Abortion: My personal experience

[GodMark2]

The Christian argument against abortion is based on such an ignorant understanding of human biology. For instance, when does ensoulment happen? If you think, "At conception." is a quick and easy answer, it really isn't given what Steve Pinker says in "The Blank Slate:"

Oh, it's not that hard to simply apply equal parts of "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong", "What I already decided is always right", and "No statement I make need be logically connected to any other" to these so-called 'problems' and make them go away.

A. There is no moment of conception.

"[R]esearch on human reproduction shows that the 'moment of conception' is not a moment at all. Sometimes several sperm penetrate the outer membrane of the egg, and it takes time for the egg to eject the extra chromosomes. What and where is the soul during this interval?"

Duh, what do you think it is that cleans out all those unwanted trespassers?

B. What about twins?

"[A]s the embryo's cell being to divide, they can split into several embryos, which develop into identical twins, triplets, and so on. Do identical twins share a soul? . . . . Indeed, every cell in the growing embryo is capable, with the right manipulations, of becoming a new embryo that can grow into a child. Does a multicell embryo consist of one soul per cell, and if so, where do the other souls go when the cells lose that ability?"

They each get half a soul, which is why we don't need to treat them as whole people. This is why we only have one birthday party for the pair, and give them the same gift at Christmas, and generally assume they're exactly the same in every way, and can't function properly when their other half isn't around. This is also why it's OK to have sex with both of them at the same time. Plus, it gives those of us with whole souls a perfectly good reason to feel superior.

C. What about chimeras?

"Occasionally two fertilized eggs, which ordinarily would go on to become fraternal twins, merge into a single embryo that develops into a person who is a genetic chimera; some of her cells have one genome, others have another genome. Does her body house two souls?"

They have two souls, but they're constantly fight for control, so those of us with peaceful souls can still feel superior. Plus, each soul only gets half credit for any good things they do, so they can't ever get into heaven, cause half credit doesn't count. They, of course, get full credit for anything bad that they're accused of (whether or not they actually did it, cause at least one of the souls was probably thinking of doing it anyway).

Wasn't that easy?

Plus, your first sentence was too long

The Christian argument against abortion is based on such an ignorant understanding of human biology.

 

[RandFan]

Plus, your first sentence was too long

The Christian argument against abortion is based on such an ignorant understanding of human biology.

Paul, awesome post. Truly. But I think GodMark2 improved on it.

 

[quadraginta]

Actually, that one's very easy indeed. The law is ultimately pragmatic, and is made to keep things running smoothly regardless of big questions about life, the universe, and everything. The law doesn't care if your fetus has a soul or not, the law cares that for most of society tomorrow will be similar to today. Law exists to create order, not to pursue moral perfection.

This all sounds very well and good in a perfect, ideal system sort of way, but that isn't what happens in the real world.

You say, "Law exists ..." It doesn't. Not in a vacuum, at least. Human beings craft laws to serve a purpose, which is probably what you meant, but it doesn't sound as ethereal, and misdirects the conversation.

When humans craft laws they must do so based on some combination of whatever science might be available and whatever moral structures predominate in their culture. Generally the degree to which they consider the former as opposed to the latter is what provides the pragmatism you speak of, but taken as a whole it is more than a bit idealistic to describe human law as pragmatic. Much, maybe even most human law is intended to defend whatever moral imperatives the dominant segment of a particular society happens to believe are most important at any given time.

Certainly there is a baseline of common ideas regarding, for example, things like theft, and murder. But even in such cases as those as much law is devoted to carving out what circumstances are exceptions to those rules, and that varies wildly from culture to culture, and from era to era within any single culture.

Beating your wife didn't used to be against the law in most of western society, and in some cases failing to do so when she 'deserved it' could even get someone into legal straits.

When human laws are made without human involvement then they might become essentially pragmatic, but until that happens they will always be far more a hodgepodge of influence and expedience resulting in a frequently imperfect and often contentious set of rules.

