievable. There is definitely an agenda on both sides if you get too extreme on either end. But no matter how "light" or "hard" core a pro lifer is, at the root, there ALMOST always seems to be a root of religion behind it (and yes I know there are atheist pro lifers, that's why I said "almost"), and usually that religion teaches that sex outside a marriage is dirty, which causes kids to want to do it more, and they do - but they do it without the education or access to birth control - or if they're like me - are doing it but too afraid or ashamed to even buy condoms so they just have unprotected sex. If someone is truly anti unwanted pregnancies and anti abortion (pro life), then the very first logical step has to be preventing those things from happening... stop the pregnancies = stop the baby deaths... unfortunately, pro lifers seem to think the only way to prevent pregnancy is to stop sex from happening. They ignore all of the data right in front of them and continue in barbaric and archaic practices that only drive kids and teens further into sexual activity before they are truly "prepared". There is another way of prevention, and in every single place around the globe that it's being used, unwanted pregnancies and abortions are extremely lower than those where it's not...
Nice to see you on Steemit!
Yes, this is something @brettflorio has mentioned to me many times. I worked to keep the conversation in the philosophy category, but you're exactly right. Though I haven't looked at the data directly myself, I've heard it's quite compelling. In so many ways, problems are truly solved via education, not through force or dogma or restriction. Growth doesn't happen in the dark.
The religious motivations on this topic are huge and, in many ways, define the conversation. Even some of the replies in the comments here strayed off into discussions about young earth creation, Christ, religion, and concerns over science (often hand in hand with religion). If we all ignored data a little less and were a little more skeptical of the things we "know" which are in conflict with hard data... the world would be better off, IMO.
this abortion survivor sure has a lot to say about the topic:
when you aggress against that developing person it does constitute an act of aggression and murder because you are ending a life purposefully and yes it would have become a life had you not aggressed against it. that is its natural process.
this abortion survivors choice was NOT respected that day... funny how they always say my body my choice.. there are 2 bodies and therefore 2 choices that deserve respect. Life starts at conception. Even a doctor is charged if he harms the fetus in those early stages, he is charged as if it were recognized as a life. So we can't cherry pick when we want to recognize it and when we don't.
Thank you for sharing your views. To be clear. I know abortion survivors. To use their personal stories is an appeal to emotion, not reason or logic. That said, in this example (a late term abortion), I would agree it is closer to murdering a fully-functioning human being. Also, this video seems to be more about this person's religious views (views I strongly held for most of my life, even working in full time ministry for 6 years), than about specific arguments of when life begins.
You say "you are ending a life purposefully" but also say "it would have become a life." There is a difference, right? Is two cells dividing into four a full "life"?
This is your strongly held belief, correct? Can you help me understand it? Can you point me to something which is falsifiable that I could look to and by doing so come into agreement with you?
That's a very good point. If the woman expected to have a child and the doctor deprived her of that future potential life, then that's a serious aggression against the wishes of the future mother. I'm not sure it's about cherry picking as much as it's about respecting the intent of individuals.
Thanks again for sharing your views.
I really enjoyed this post. I agree with many things you presented. I believe the real problems arise when one side isn't able to see where the other is coming from. Abortion is an issue that typically induces strong feelings one way or another, which is why it must be talked about. If we don't understand why the "other side" feels the way they do then we will never have a complete understanding. I think that it is abundantly evident currently just how much division is present among different people's views, and the only way to truly understand our own views is to understand the other perspectives in addition to our own.
So well said, thank you. It certainly is a very difficult conversation to have because there are so many powerful emotions on all sides. I do agree with you, we need to talk about this stuff and have the hard conversations. We need to understand so we can improve.
especially when regarding a topic as controversial as abortion it is imperative to have a full understanding of why all individuals have the strong beliefs that they do. But.. if individuals aren't allowed to freely discuss their different opinion, then no specific "side" will ever gain a full understanding.
It is a tough topic, but I don't think it's so because there's a lack of information. Rather, there is an agenda, like with so many things in life.
Simply from the perspective of not harming another being, abortion is wrong. If one adheres to the NAP, it's clearly a violation. Some will argue, as you've postulated, that life does not begin until late term, at least. Others claim that it's when the unborn is viable, meaning that it can survive outside the womb. Yet others claim that it's as soon as the initial cell splits into two, because it is a distinct life at that moment, no longer carrying the exact DNA of any other individual.
