The "Abortion is murder" position

[ImaginalDisc]

Is there some point where you draw the line that distinguishes between acceptable abortions and morally unacceptable abortions? If so, why do you make that distinction?

If the embryo lacks any neurological sophistication, then I don't believe it's yet a person. That's certainly true through the first trimester, and the brain's highly well developed by the end of the second trimester.

 

[theprestige]

On further review, I have teased out a few interesting questions, which I will attempt to answer below--so far as I personally am concerned, at least.

How about this approach--not so much how someone who believes abortion is the equivalent of murder acts but how they feel about abortion clinic bombers. Most people who hold that position deplore and condemn such bombings right?

I'm happy to stipulate this, sure. So what?

Also, why would people who think that abortion is murder make exceptions in cases of incest and rape?

I don't know. As I said, you'll have to take it up with them. Personally, both incest and rape are difficult cases that require a lot of careful thought, and the extremely subjective weighing of a variety of extremely subjective priorities. I'm not sure I would make exceptions in either case, at least not as a general rule. But I'm open to contrary arguments.

If "abortion is murder" what distinguishes the ones that are considered "murder" from the ones that aren't?

Personally, I give a lot of thought to the concept of "necessary evil". There are many situations in which it becomes necessary to make choices about who lives and who dies. Warfare, perhaps, or a hostage situation. Triage in a hospital emergency room. Pregancies where the life of the mother is substantially threatened by the life of the child.

Based on the numbers I gave earlier, how many of these each year would you consider to be "murder"? (I mean generally--like all except those of rape and incest victims? That'd leave probably some 30 million or more each year. Still a number that eclipses the Holocaust.)

Your appeal to emotion is duly noted. A widespread custom of abortions as a matter of individual choice is markedly different from a widespread program of state-sponsored genocide. I utterly reject the implication that abortion should be fought the same way as the Holocaust.

For "wrongful killing" perhaps, but there are pretty strict mens rea requirements for murder in most legal systems. I think they include intention to kill and malice.

I mean, if they're using the emotionally loaded term "murder" we should stay with that standard.

I perceive a tendency towards legalistic absolutism in your arguments. When I say "abortion is murder", I am definitely speaking in moral, metaphysical terms. If you are interpreting "murder" as a legal term with all sorts of technical implications for my argument, then you are mistaking my point, and we will only end up talking past each other.

I'm not sure you answered the suffering question.

Heh. I'm not sure I did either. In fact I don't use "suffering" as a necessary or sufficient criteria for "murder", so the question doesn't really make sense to me. I believe the embryo in question is a human being, and that therefore is entitled to the same moral consideration as the mother. "Suffering" as a first-order justification one way or the other doesn't enter into it.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Are you seriously arguing that what makes something human is the number of neurons it has?

Yes. Consider the following: I am trimming my neighbor's tree and I slip and fall off the ladder. The chain saw I am using falls on me, and severs my right arm. Now there are two pieces of me, my arm and the rest of me. Which one is the person? The part that has the brain.

Consider the following: I scratch my face, and thousands of skin cells are torn off and float across the room. Are any of those cells a person? No.

Consider the following: I ejaculate, are any of the sperm cells a person? No.

Why is hanging yourself suicide, but dying of old age not?

Because hanging yourself falls under the dictionary definition of suicide. Now, if you're done with the red herring, can we get back to the issue of what is a person?

 

[theprestige]

If the embryo lacks any neurological sophistication, then I don't believe it's yet a person. That's certainly true through the first trimester, and the brain's highly well developed by the end of the second trimester.

Isn't "neurological sophistication" kind of arbitrary?

Where, exactly, do you draw the line? Five thousand neurons? Five million? More than a fly? More than an embryo that's only been alive for half as long?

Why--if you'll permit me to beg the question for a moment--should a human being at an earlier stage of development be any less of a human being than a human being at a later stage of development? Heck, what isn't an arbitrary developmental cutoff point? The human brain is still undergoing significant development twenty years after birth.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Isn't "neurological sophistication" kind of arbitrary?

Where, exactly, do you draw the line? Five thousand neurons? Five million? More than a fly? More than an embryo that's only been alive for half as long?

Why--if you'll permit me to beg the question for a moment--should a human being at an earlier stage of development be any less of a human being than a human being at a later stage of development? Heck, what isn't an arbitrary developmental cutoff point? The human brain is still undergoing significant development twenty years after birth.

The difference between my cut-off point and yours is that mind doesn't lead to a slippery slope.

 

[theprestige]

Because hanging yourself falls under the dictionary definition of suicide.

And are you seriously arguing that we should use the dictionary as our moral compass?

 

[theprestige]

The difference between my cut-off point and yours is that mind doesn't lead to a slippery slope.

