[chrisprice]

But I'm yet to read your explanation for the premise I would not simply *take as given* - namely why 'killing humans (that is, 'things' with flesh and blood and not 'persons', or things that have higher intelligence, self-awareness and consciousness) is wrong'. Perhaps you could deal with this? Otherwise, you're pretty much preaching to the converted.

I need more clarification here. If I don't give support to the premise that is wrong to kill humans, I will be preaching to the converted? If that's the case, why would I do it? I must be misunderstanding you.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I'm saying that if you are just saying that 'human life is always sacred, you should never kill humans' means 'you should not kill any babies/foetuses that are human', then this is not a great logical step.

Sure it will be accepted by those who readily accept the first statement, but then again those that accept the first statement I would think are most probably anti-abortion anyway, because it seems to me a very theist statement.

So, what I'm saying is, if you want to win 'hearts and minds' from the (mostly non-theist) camp which doesn't already believe that 'human life is inherently sacred', then you would do better to actually show the steps involved in arriving at this opening premise.

But I have trouble identifying how you will prove the opening premise without resorting to a deity, which I'm sure many (although not me) on this forum would reject.

[The Flaming Jalapeno]

But this position (if it is yours) is made idiosyncratic by the fact that many adults are not biologically independent. Must we debate their right to live too?

Some people must rely on machines to live, yes, but they are not biologically independent on other human beings, while a mother and a fetus is. As for the Matrix, the humans are not biologically dependent on the Machines, as they are able to disconnect from them and still live.

I'll be fine with a difference of opinion once we understand each of ours. You have misquoted me by saying that I believe that a zygote is human b/c it can become a "full-fledged" human. Rather, I am saying that it is human because it is a living organism with all the genetic information of an adult. So it can't be anything else. I'm not saying it is human because of what it will become, but what it is currently.

I see, but I still believe that a zygote is not a human. It is still so early in the stages of development and so heavily dependent on the fact that the Mother's body begin to nourish it, that it heavy dependency makes it almost a member of the mother itself.

Would you say that the violinist in the Judith Jarvis Thompson paper is not a human because he was necessarily attached to a human to keep him alive? Doesn't that sound like a counter-example to your independence criterion?

I'm not quite familiar with this person, could you expand on this a bit?

I think a better analogy for the zygote would be a germinated seed, since it is growing. So of course the germinated seed/zygote is alive. The fact that you can germinate them years later is not a problem. You can freeze sperm, eggs, and embryos for that matter. Some day you will be able to freeze more complicatedly developed humans too.

Germinated seeds can still remain dormant for an extended period of time. But then again, this is not the greatest example to use.

But I like to be silly! What you said then exposes a disagreement with Maxim who thinks that toddlers could be killed in some circumstances. But your definition of independence is waiting for a response to my objection above.

Sillyness is always fun. I'm not that big on killing babies, though.

[Yeddi]

I'm not quite familiar with this person, could you expand on this a bit?

Thompson's analogy went something like this.
A world famous violinist gets a terrible disease that will kill him unless he can be connected up with a perfectly matched person. You are the only perfectly matched person. His fan club don't want him to die and amazingly track you down and kidnapp you. You wake up a day later in a hospital with this violinist connected to you. You tell the doctors that you didn't agree to this, they apologise but point out that if you were to be disconnected the violinist ould die, don't worry they say. it's only for 9 months, then the violinist will be cured and you can be free again.
Is it wrong for you to disconnect yourself knowing full well that he will die? Even though it was done against your will?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Needless to say, Thomson's argument (as presented well by Yeddi) is an analogy with pregnancy resulting from rape and her point is to show that there are at least *some circumstances* where the decision to abort might be considered moral, or at least, not immoral.

[Fernando]

I'm not quite familiar with this person, could you expand on this a bit?