It has been irrefutably proven that the unborn feels pain. They have been observed pulling away from the needle during abortions. IMO, that seems clear enough. Even if one were a skeptic, which side of the fence is the side of caution? If you were to err in your assessment (and the accompanying consequences), would you rather err in assuring the unborn had the opportunity to live, even against the wishes of his/her mother, or on the side of murdering an innocent unborn?
I wrote an article on this that I posted a couple of months ago. It was polemic, in response to another article that was, IMO very poorly thought out. Perhaps it would have some insight that's helpful. I don't know.
It does seem more than a little ironic that the mother of an unborn child will fight for her choice in how her life is affected, but will not even give the life unmistakably growing within her the right to make any choice whatsoever regarding their very existence. Is that pro-choice, narcissistic or something else?
You're always respectful and thoughtful, Luke. I appreciate that about you. And I'm generally willing to have discussions about just about anything, as long as it's civil and courteous. I probably will not engage in debate on this thread though, since my position is so rigid and it's an incredibly emotional topic where horrible things are often said with disdain.
You offered a very respectful thought process and asked others to engage with the same consideration. I've attempted to honor that, and hope your mother's influence asserts itself on your perspective.
Thank you so much, @anotherjoe. This is truly a beautiful reply and I greatly appreciate it. I don't intend to change you mind directly (that rarely works anyway), but I do like asking challenging questions so I can better understand other's views and more carefully craft my own as well.
The "exact DNA" part is quite interesting. For me, it begs the question as to whether or not human DNA is more sacred than non-human DNA. We don't care about killing viruses or bacterias and such (they are also "alive" in some sense) nor do we care about killing mosquitos or gnats or ants. When we think about the value of "life" we do take into account their consciousness. At least, I've yet to see many consistent moral frameworks that don't.
But again, at the earliest stages, the capacity for choice doesn't exist. At that point, it's not a fully functional human, just the potential for one. That's what trips me up.
Definitely, and during a time period where they could be aborted which, to me, is truly sad. That's closer to murder than a very early term abortion. That said, during the very early stages, there is no functioning nervous system. There is no pain. How does that change our moral calculus and if it doesn't, why not?
Excellent question and one I've been thinking about often.
This, I think, gets to the crux of the discussion. This is advanced trolly-problem type ethical philosophy stuff. Do we lower the well being of a woman, her family, and possibly her community for the sake of a single child who has not yet been born? Maybe, from a strictly ethical stance, we say yes, because it's the right thing to do and the veil of ignorance allows us to imagine that could have been us. We could have been the one chosen for abortion. The conversation gets even more difficult when we consider the child never "chose" to be born in the first place. Some would argue they have no real rights (yet) because they can't argue for or defend them which is why parents have such an important responsibility to steward young humans until they reach adulthood with fully-developed brains to maintain their own rights.
Again, thank you for your comment. I do greatly appreciate it.
Thanks Luke,
I've been around this track more times than I can count.
No worry of that happening. There are multiple reasons for my position, including my understanding of libertarianism and even economics, which I find indissolubly linked. As a fellow ancap/Austrian/libertarian, we probably agree with that much.
Our view on the DNA will be influenced by our worldview. If we consider ourselves created beings, then DNA is indeed divine. On the other side of the spectrum, if we consider ourselves to be some sort of cosmic accidents, then it really doesn't matter, IMO. In the former instance, we identify with our creator. In the latter, any sense of morality is subjective.
IMO, this is not a good question.
1 - The well-being of the woman is very rarely a concern. Pregnancy is normal and few women are in a situation where their well-being is threatened by pregnancy. If they are, then perhaps it would be wiser to take steps to assure that pregnancy is impossible.
2 - The birth of a child threatens the well-being of her family and community?
In my eyes, a child is a blessing. The terminology used would seem to indicate that a baby is a curse. That is not an accusation. However, it is something to consider if we can propose a thought process that includes it.
Finally, it is the responsibility of the strong to defend the weak, including those who have no voice. There are plenty of people who cannot defend themselves or speak on their own behalves. Where do we put anyone of any age who "can't argue for or defend them(selves)"? This goes far beyond the womb, including your own family if they become or are even born infirm. It is this kind of reasoning, IMO, that sends the mute in the wheelchair to the gas chamber.