Please just answer my questions. I'm not asking about the difference between your cutoff and mine. I'm asking of what, exactly, your cutoff consists, and how you justify it.

And I think I showed pretty clearly that cut-offs based on arbitrary neurological criteria do lead to slippery slopes. If you don't have a good reason for choosing one number of neurons over another, then any other number of neurons will do just as well.

You're the one who's saying "neurological sophistication" is the criteria. Okay, fine: How much neurological sophistication? Why not more? Why not less? Why is one trimester better than two? Why are prenatal trimesters better than postnatal decades? Why is ten weeks better than ten days, or ten years?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm not saying it's murder, just that it's morally wrong. And I reject your saying if it get's aborted it's not going to develop any further. I think you are completely missing my point, and in the process, helping to make it. That's rationalizing. If there was no abortion, it would eventually (baring medical problems) end up a fully developed human being. There is no getting around that.

With the real possibility of cloning a human being, by your logic a cell that falls from your ear can eventually (baring medical problems) end up a fully developed human being.

Why don't you care for your cells?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The reason they only want to punish the person performing the abortion has nothing to do with their recognition that abortion is not equivalent to murder. It has everything to do with the fact that they recognize that if they are going to be successfull in getting abortion to be made illegal; punishing women who undergo an abortion is going to be counter-productive.

It would have the result of preventing the woman from having another abortion (i.e. from committing murder again). If abortion is murder, why dismiss that possibility?

Also preventing future crimes isn't the whole reason we punish criminals. (You know--that whole idea of "justice"?) If abortion is murder, why would we be so willing to excuse primaries in that crime?

ETA: There is also the often cited deterrent effect. If a woman knows she'll go to jail for having an abortion, she will be less likely to do so. Therefore jailing one woman might prevent the crime of murder from happening in the future. Hardly counter-productive or even unproductive (the word I think you were after), if you believe abortion is murder.

We're not talking about abortions performed on women against their will, mind you. Except for a vanishingly small number of that 42 million, women who get abortions have to go somewhere of their own free will and ask for them. In many cases, they have to pay for the service.

If abortion is murder, why aren't these women considered murderers? At the very least, they'd be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder? (I believe that's the crime for which Charles Manson will never be a free man as long as he lives.)

 

[Moochie]

But that microscopic blastocyst will develop, over that 6 months, into that "person". A fly will always be a fly.

I've made this argument before. I hate to see arguments that it's ok if it's done before a "certain time" because it ignores the reality that, ultimately, that life will develop into a fully developed, intelligent, self-aware human being (baring obvious medical problems, etc). So saying that killing it, before it get's to that point is "ok" is rationalizing. It's nitpicking and splitting hairs. If a pregnancy is ended any time from the moment of conception onward, it's ultimately ending a human life.

I hope that one day, in the far future, we all (as a people) wake up to how wrong this practice is.

Whatever one thinks about abortion, does anyone think the planet could support the population if there were no abortion and contraception? Does "quality of life" have any meaning in this debate?


M.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Isn't "neurological sophistication" kind of arbitrary?

Where, exactly, do you draw the line? Five thousand neurons? Five million? More than a fly? More than an embryo that's only been alive for half as long?

Just because intermediate states are hard to call doesn't mean there isn't a point where we know for sure there is not yet a functioning brain.

Yes it is arbitrary. In criminal law, these kinds of lines are drawn all the time. (For example, the "age of consent". A child doesn't really turn into an adult overnight on their whatever-th birthday.) Remember, "murder" has a very specific meaning.

If people want to use the term as part of an emotional appeal, they should think about what it actually means.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not saying it's murder, just that it's morally wrong.

I don't mean to be a nag, but the topic of this thread is the "abortion is murder" position. I was hoping this thread wouldn't turn into a general debate on abortion.

My contention is that no one actually believes that abortion really is murder. It's just an emotional appeal used by people who think abortion is morally wrong.

So. . .is there anyone here who thinks "abortion is murder"?

Is there anyone here who will admit to having used those words even though they really didn't mean them?

 

[theprestige]

With the real possibility of cloning a human being, by your logic a cell that falls from your ear can eventually (baring medical problems) end up a fully developed human being.

Why don't you care for your cells?

Without wilful intervention, a dead skin cell will never become a viable human being.

Without wilful intervention, a viable first-trimester human will become a viable second-trimester human being.

In the first scenario, you're going out of your way to produce human life.

In the second scenario, you're going out of your way to terminate human life.

Assuming, of course, that human embryos are human beings. That's where the real crux of the matter is. All these shenanigans with reductio and this or that contingency are beside the point. Saying that human embryos can't be human beings because if they were it would raise all sorts of other difficult questions, or result in all sorts of other ethical dilemmas, is putting the cart before the horse. It's also a pretty heinous abdication of one's ethical responsibility. You end up in the position that you arbitrarily dehumanize human embryos because adjudicating between mothers and their children is hard.