Thompson's analogy went something like this.
A world famous violinist gets a terrible disease that will kill him unless he can be connected up with a perfectly matched person. You are the only perfectly matched person. His fan club don't want him to die and amazingly track you down and kidnapp you. You wake up a day later in a hospital with this violinist connected to you. You tell the doctors that you didn't agree to this, they apologise but point out that if you were to be disconnected the violinist ould die, don't worry they say. it's only for 9 months, then the violinist will be cured and you can be free again.
Is it wrong for you to disconnect yourself knowing full well that he will die? Even though it was done against your will?

I agree with M. Litinov your (strange) metaphor looks only like pregnancy as a result of rape.

And yes. for me it is wrong (both the example and the abortion in such case), because:

- Violinist has no responsability in your connection.

- Violinist has no chance without your aid.

- You are currently connected to him.

Of course, both in your example and in a rape, you/the pregnant mother) are entitled to ask for a compensation. First from the fan club, second from the violinist.

In the case of the pregnant mother child's obligation should transfer to the society (the state) in the case that the raper has no way to pay.

You/the pregnant woman has no obligation to be with the child/the violinist after the cure/birth. Here we have a difference: I don't think you have any right to be close to the violinist, while woman certainly has.

You/the pregnant woman are entitled to get our full respect, care, and affection.

[fuhrysteve]

who has the right to define humanity or when a human becomes a human? someone said in an earlier post something that seemed to suggest that it's ok to kill a human being, but not a person. when it is and isn't ok to kill someone? certainly I have no place saying when someone is morally ok to be slaughtered, and certainly no sooner does any female have that place.

[chrisprice]

Sorry for the delay in the post; I haven't had the luxury to play lately. Sorry also for the length of this post...it was solicited though.

I am answering Max's request for justification of the claim, "It is wrong to kill innocent human beings". He seems to think that this is not easily justified, and opts for the proposition, "it is wrong to kill innocent persons", where persons are creatures with certain abilities. While he has offered no support for that claim, I will take the bait and offer support for the former. But first a few preliminary points.

First, it is important to know that most people I've debated here have not asked for support of claim that it is wrong to kill innocent humans. Instead they have asked for support that the pre-born are human. I have offered a genetic definition of humanity, and thus far no one has given reason why a genetic definition is insufficient, only that it doesn't fit what a human is to them. But if they agree with the proposition that killing innocent humans is wrong, the only question remains is whether a pre-born "human" is in fact human. I can understand why those who want absolution would fight the minor premise, but that is what it really comes down to. The pre-born is human because that is all it could be.

Second, I contend that for many people, it is possible that the proposition, "it is wrong to kill innocent human beings" is a properly basic belief. That is, for some people, belief that it is wrong to kill innocent paper is rational, even if they do not have an argument to support it. Consider the philosophical problem of knowing that there is an external world. Perhaps some people have a reason to doubt such a thing...most do not. But the fact that they may believe that there is an external world, and would provide bad arguments for such if asked, does not mean that they are unjustified in believing it. It just shows up as obvious to them. Of course, if someone where to give them good evidence that there is not an external world, then they may begin to lose that justification. Of course, NO ONE has given us reason to think that killing innocent humans is not morally wrong, so those who hold this belief can sleep well tonight. And, as I mentioned above, if some of these people think that killing pre-born humans is okay, it is THEY who are faced with a conflict.

Thirdly, you mentioned that to justify the major premise a reference to a deity will be necessary. Though I do not think this is so, I do want more clarification on your point here. Would you say that belief in a deity entails that killing pre-born humans is immoral? You also said that an appeal to a deity might fall on deaf ears generally, but not for you. Does that mean you think there is a deity who is perfectly okay with killing pre-born humans? Though off-topic, it can be argued that a deity is necessary to complete any moral system.