If that's what you mean by pragmatic then I guess I agree, but it didn't sound like it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

On average a child can be kept alive after 24 weeks (aprox). We keep the law after that point because it is practical. Empirical. If a woman doesn't want a baby in her uterus and it has brain functions then she has the right to remove the baby. Just remove it alive. Before that it can't survive on it's own and has limited brain function. These are empirical facts and can inform our laws.

I fear you miss my point. These are facts, yes. Science can bring us facts. But it cannot tell us how we should act upon them. We have to choose what to do based on what we know. If somebody thinks "well, brain function is what makes a person a person" then they might make their choice one way, but that's still a personal choice, an opinion--it's not inherent in the fact itself.

Science can only provide information. What we do with it is still up to us.

 

[Paul2]

Paul, awesome post. Truly. But I think GodMark2 improved on it.

I wouldn't have thought it was possible, but

 

[RandFan]

I fear you miss my point. These are facts, yes. Science can bring us facts. But it cannot tell us how we should act upon them. We have to choose what to do based on what we know. If somebody thinks "well, brain function is what makes a person a person" then they might make their choice one way, but that's still a personal choice, an opinion--it's not inherent in the fact itself.

Science can only provide information. What we do with it is still up to us.

I didn't miss your point. I've been studying morality for nearly a decade.

What can tell us how we should act? Look back at my example. Using facts I built a reasonable argument for how to act. If the vast majority of personal preferences are to not be tortured and I don't want to be tortured and you don't want to be tortured then why would we torture?

You need to answer that question.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I didn't miss your point. I've been studying morality for nearly a decade.

Congratulations?

What can tell us how we should act?

Nothing. Despite the plethora of things that would like to tell people to act, and the fans of those things who like to sell them to you, there is absolutely no authority on what is right or wrong. It is, and always has been, a personal choice. That a given person's opinion may happen to be the same as another's, or even a trillion others, doesn't make it so. It's always up to you.

Look back at my example. Using facts I built a reasonable argument for how to act. If the vast majority of personal preferences are to not be tortured and I don't want to be tortured and you don't want to be tortured then why would we torture?

If everyone jumps off a bridge does that make it right? I can't tell you why you shouldn't torture, from a moral standpoint, because that is your decision to make. I know why I'm not torturing anybody at the moment.

You need to answer that question.

The world is full of people telling us what we need to do. Whether we do them or not is entirely a personal decision.

 

[RandFan]

If everyone jumps off a bridge does that make it right?

I know that seems like an answer but it's not.

Let's back up.

• The fire is hot.
• You don't want to feel pain.
• Ought you touch the fire?

If you can reason an answer to the above why can't you carry that to other humans who we know scientifically, on average, have the same sentiments as you and infer that causing suffering to others is something we ought not do.

I can't tell you why you shouldn't torture, from a moral standpoint, because that is your decision to make.

If you are capable of empathy, compassion and the ability to feel pain and discomfort then I CAN tell why you shouldn't torture.

• It will cause you discomfort.
• It will make your society worse.
• It will increase the likelihood of you being tortured.
• It will increase the likelihood of you being punished.

I know why I'm not torturing anybody at the moment.

Then you have a good understanding why other people aren't torturing people.

The world is full of people telling us what we need to do. Whether we do them or not is entirely a personal decision.

We could look at the world that way. Or we could also look at the world as a social contract. I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me (golden rule). That way we don't have to worry if walking down the street we are likely to be harmed by other people.

It's called reciprocal altruism. Scientifically It has explanatory power. Scientifically it's predicted by game theory. Field research (science) on social animals like vampire bats, chimps, etc., confirms it.

 

[Paul2]

The argument happens because, on the one hand, it is hypothetically possible to abstractly imagine, intellectually, no moral restrictions of any kind; but, on the other hand, we are not abstract, purely intellectual beings - we are animals that have instincts for cooperation.

If you focus on the intellectual, abstract possibilities, then there can be no moral impulse of necessarily sufficient weight; but if you focus on our animality, then, of course, we have very strong tendencies toward morality and cooperation.

 

[RandFan]

The argument happens because, on the one hand, it is hypothetically possible to abstractly imagine, intellectually, no moral restrictions of any kind; but, on the other hand, we are not abstract, purely intellectual beings - we are animals that have instincts for cooperation.