Be blessed.
I am enjoying reading this. So far it is indeed a thought provoking and rational discussion. I appreciate you @averagejoe being up front about your position and potential for becoming emotional and thus feel compelled to limit your responses.
I on the other hand I too have my biases of course, but don't feel particularly emotional about this topic. Yes, I do have great compassion for the unborn lives so callously discarded, but I also have compassion for those who find themselves in a difficult position where they must make a decision on whether to bring a potential life into the world.
Can you not see how this is possible? Granted the mother may or may not have been irresponsible regarding the conception, thus requiring her to bear the consequences of that. But not always. Birth control is not perfect, it can fail. Is it reasonable to expect celibacy unless the woman (or the man for that matter) is willing and able to bring a new life into the world? I don't have an answer for that.
Assuming for the sake of discussion an unexpected pregnancy occurs despite precautions, and the cost of giving birth and subsequent care would be financially devastating to the mother or her family, and nobody or organization is willing to assume those costs or responsibility. I know, that hypothetical is loaded with many assumptions, but it does occur, so don't be too quick to dismiss it. If people actually thought of the consequences of sex and viewed them as they would picking up a loaded revolver in a deadly game of Russian Roulette, perhaps celibacy wouldn't be such a difficult choice. We know that is not what's on the mind of the mother or father at the point of conception, now don't we. Yet the importance of the decision can be just as dire.
What if circumstances change from when the child was conceived? Both parents are involved in a traffic accident, father dies, mother is in a coma for months as the child grows in her womb. Neither parent has siblings or parents. Should the pregnancy be terminated? Who will be responsible for the child and their upbringing?
Howdy @Full-Steem-Ahead!
First, I don't know who this average guy is you refer to. ;)
Getting that out of the way, thanks for your thoughtful response. My response here is calm and collected, and please envision it in a thoughtful and polite tone. It will cut to the chase a bit though, so please forgive any perceived terseness. It's not intended.
My emotions are tied to what I consider the helpless victim. It's far easier to avoid emotional feelings if we don't view an unborn as a human. Interestingly, our legal system in the US does consider the unborn child to be a human, unless the mother wants to terminate it. And we use such terminology as "terminate the pregnancy" rather than "kill the unborn" in order to appease our consciences.
I didn't say that the question posed is impossible. You lay out a string of very possible, though quite narrow, possibilities. I don't think anyone would argue in regard to their potential. I was simply stating that I don't think it's a good question. Those that fall into the very narrow category where this might be an issue are the small minority. If we want to limit the discussion to this segment, then it is no longer simply a discussion about choice. But, today's argument is about the right of a woman to take the life of her unborn child, regardless of the circumstances. These particular circumstances, and other rarities, are brought up as a plea for a sweeping policy of choice for every woman, regardless of circumstances. I hope we can agree on that much.
In the US, at least, the cost of giving birth is negligible. There are exceptions, if complications arise. But the actual cost is almost nothing. In fact, I can't envision a circumstance of natural childbirth, without complications, that would be a financial hardship.
For the sake of argument, I'll grant the possibility. But there are plenty of answers to this, most notably the thousands of potential parents out there who would leap at the opportunity to pay for the mother's well-being as well as the child's, desiring to adopt him/her. That is most certainly not an issue in the US. And, of course, if a woman thinks she can't afford to raise a child or give him/her a nurturing home, adoption is always a viable alternative. There are even couples who would do so and still maintain a relationship with the biological mother.
As for the final paragraph, I have a hard time seeing this as a tenable argument. At what point might it be okay to kill a child you don't think you can care for? Is that not what you're asking, but attempting to limit it to the womb? Does it not become a person until it passes through the birth canal?
Ultimately, this is not an argument about choice or circumstances. It's an argument about whether or not the terminating of a life is murder. That is where the foundation lies. If it is not, then pro-life advocates have no argument. How can you be pro-life where a life does not yet exist? All the rest of our efforts to bring tertiary ideas distract us from the basis of the whole discussion. If the unborn child is a human, then abortion is murder just as much as killing a mute and dumb quadriplegic or an elderly person who has lost their mind to dementia. We must discern this accurately, for it helps define who we are as a race. In a sense, it's that simple. Abortion is either the murder of a human, or it is not.