Okay, what would count as justification that it is wrong to kill innocent humans? I'll just toss this out and see if it sticks: I think a place to start would be to point out that we have a prima facie obligation toward our own propagation and preservation. That is, all things being equal, we should propagate ourselves and preserve ourselves and others. Since propagation and preservation is an obligation for us, even if it is only a prima facie obligation, we should not violate it unless there are more compelling reasons. Now, I can think of several reasons why propagation could be not an obligation for some people. Perhaps they are poor, there is crowding and no option for expansion (I think most people would agree that a desire not to propagate is a good enough reason given that there are plenty who do desire it), etc. This would relieve someone of the obligation of propagation. But this only means that they are not *obligated* to propagate. It says nothing about cases where they have already begun. Let's say that a woman gets pregnant in a situation that would have relieved her from the obligation of propagating. Does this lack of an obligation to propagate entail that the obligation to preserve is also relieved? It does not seem so. So the obligation to preserve continues to be an obligation for her, until a more compelling reason arises. But what could be a more compelling reason? Only a conflict with itself. For this reason, terminating a pregnancy is permissible, but only then, in conformity with the obligation of preservation, such as when the mother’s life is in danger.

Further, the distinction between humans and persons should not be adopted because of the potential of violating the obligation of preservation. Because there is no arbitrary assessment we can use, we risk killing beings with moral worth.

[chrisprice]

Needless to say, Thomson's argument (as presented well by Yeddi) is an analogy with pregnancy resulting from rape and her point is to show that there are at least *some circumstances* where the decision to abort might be considered moral, or at least, not immoral.

No, her point was that since there is no moral distinction between a pre-born conceived from rape, or one conceived otherwise, that this violin example would be analogical to all abortion.

The reason why we are discussing this analogy is because someone stated that humans must be biologically independent. Here was a counter-example. The point was that defining humans by their function yields odd conclusions, like the violinist ceased to be human.

What it is to be a human is defined by our DNA. The pre-born have all the DNA information they will ever have for all stages of development, including adulthood. Therefore the pre-born are human.

[Maxim Litvinov]

chris - you seem to spend so much time on trivialities, but nevertheless:

1] Thomson's idea is to start at one extremity - which is the violinist example - and cast doubt in people that the woman's decision is cut-and-dry in this example. She does not rule abortion as moral in all examples, but wants to pull the rug out from under the foot of those who say it is always wrong. Whether or not she uses more arguments in her attack, the case of the violinist is clearly analogous to a rape, or possibly to an unwanted pregnancy where every precaution has been taken.
2] You go on about how people haven't 'asked you' to support your point that it is wrong to kill humans. Well, I ask you, Yeddi doesn't believe the point stands on its own, and not too many people are on this thread. But just because people believe it, doesn't mean it is justified or correct.
3] You can contend that it is a 'properly basic belief' if you want. I don't like your external world example - I think it complicates things. Sure people can have 'suspicions' about what is right, even if they lack the scientific knowledge and justifications to 'know' it is so. But having a 'suspicion' about something is hardly an argument.
4] I think reference to a deity - like the Christian God - becomes a central tenet of many 'pro-life' arguments. That is, they cannot build a cogent scientific sense in which all humans are 'sacred' (because that is really what they're saying - they're drawing an arbitrary distinction which relies on the unseen and untestable 'spiritual' aspect of humans), so they have to resort to saying "I might not be able to prove it, but my God says so". Now, I also believe in the Christian God, but believe that while the Bible doesn't outlaw abortion, reason (which we are also to live by) makes it permissible in certain circumstances.
5] Your argument on propagation. Well, I have troubles with it on a number of levels:
i) you say we have a prima facie obligation toward our own propagation etc., but this needs to be broken down further. Does this propagation mean the propagation of our species? If so, this would be a good argument for slowly down the rate of growth and having abortion-inducing policies like those in China - for the sake of extending the viability of the human species on Earth. It would also entail, most probably, killing off disabled and 'genetically inferior' babies to create a more vibrant species - something that sounds quite horrible. If the propagation is on a personal level (I have a prima facie obligation to propagate my own genes), I would have to ask whether rape is permissible or even worthwhile to achieve these ends. Furthermore, I think you are in an is/ought to trap if you are talking about the selfish gene. There might be a selfish gene, but using this to morally justify actions is not a particularly good argument.
ii) if the worth of a child is dependent upon whether its 'propagation' is worthwhile, then this raises further questions. Presumably, if there are some cases where the 'obligation to propagate' is there when the woman gets pregnant, but not when the child is due. What if the woman discovers that both her, her husband and her child will be killed for having a child out of wedlock, they are not married and she is pregnant. If the woman is just a 'baby machine', then isn't the best option now to abort -- after all, you are saying abortion is not inherently wrong, but only wrong because it moves against the possibility of propagation. But in circumstances where short-term abortion actually makes long-term propagation possible, then surely it should be sanctioned?
iii) my final problem with the propagation argument is that it really isn't prima facie true at all. It seems a very dangerous argument as well. I can't see the moral imperative for producing many lives, even if biologically we have some general need to propagate the species. After all, part of women's desire to abort is sometimes biological as well. But the argument makes women (in particular) into breeding machines and seems very old-fashioned. It removes the worth of women as equal partners, it downgrades the immorality of abortion and sexual abuse, it insults those who are infertile and puts us in a very peculiar mindset of 'propagate or be damned', which doesn't seem to respect the life choices of families without children or homosexual families.