If you focus on the intellectual, abstract possibilities, then there can be no moral impulse of necessarily sufficient weight; but if you focus on our animality, then, of course, we have very strong tendencies toward morality and cooperation.

Well put, again.

 

[Paul2]

Well put, again.

Waiting, then, for GodMark2 to parody my post to the benefit of our general hilarity.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I know that seems like an answer but it's not.

Let's back up.

• The fire is hot.
• You don't want to feel pain.
• Ought you touch the fire?

If you can reason an answer to the above why can't you carry that to other humans who we know scientifically, on average, have the same sentiments as you and infer that causing suffering to others is something we ought not do.

And here we have the first problem. You are attributing to me, and all others, your own personal subjective opinions about what people should want. Maybe I want to feel pain. Maybe I don't want to but feel I need to. Maybe I do it for kicks anyway. Maybe I don't believe the fire will be hot this time. You don't know me. You don't know what's in my head. And yet you're willing to guess that because you think certain things, and feel certain ways about them, that everybody else does too.

If you are capable of empathy, compassion and the ability to feel pain and discomfort then I CAN tell why you shouldn't torture.

• It will cause you discomfort.
• It will make your society worse.
• It will increase the likelihood of you being tortured.
• It will increase the likelihood of you being punished.

Then you have a good understanding why other people aren't torturing people.

So many assumptions just taken for granted right there. YOUR definitions of empathy and compassion, and YOUR assumptions that I must feel obligated to extend those things to everybody else. Maybe I don't. Maybe I hate the Swiss. Maybe they're an exception to my own idea of empathy and compassion. Maybe my whole society feels the same way. Maybe I don't think torturing someone will increase my own risk of getting tortured--it's a gamble for YOU, maybe, but not for me. Maybe my position in society, and my society itself, not only won't punish me but will reward me for torturing people.

You don't know me. Imagining your own feelings have some sort of significance for others isn't just naive, it's delusional.

We could look at the world that way. Or we could also look at the world as a social contract. I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me (golden rule). That way we don't have to worry if walking down the street we are likely to be harmed by other people.

Are you speaking of an ideal world, or the real one? In the real one, people try to get away with many things and often do. The key isn't to behave nicely, it's to not get caught unless you can get away with it, as people often do in the right circumstances.

It's called reciprocal altruism. Scientifically It has explanatory power. Scientifically it's predicted by game theory. Field research (science) on social animals like vampire bats, chimps, etc., confirms it.

That certain behaviors occur in certain situations doesn't prove they are "right" any more than it proves the existence of a universal Good, or Platonic Forms, or a deity. Everybody is a completely free agent to do whatever they like, within the limits of the laws of physical reality. How they feel about it is something else, and how other people feel about it is yet a third thing.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The argument happens because, on the one hand, it is hypothetically possible to abstractly imagine, intellectually, no moral restrictions of any kind; but, on the other hand, we are not abstract, purely intellectual beings - we are animals that have instincts for cooperation.

If you focus on the intellectual, abstract possibilities, then there can be no moral impulse of necessarily sufficient weight; but if you focus on our animality, then, of course, we have very strong tendencies toward morality and cooperation.

How are you definining your terms? I'd say "morality" is a term people use when they wish to confer special privilege on certain behaviors--behaviors that tend, in their interpretation, to work toward the fostering or maintenance of social order. Which doesn't make them right, just (in often-flawed reasoning) useful behaviors.

 

[psionl0]

How are you definining your terms?

Interestingly, one common argument against the existence of God in the Religion forum is that there are no absolute morals. A community might have a common set of moral values but these are subject to change.

In this forum, morals seem to be considered to be more absolute.

 

[RandFan]

And here we have the first problem. You are attributing to me, and all others, your own personal subjective opinions about what people should want.

No.

Maybe I want to feel pain.

Which is why I gave you the example. What percentage or people want to be tortured?

Maybe I don't want to but feel I need to. Maybe I do it for kicks anyway. Maybe I don't believe the fire will be hot this time. You don't know me. You don't know what's in my head. And yet you're willing to guess that because you think certain things, and feel certain ways about them, that everybody else does too.