Thanks again for your polite engagement, FSA. I appreciate you and what you do, as well as the ability to engage in a respectful dialogue on such a divisive topic.
Kind regards,
Joe
Thx joe for the equally polite reply, and sorry for the name confusion. No offense intended.
I suspect you're right about why politicians use that phrase, however that isn't why I did. I preferred to use it in this context as I feel it's less emotionally charged and yet still factual.
I'm not sure I can agree with you on that. I do agree the scenario I outlined is indeed a minority of cases. I also know that it's the minority examples are often held up as arguments for abortions, but again that wasn't my aim.
I used that as an example of how legislation is a one-size-fit-all solution that rarely is. What is needed is human judgement and unbiased compassion, especially in the case of unusual circumstances and considerations. You don't get that from the law.
I don't like the casual attitude and foregone conclusions see so frequently expressed on this topic. I see it on both sides. However this article has helped to bring focus and drill down into a core aspect of the debate, and IMO has done so respectfully and rationally.
Thank you Joe for contributing to the dialog. Namaste :)
Hi FSA,
No worries on the name. It was a fun opportunity to mess with ya though. :) And it lightens a heavy discussion, if only for a moment.
Thanks for your clarification. I think I understand, and get the impression we understand each other reasonably well.
Be blessed,
Joe
Though I, too, have "lost my eternity" I think it is a very real possibility that a metaphysical force we can not yet fully comprehend results in animation and the presence of a "spirit," as it were.
Of course, I have no "proof" of this, but I saw my son smile and felt a real, "otherworldly" love emanating from him at this moment when he had basically just come out of the womb. It wasn't muscles jerking around meaninglessly, nor had he really had any time to come to understand "smiling" as a concept.
I don't mean to appeal to magic or religion whatsoever, that's just my take there.
Abortion is a tough issue and you raised some great points, Luke. As such a tough issue, I think it should be left to individuals and communities to decide. Sometimes, as you said, a mother's life may be in danger. Who am I to say what she should do?
As an anarchist, I do not think this issue should be legislated by the state either way. I also disagree with those libertarians who argue (much like Rothbard did) that a mother can "evict" a foetus at will, because it is in "her property" (as if the mother had nothing to do with the being's appearance or does not understand that it is yet completely dependent upon her for its very survival).
I have heerd reputable anarchists argue that because babies are not yet moral agents (not understanding self-ownership) they do not possess natural law property rights to self.
I think this is hogwash, because it necessitates an external arbiter to decide what is and isn't consciousness and moral agency.
But yeah, whatever one's stance. The state should stay out of it.
Thanks Graham.
Well, there are chemical explanations for that which has kept reproduction going strong via evolution. :) Reminds me of this video which I love: What Is Love?
As with most things. :)
The property rights discussions concerning early term development are quite tricky indeed. I get what their point is and I've even heard people go so far as to call the developing child a parasite (there's some interesting scientific perspectives to back that up too). But I'm not there. I think it is a fully functioning human being late in the pregnancy, and I can't condone ending that life without considering the rights it (and any other defenseless human) has.
Thanks for chiming in.
As far as the chemical and genetic explanations for many things such as smiling, etc., I do not denigrate those. That said, my point I suppose is below the chemicals. The animation of the chemicals themselves.
The feeling I had had to have a receptor. Otherwise it would have been of no effect. There was a connection there that I don't find explained away so easily by current science. I think it is ALL scientific (in that I don't believe in "magic") but perhaps modern science isn't there yet.
I can totally understand that. I think it's important to emphasize from time to time that even science is inferior to philosophy.
For example, science will never be able to "explain away" theism itself. It can't, because that would require scientists to delve into the realm of philosophy in order to explain why contradictions can't exist (at which point it would no longer be "science" as such) or to provide physical proof for the nonexistence of a supposedly ever presently existing and simultanously separate from existence (nonexisting) "entity".
(this would be my argument as a past theist, as of recent years "hard" atheist and anti-theist, that try to base my claims on logic)
Agreed. As per your former comment in regard to my statement about the "external arbiter," I was referring to the danger of the claim I have heard made (by extremely prominent anarchists) that small children have no rights (not even self-ownership) because they cannot yet understand property.