In short, I think the propagation argument is extremely flawed.

Now, where do I get the 'person' argument from? Well, primarily I get it from our beliefs and understanding about pain and suffering.

Through conducting experimental studies on animals, we have determined conceptually the degree of 'wrongness' in performing certain activities and linked those back to the pain and consciousness of the animal in question. We have a complex self-supporting moral system based upon the pain we are causing and the extent to which the individual is conscious of this pain on a physical level, and self-conscious of themselves as a being with a life which is suffering.

Now, ultimately, I can't get any more 'first principles' than this. It has to be said that somewhere along the line, someone started with a presupposition (if backed up by what you would say are natural inclinations) that self-awareness and unnecessary suffering were crucial aspects in assessing the 'morality' of a killing. But this is much less arbitrary than a system which says 'killing humans is always wrong', when this is not easy to reconcile to our entire worldview, is arbitrary, and doesn't even bother with debating why something with 99% of our DNA doesn't get this similar 'sacredness'.

So, my first point is - principles of self-consciousness and awareness can be, and are, applied across the board. They make a more cogent, applicable and falsifiable theory than the statement 'killing humans is wrong'. The concept is applicable to all animals and is giving some way of 'measuring' and codifying moral decisions - which is, after all, something that we are wont to do all the time, and something that doctors in emergency rooms and maternity wards do all the time.

In the case of humans, we know from numerous experiments where self-awareness starts to kick in. Somewhere around 24 months. So, being conservative, we would say that killing any child over 12 months and you might have a problem with self-awareness being a factor in your moral conundrum.

Killing a child under this age, and you only have problems with (i) unnecessary pain being caused (the same problem present in dealing with animals being slaughtered for human consumption) and (ii) the effects of the death on those around them.

So, assuming that the child/foetus is being put down in a reasonably humane way, the morality - by my system, Yeddi's system, Peter Singer's system - is dependent upon the effects of the death on the self-aware beings concerned. If those responsible for the child would actually benefit psychologically or practically, and benefit more than they would lose out by killing the unperson, then while there still might be some moral reasons not to kill the child, the abortion is permissible.

This, I believe, is a less arbitrary and also more humane approach to the problem. It is linking the loss of every individual to a scheme which measures the tragedy of the loss according to individual situations. It is taking the moral and practical interests of all persons to heart. It is a more nuanced scheme that can be applied right across the animal kingdom. And it doesn't depend on some concept of the 'sacred' that we just have to take for granted.

[Garibaldi]

I am against abortions, in a strict manner but not barring all abortions. My agruement is as follows:

1) In nature, humans possess all the qualities of anarchy and traditional views of "evil".

2) For our good and the good of society as a whole, we banded together and formed a necessary social contract to protect certain rights.

3) Foremost among these rights is the right to live.