Nope. We have the ability to find out. It's called population statistics.

So many assumptions just taken for granted right there. YOUR definitions of empathy and compassion, and YOUR assumptions that I must feel obligated to extend those things to everybody else. Maybe I don't. Maybe I hate the Swiss. Maybe they're an exception to my own idea of empathy and compassion. Maybe my whole society feels the same way. Maybe I don't think torturing someone will increase my own risk of getting tortured--it's a gamble for YOU, maybe, but not for me. Maybe my position in society, and my society itself, not only won't punish me but will reward me for torturing people.

No assumptions at all. That's the beauty of science. But I'm disappointed you won't address my points directly.

You don't know me. Imagining your own feelings have some sort of significance for others isn't just naive, it's delusional.

No. That's why we use science. We can know what human flourishing is. We can know what well being is. We can measure it. We know that most people have empathy. We know that most people are capable of compassion. We know that most people don't want to feel pain. Most people don't commit suicide. Most people don't go out of their way to be tortured. When sick and in pain or distress most people will go out of their way to go to a hospital. Many people will risk their lives to get away from dangerous situations. Those are facts and they are very important once that you are ignoring to hold onto some pet theory.

This isn't new or controversial by any stretch of the imagination. We've known this for a long time. No assumptions.

Are you speaking of an ideal world, or the real one?

Yes. It's called science.

 

[RandFan]

How are you definining your terms? I'd say "morality" is a term people use when they wish to confer special privilege on certain behaviors--behaviors that tend, in their interpretation, to work toward the fostering or maintenance of social order. Which doesn't make them right, just (in often-flawed reasoning) useful behaviors.

Why do piranha not eat each other? Why do vampire bats share blood? Why do social animals have rules of behavior? Do you think they wish to confer special privilege on certain behaviors?

We evolved moral sense. We evolved empathy. This isn't controversial. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Your pet theories are interesting but have no explanatory or predictive powers. The model I gave you does. You are in effect giving us the equivalent of a theistic model based on your own confirmation bias and speculation.

Oddly enough most humans in most societies have the same taboos against murder and theft. Not absolute. But there is a reason we have these. It's called evolution. They're not concrete but we can accurately model them and accurately predict which rules are more likely to result in higher well being and more well being.

We can ever measure it and predict whether or not the societies have certain rules.

Get the books by Shermer and Harris. You might also wish to read Practical Ethics by Singer.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Interestingly, one common argument against the existence of God in the Religion forum is that there are no absolute morals. A community might have a common set of moral values but these are subject to change.

In this forum, morals seem to be considered to be more absolute.

I don't see a necessary connection between the existence or nonexistence of deities and the ethics of human behavior. In fact, if a deity exists and is interested in human affairs, truly moral action might be impossible because people might be behaving nicely just to please an outside entity rather than because they really think it's right. I don't think the idea of "the good" has any value if it just means "something a superpowered bully wants you to do".

 

[TragicMonkey]

No.

Which is why I gave you the example. What percentage or people want to be tortured? Nope. We have the ability to find out. It's called population statistics.

No assumptions at all. That's the beauty of science. But I'm disappointed you won't address my points directly.

Statistics can only give you an idea of what people think. They cannot inform you of whether those positions are correct, only that they are popular.

Unless you think right and wrong are things that are decided by popular vote. In that case, the majority position will always be the right one.

No. That's why we use science. We can know what human flourishing is. We can know what well being is. We can measure it.

Really? What's the scientific method of evaluating the quality of life? Is it purely medical, or do economics play a part. What about happiness? Fulfillment? What if someone has a painful chronic disease or disability but still enjoys life and is happy? Is that "flourishing"? What about Nietzsche, crippled by a horrible disease and writing until his eyes literally bled, but full of vim and optimism about the triumph of the human spirit? Was he "flourishing"? What about the people who live fast and die young?

Science is wonderful for certain things, but measuring things about the human spirit isn't one of them.