The principle of self-ownership is logically unassailable in that one must engage in a performative contradiction to argue against it (i.e. the mere act of argument in lieu of brute force presumes the self-ownership of each party, as they implicitly acknowledge that they speak for party A, and the other individual speaks for party B).
These arguments that children have no rights and/or are "parasitic" are illogical in my view, because as Luke said, they neglect the fact that each being has potential and is soon to be (if all goes well) an active moral agent. To call a sapling a non-tree just because it hasn't come into full "tree-ness" yet would be a big mistake. Plus, children can understand property at a very young age, and I daresay, intuitively, from the very beginning.
Plus, the parasite argument neglects the act of procreation which must always be initiated by conscious actors (99.9% of the time). If a child is a "parasite," then it is the parents' own self-created "parasite." It is now in their charge, and is a result of their moral actions. Should they not take charge, this child suffers immensely, dies, and/or becomes a financial and psychic burden on other parties by default.
To say that "children have no rights" based on self-ownership is to make a claim not based on logic (natural law), but on arbitrary opinion.
I'm not sure you want to go there. Comparing children still developing their moral faculties to effort that resulted in "no actual good." This is exactly the type of illogical and misguided reasoning I am referring to. The two are clearly different. This sounds a lot like a utilitarian approach to society. I let logic and natural law be the arbiter. All life, by virtue of nature, proceeds along its natural growth trajectory. Of course there is predation, disease, and several other variables that can alter or cut short that trajectory.
However, if the sustenance and protection of individual life in the human species is held as a value, then it is objectively true that even the phoetus or a cluster of cells along that trajectory can not simply be viewed as such, but must be viewed with respect to the goal, which is directly derivative of the aforementioned value.
The part you quoted is just an analogy, that's far less important than the preceeding and the rest of the comment.
What I'm saying is simply that what's most important is the way things actually are when you speak of them, not what they might be in the future.
What in specific should be the most valued of all life is the autonomous individual (human or not, but in this and all cases we've had to consider so far human).
Yes, but it doesn't mean that we treat single cells the same way as we do with entire human beings. Neither does it mean that we should value and treat just any human being the same way , or for that matter that we should always try to increase the actual number of human beings currently living.
Quality of life is important. It's "life" for ourselves and for those that we love, in the objectively good sense of the word, that we want to promote; Not simply as a government statistician try to tweak the system so that an increasing/decreasing number of people barely survive.
Or perhaps it is, but many of us are ignorant to what is currently understood (myself included). The chemicals, emotions, and bonds created at the time of birth have been studied and explored. Ultimately, it's all chemicals, though our subjective experience of those chemicals my vary widely.
Science is a process. The moment we say "it has been explored" as though said exploration is somehow known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be complete, is a dangerous one. It is the unknown that drives all science. Once we say, "Oh we know everything" about this or that, we are right back to religion and the flat earth.
Good science doesn't do that though. Good science simply says here's what we know now and why we think we know it. Good science openly seeks correction.
Exactly. That is all I am saying.
Speaking as a "hard" (logical) atheist and anti-theist. Unless you have a faulty (theist or mystical) view of what the "spirit" is, you need none.
Though I'm not a Rothbardian, I don't think it does. For example, does it take an external arbiter to decide who is and who isn't a human being? And do you consider yourself moral in any instance or case whatsoever.
If you know that you are, you don't need anyone external to confirm that you are.
I'm with you on that. No previous violation of rights can make conscription (slavery) moral.
Hey Luke. Can't fault the internal consistency of your position.
I followed the link and read your Losing Eternity post, but couldn't reply as it's 6 months old.
I share your interest in the intersection of religion and politics, and if I shared your 'Origin of life' conclusions, I'd have left church a long time ago.
It appears you're placing little faith in state funded economists, and lots of faith in state funded scientists. Do you see a contradiction there?
Is there a chance that the state, (being a religion itself), would selectively reward scientists who's conclusions undermine competing religions?
Great comment, Matt. Thank you.
Can you clarify what you mean? From an anarcho-capitalist perspective, I do lean towards Austrian economics instead of Keynesian economics which seems to be the standard approach in academic circles (state funded or not). I do this because of my own study. Might I be wrong and doing an "armchair economist" thing, pretending to know what I'm talking about? Maybe.