4) A1- Fetuses count as human, for two reasons:
- They exhibit human DNA
- They exhibit both the generic scientific requirements of life
(AKA growth, consumption, and reproduction) as well as the
Chordatae requirements of life(i.e., while development occurs
within the womb humans have notochords, gills, and a tail
extending beyond the anus)

A2- As humans within the social contract, the right to life is extended to them.

[Fernando]

4] I think reference to a deity - like the Christian God - becomes a central tenet of many 'pro-life' arguments. That is, they cannot build a cogent scientific sense in which all humans are 'sacred' (because that is really what they're saying - they're drawing an arbitrary distinction which relies on the unseen and untestable 'spiritual' aspect of humans), so they have to resort to saying "I might not be able to prove it, but my God says so". Now, I also believe in the Christian God, but believe that while the Bible doesn't outlaw abortion, reason (which we are also to live by) makes it permissible in certain circumstances

The main point to me for being pro-life is not because of my religion but because of reason. Of course there are several ethical systems that claimed to be based in reason. But I don't need to invoke God to say (extreme simplification):

- Human beings must be respected.
- A foetus is a human being.
So
- Foetus must be respected.

Of course, if someone demonstrate that a foetus is not a human being I would change my mind.

In example, I have been said that in the Middle Ages some people thought that life came from men and he "planted his seed" in women, who were only the nest. So masturbation seems a sweet form of abortion.
Since science says the new DNA is a combination I would say life begins since conception and not before (or after).

[The Flaming Jalapeno]

Sorry I haven't posted here, I forgot/stopped caring about this topic for a while, but I think this article raises an interesting discussion:

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/tech/article.jsp?id=99994909&sub=Biotechnology

Basically what happened was scientists were able to combine 2 mouse eggs and make it now possible for females to reproduce with each other.



Thought? Comments? Does this somehow challenge the ideas of abortion and procreation? Yes/no/stupid scientist messing with nature?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Garibaldi - your ideas sound very Rousseauian. It is interesting to bring up a social contract, but I'm not sure if it really applies here.

In terms of social contract theory, most of the 'clauses' of the social contract generally revolve around what government can expect of you. In terms of a community-based social contract, I do not see the 'right to live' as an element of any contract. Why?

1] Because there is no conscious belief from most of society that we have any rights over the right of the mother to decide the best policy. And when this belief occurs, it is often accepted that there is no capacity on society to impose this belief of all members of society.
2] 'Right to life' is one side of the abortion debate. 'Pro choice' is the other. I would suggest that more people - at least in my society - are pro choice. More people on this board are. So, if the social contract says anything, I believe it is pro choice. But, more than that, I think the contract of modern Western societies says - it is a difficult choice, and should be left to the individuals involved. To the extent that society doesn't employ sanctions against abortion, I also think that the social contract rules it as permissible.
3] Further, I think the idea that 'all life is sacred' is certainly not part of the social contract, as killing of the incapacitated or 'evil' frequently seems to be approved by society.

Fernando - as I said to chrisprice: you can have the idea that "human beings must be 'respected'", but you've got to show *where* you get that idea from, and why it is a good idea.

You presumably think that human beings should be respected more than aardvarks or apes or snakes or goats. We should value their life more, correct? Why?

Here there are two prominent solutions:
1] Because God says so (not a product of reason, unless you are reasoning the existence of God and how God says so).
2] Because, for the sake of creating a good society, we should be limiting harm to sentient beings, or those with a 'personality to lose'.

Now, 1] differs from 2] in that 1] generally sets an arbitrary distinction of saying 'human beings to be respected', 'other animals not to be'. 1] supposes that there is something in our DNA that demands respect. But we do not have *special* DNA.

2] in contrast teases out *why* we deserve some respect. We deserve respect because we are complex organisms who are 'persons', while other animals don't have such higher order thinking skills or self-awareness. So, in 2] it is generally wrong to kill someone who should be respected - that is, a person. But this allows abortion.