We know that most people have empathy. We know that most people are capable of compassion. We know that most people don't want to feel pain. Most people don't commit suicide. Most people don't go out of their way to be tortured. When sick and in pain or distress most people will go out of their way to go to a hospital. Many people will risk their lives to get away from dangerous situations.

And then there are the times they don't. But those don't count, eh? Your scientific model encourages you to select your data?

Those are facts and they are very important once that you are ignoring to hold onto some pet theory.

This isn't new or controversial by any stretch of the imagination. We've known this for a long time. No assumptions.

Yes. It's called science.

Oh dear, I'm sorry. I didn't really you owned science and ethics. Sounds to me like you're the one with pet theories.

My theory is that what people do and what people think about what their actions are two entirely separate things, and most people go to lengths to excuse their misdeeds to themselves. Few villains actually think they're bad people--they think in their case, their actions are justified. My opinion is that right and wrong are just words people use to describe how they feel about a given behavior in a given circumstance, and those labels are very, very flexible. A given action might be right in some circumstances and wrong in others, to some people. Others might think that action is inherently wrong in itself. And some would hold the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on who's performing it, or their motivations for doing so.

Is killing wrong? What about in self-defense? If I'm on a battlefield and I find an enemy soldier hideously wounded, obviously cannot be saved and going to die, but slowly and in agony, is it right or wrong to kill him quickly? Is it good to not kill him if I believe in the sanctity of life or am optimistic about his chances with medical help, but wrong if I don't kill merely because I want him to suffer longer? How could the same action with the same result have different moral valuations? Who gets to decide?

People do things. They then assign labels to evaluate their actions, based on all sorts of criteria, some of them cultural, some of them personal, some of them selfish, some of them just plain crazy. But there is no physical force or quality in existence by which we can compare our actions to see if the labelling is correct. Science can build you a gun but it can't tell you when it is right or wrong to use it. If you imagine it can then you aren't dealing with science anymore, you've made it a religion.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why do piranha not eat each other? Why do vampire bats share blood? Why do social animals have rules of behavior? Do you think they wish to confer special privilege on certain behaviors?

Because they don't find an advantage in those behaviors.

The behaviors that are advantageous get followed--insects that eat each other after mating, animals that kill their own young. Animals aren't good or bad, they just do things. Evolution just means the things that tend to help the species are the things that stick over time through the generations. That doesn't make them good, in a moral sense. There is no moral valuation to animal actions.

We evolved moral sense. We evolved empathy.

Then why aren't they universal, and universally applied? Read a newspaper lately?

This isn't controversial. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Your pet theories are interesting but have no explanatory or predictive powers. The model I gave you does. You are in effect giving us the equivalent of a theistic model based on your own confirmation bias and speculation.

Religions think they can explain things, too. And predictive powers? My "pet theories" do have predictive powers--I predict that human nature doesn't change, that good people will do bad things and vice versa, crime will always exist, people will hurt each other, people will love each other, and people will do crazy things and everybody will say they never saw it coming even though it's all been done before.

Oddly enough most humans in most societies have the same taboos against murder and theft. Not absolute. But there is a reason we have these. It's called evolution. They're not concrete but we can accurately model them and accurately predict which rules are more likely to result in higher well being and more well being.

Again, argument from popularity. Most societies in history were okay with slavery, too. Is that evolution in action? And how are you defining "well being"? That doesn't sound like a scientific concept at all. If you want to talk about evolution, from an evolutionary perspective the greatest wellbeing is having the most surviving offspring capable of having their own surviving offspring. From an evolutionary perspective, a multiple-rapist who impregnates a hundred women who are die-hard right-to-lifers then gets the death penalty is more successful in life than a saintly doctor who has one child and lives to a hundred and develops a cure for arthritis that spares millions of people pain and suffering.

We can ever measure it and predict whether or not the societies have certain rules.

Get the books by Shermer and Harris. You might also wish to read Practical Ethics by Singer.

No thanks.

 

[psionl0]

I don't see a necessary connection between the existence or nonexistence of deities and the ethics of human behavior.

I wasn't making a theistic argument. I was merely observing that the skeptics in the Religion forum tend not to believe in absolute moral values as much as those in the USA Politics forum.

Totally irrelevant I know.