As to lots of faith in state funded scientists, I'd more accurately say I have a justified belief in (i.e. via my epistemological framework) the scientific method. Whether or not something is "state funded" doesn't directly impact the value of the truth claim (otherwise we'd be falling for a genetic fallacy).
But let's assume for a moment the scientific claims about when a human life is viable in the womb are inaccurate. Where should we go from there? We understand cellular division and the formation of zygotes, so at what point should we decide a full human now exists? What mechanisms would you use and measure if you were a scientist?
I like the "the State is a religion" comparison and use it myself, but it does have some limitations. Religion is generally confined to groups of people specifically claiming to have specific knowledge of a deity. The State, on the other hand, makes no such claims. It does, however, fit the same psychological needs and tribalistic patterns than humans fall into (from my perspective).
I don't think all state powers actively work to suppress religions because they also use it for their own political benefit. Much of history was a very tight marriage of religion and the state. That said, I think religion is on the decline, but not because of the State, but more so because of the Internet and the smart phones in our pockets. We have the ability to fact check any truth claim and figure things out on our own. Historically, when that happens, things change quite a bit (even within religion such as with the reformation).
Thanks again for your comment.
Again, flawless reasoning re: human life. Were I not a Christian, I would inescapably come to a similar conclusion. I'm talking about the real sticking point, the actual battle ground, which is the question of whether we were created, or evolved.
I share your respect for the scientific method, but note that it applies to provable/disprovable claims about the present.
We can't conduct experiments on the past.
While the gravitational pull of the moon is a scientific fact, which we can test with the scientific method, the moon landing is a historical fact, which can't be empirically tested.
1969 is no longer available.
My issue is not with science, but with the good name of science being co-opted by state funded actors, pushing what is indisputably a pro-state story about the untestable past.
There's a lot of bait and switch going on with the word, 'Science'.
Ah, but every single scientific conclusion comes from data collected in the past. Even if it was just a few moments ago as the experiment was taking place. The challenge of science is reproducibility. If someone can't run the same test today to verify results in the past, it gets very difficult to do good science.
Very well said. A concern I also share and one, I think, many in the scientific community share as well. I'd go so far as to say the media is more to blame than the State when it comes to taking scientific findings and completely skewing them in order to create some fresh clickbait.
I guess, to put it another way; what is the 'scientific community?', who is in it, and how does one become a member?
There are thousands of incredibly potent, well established arguments for a recently created earth, which will never be published in proudly secular scientific journals, not on the grounds of their reasoning or evidence, but because they've come to a non-secular conclusion.
Now, if you want to define 'Science' as 'The search for the most rational, non supernatural explanation', then it's completely legitimate to exclude Creationist content from scientific journals; but it's not then legitimate to claim that creationism lacks the support of the scientific community.
Either we're disqualified, or we lose. You have to pick one.
Have you seen Ben Stein's documentary, Expelled?
(edited link to better version of movie)
Yes, I've seen it and my old blog even has a review off how great I thought it was. I now think much differently. I've read critiques on it that should not be ignored. Science involves falsifiable claims. To gain knowledge we have to work to disprove our hypothesis. Something I rarely if ever did before was read the critiques of the things I believed or of the content (such as this movie) which confirmed my biases. Once I started doing that with an open mind (along with learning how the human brain works), I had to let go of many views which were not defensible (IMO).
It's not surprising at all to me that a discussion about when human life begins turns to creationism and questioning science. All of these views are wrapped up together and hold eachother consistent. If one begins to crack, they are all threatened. I know. I experienced it. I could go on and link to some videos and books which further explain/support my views, but I'm coming to realize everyone has to take their own path at their own timing, just like I did.
I hate the term pro-life, it is designed to destroy conversation and make horribly evil of any who oppose it. For, who is not "pro-life" than some sick sycophant.
The correct terms are pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
But the terms have become pro-life vs. anti-life and pro-choice vs no-choice.
So, indeed, there is no communication allowed.
The human life starts about the time your parents are born.
In your journey, you have decided to incarnate as a human with certain life goals, and those choices were made with your parents before they were born, and the threads of life that would become you started at their birth.
Yes, the planning of you, by you, is that complex.
The anti-abortion crowd is really quite stupid. But twelve years of govern-cement school at dizney programming have made them that way. Instead of anti-abortion, the entire group should be anti-feminism and anti-FED.