So, Fernando - you can say your argument doesn't rely on God, but you have to show how, through reason, you can leap to the conclusion that "human beings must be respected". For me, this conclusion without reason is as arbitrary as saying "spider monkeys must be respected". My question is - Why?

[Garibaldi]

Garibaldi - your ideas sound very Rousseauian. It is interesting to bring up a social contract, but I'm not sure if it really applies here.

In terms of social contract theory, most of the 'clauses' of the social contract generally revolve around what government can expect of you. In terms of a community-based social contract, I do not see the 'right to live' as an element of any contract. Why?

1] Because there is no conscious belief from most of society that we have any rights over the right of the mother to decide the best policy. And when this belief occurs, it is often accepted that there is no capacity on society to impose this belief of all members of society.
2] 'Right to life' is one side of the abortion debate. 'Pro choice' is the other. I would suggest that more people - at least in my society - are pro choice. More people on this board are. So, if the social contract says anything, I believe it is pro choice. But, more than that, I think the contract of modern Western societies says - it is a difficult choice, and should be left to the individuals involved. To the extent that society doesn't employ sanctions against abortion, I also think that the social contract rules it as permissible.
3] Further, I think the idea that 'all life is sacred' is certainly not part of the social contract, as killing of the incapacitated or 'evil' frequently seems to be approved by society.

I may stand corrected, although most Enlightenment-Aged Philosophers had their beliefs of what the social contract entailed as I have a seperate one. What I meant by Social Contract is a necessary agreement that is based on logic for the sole purpose of protecting our rights. I apologize if I have a misunderstanding of the term; I've only heard in school about the social contract and haven't read it yet.

However, for your arguement it does say at one point that most people you know are pro-choice. This is untrue, the number is almost evenly split; this leads us to another untruth in your statement. While people declare themselves pro-choice and pro-life, I find that these tend to be merely titles and often they agree that only rape victims, young children, and those who will die otherwise should recieve abortion.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Sure, Garibaldi.

When I was talking about a majority being 'pro-choice' I was basically referring to my situation (Australia) and communities like mine (the Western OECD). I'd say the US is probably the most anti-abortion of these countries.

My point was - seeing as the moral stance of the population is so split by abortion, I find it hard to think that there is any 'generally accepted' contract by society that abortion shouldn't take place.

If you see the social contract as one that 'protects our rights', I would suggest that there is just as much (if not more) moral traction at the moment for those who assert the right of women to make a choice about birth without any denial of this right through government legislation. After all, the 'us' whose lives are being protected most certainly includes women, but not necessarily foetuses.

I don't see there being much of a definitional problem of 'pro-choice' advocates. As a rule, pro-choice advocates think that mothers should always have the ultimate say in matters of abortion, rather than outsiders or states legislating away their 'choice'. Sure, some of these people might not advocate all abortions - or call all moral - but they still fundamentally disagree with the concept of there being some moral barrier that makes all abortion immoral, which is what people like chrisprice and you seem to be arguing.

[Eliamar]

I think abortion should be legal. I can't think of any logical reason that humans will not benefit from abortion being legal.

[Soma]

I can't think of any logical reason that humans will not benefit from abortion being legal.

The humans who die hardly benefit from abortion.

[Garibaldi]

Good point, Soma.

Maxim, the rights do not yeild to women. I do think the right of living comfortably is important, but the right to life is more important. I do not deny all abortions, but mental and some physical angst are not reason enough to kill a human who is not causing the problems consiously.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Well, then we get back to the central position that there is no automatic "right to life" for humans. There is no more 'right to life' for humans than there is a right for monkeys to do space walks... unless you *show* where that right eminates from.

I do not support all abortions, either. But for a pro-choice advocate, the decision is whether or not you should trust the mother to take the appropriate course of action, or whether you should let the government decide what the mother can do about her own biology.

Factoring in my own belief - that what is right is doing what is best for those who are capable of understanding the situation and able to make rational decisions about it - there is no automatic right to life for humans, and there most certainly isn't a right for government to intervene in this issue, and more than there is a right for government to intervene in telling me who I can sleep with.