Feminism and the FED have done more to set up the wholesale slaughter of half of the children in The U.S. Yes, 50%! It is horrifying what they do, but to speak against them is to invite the worst backlash you can imagine.
I would say that the correct terms would be pro-abortion, anti-abortion, and pro choice --> freedom for the autonomous individual --> free will --> reason --> life.
You used words here like "decided" and "choices" in a way that's confusing to me. I don't think humans really have choice from a materilistic determinism perspective, but attributing choice to pre-born is stretch for me.
As for feminism and the FED causing the wholesale slaughter of half the children in the US, can you give me some context to understand what you mean?
The Non-federal No-reserves Non-bank enforces "negative real interest rates". That is, savers are losers. Even if you put your money in a savings account, you are losing buying power; always.
There isn't enough money to pay off all loans, so the slowest runners on the treadmill of life get axed. (we are told its just because that family was bad with money; that's why the went bankrupt) This causes a tightening and tightening of the economy. Right now, most people feel like they can't make it, and so are much more likely to consider abortion.
Feminism is not about "empowering women"... well, actually it is, if you consider the correct definition of empower, that is, that someone outside is giving the woman power. They aren't about making woman powerful as women, they are about setting up women to act like men. So, these "empowered" women are setup for a fall, to never become women, and to be destroyed in life... at the expense of men.
Feminism is anti-family. And, anti-men. So, what happens is that women are set up to disdain men. So, the nice guy doesn't have a chance, they have been placed beneath notice by the constant anti-men brain-washing. Women are still turned on by alpha-males. But, there aren't too many of them, so they turn towards the alpha look-alike, the bad-boy.
In my opinion the number one cause of abortions is women trying to tie down their bad-boy boyfriend. Women have stopped playing by the old set of rules, but demand that men still play by the old set of rules. So, they do the "honey, I'm preggers" routine, hoping (knowing in their mind) that the bad-boy will "man up" and marry the bitch. And when the bad boy decides he won't be tied down and walks, her usual plan is to abort.
If this is not the case, the other alternative reasoning is that women are so stupid, or lazy, that they can't use one of the dozens of forms of birth control available to a woman. (including the morning after pill) And so choose abortion as a means of birth control
Have you looked into the arguments provided by Ayn Rand? They're not easy to accept for most people, but I think they carry the most weight as they get down to principles of autonomy.
In other words, only an autonomous individual able of reasoning has the natural ability to adhere to morality. As such, only they - as potentially moral individuals - should be given rights.
Once a person begins to act immorally, others may rightfully choose to take away his rights in specific areas relating to the initial neglect. This in turn leads to social constructs such as the Non Aggression Principle.
Other arguments, such as that of the unique DNA, separate body, mutual understanding that sex may lead to pregnancy, the slippery slope of rights etc all of course carry some weight of their own but are incomparable to the above argument, because just as the NAP they are social constructs.
That makes lot of sense, but doesn't that mean babies are the "property" of their parents? Animals are, but even then our society doesn't allow for animal abuse. There's also the very real consequence of abuse/neglect and what that doesn't to our psyche. If we have a society okay with abusing/neglecting non-autonomous consciousness living creatures, will that be a society with higher or lower wellbeing?
No actually. They are rather 'more, or less than, or average autonomous invididuals' and to the extent that they are autonomous (they appear, show signs of or otherwise communicate this) they should be treated as such.
The same as I've written about human beings also apply to animals in general, but context decides if you actually have to kill or otherwise harm a lower standing animal in order to survive. Here also other factors, such as the previously mentioned "potential", time aspects, selfish reward etc, come into play.
Neglect, is an ethical issue that only an otherwise able person can consider. If you happen to be the victim of natural disaster and get caught in an emergency, it may well be that you are unable to save a fetus, baby or an older child. But it is only if you choose not to, even though you actually knew that you could, that you have comitted an immoral act.
As always, even if we had no state we would still need a standard of ethics.
In my Cooperative Agorist framework there is a lot of room for the establishment and even contractual agreements of such standards for any number of people that would make up a society -- or for any number of different groups with varying ethics within the larger society, should there be differing views on the matter.
Luke, you've provoked some good discussion. It's a credit to your character and the type of followers you've gathered. Well done.
Thank you for such an encouraging comment. :)