So it all comes down to whether or not it's human. I think ulitmately it's a metaphysical question that does not lend itself to conclusive logical analysis. I also find that for me personally, considering the thing to be human from conception onward, while it does raise a number of ethical dilemmas, is morally more tenable overall than selecting any arbitrary cut-off point after conception.

And, for the third time: Law, custom, and common sense recognize many different kinds of killing, under many different kinds of circumstances, that sensibly require many different kinds of responses from us as individuals, as communities, and as a legal system.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What about in cases where abortion is necessary to save the life of both the mother and the unborn baby? In the past, the Catholic Church held strictly to the "abortion is murder" position and considered even these abortions to be murder.

I assume few people hold that stand today. How then do you make the "abortion is murder" position consistent with excusing abortion in these cases? Is it killing in self defense?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And, for the third time: Law, custom, and common sense recognize many different kinds of killing, under many different kinds of circumstances, that sensibly require many different kinds of responses from us as individuals, as communities, and as a legal system.

I agree. And that's why I'm questioning the very specific position that "abortion is murder".

I was really hoping we could stay on this point and not turn this into a generic abortion debate.

I think reasonable minds can disagree on whether abortion is morally permissible (which is why the law of the land makes it a choice by the woman up until the end of the first trimester).

However, I don't think the "abortion is murder" position is at all reasonable. I'd like to discuss this point if at all possible.

I recognize that my original argument ("I find it hard to believe") was seriously flawed. I've made several other points showing how "abortion is murder" is inconsistent with the policies and conclusions espoused by those who hold this position.

 

[theprestige]

Just because intermediate states are hard to call doesn't mean there isn't a point where we know for sure there is not yet a functioning brain.

And why should "functioning brain" be the criteria for humanity?

You're ignoring the general case: What is it about this or that stage of development, that marks the cut-off for humanity?

Yes it is arbitrary. In criminal law, these kinds of lines are drawn all the time. (For example, the "age of consent". A child doesn't really turn into an adult overnight on their whatever-th birthday.)

This begs the question that the fundamental nature of humanity and the fundamental nature of "adulthood" are the same. That both exist on a sliding scale, evolving from a state where they do not exist in an organism to a state where they do exist.

Personally I think that seeing humanity as an arbitrary state that can be defined according to convenience results in more ethical dilemmas than it solves.

Remember, "murder" has a very specific meaning.

In law, yes. If that's the beginning and end of your argument, then you carried the day some time ago.

If people want to use the term as part of an emotional appeal, they should think about what it actually means.

But I don't want to use the term as part of an emotional appeal, so I fail to see the relevance. You still seem to be using me as a proxy for your disagreements with other people who aren't actually participating in this thread.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I think I showed pretty clearly that cut-offs based on arbitrary neurological criteria do lead to slippery slopes. If you don't have a good reason for choosing one number of neurons over another, then any other number of neurons will do just as well.

You're the one who's saying "neurological sophistication" is the criteria. Okay, fine: How much neurological sophistication? Why not more? Why not less? Why is one trimester better than two? Why are prenatal trimesters better than postnatal decades? Why is ten weeks better than ten days, or ten years?

I disagree. The legal line is drawn at first trimester. That's one of those err-on-the-safe-side lines. It doesn't mean that the day before the second trimester begins there is no person, but the next day there is. It's just that we know safely there is no person up to that point.

It is the same, as I mentioned, with plenty of other legal lines drawn--age of consent, duration of statute of limitation, etc.

I already mentioned the age of consent, so this time I'll use statutes of limitation. It's not as if someone who commits a crime with a statue of limitation of 15 years is still dangerous 14 years and 395 days afterward, but are no longer dangerous 15 years afterwards. We're just assuming they're no big danger by 15 years.

 

[theprestige]

I agree. And that's why I'm questioning the very specific position that "abortion is murder".

I was really hoping we could stay on this point and not turn this into a generic abortion debate.

I think reasonable minds can disagree on whether abortion is morally permissible (which is why the law of the land makes it a choice by the woman up until the end of the first trimester).

However, I don't think the "abortion is murder" position is at all reasonable. I'd like to discuss this point if at all possible.

I recognize that my original argument ("I find it hard to believe") was seriously flawed. I've made several other points showing how "abortion is murder" is inconsistent with the policies and conclusions espoused by those who hold this position.

Hrm. It seems we may be closer to agreement--or at least a good-faith difference of opinion--than I had thought.

I will start over, addressing this post, after your next post (to avoid crossed streams).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're ignoring the general case: What is it about this or that stage of development, that marks the cut-off for humanity?

It doesn't. I agree it's one of those arbitrary legal lines we draw. We don't know of a hard and fast marker for when a fetus becomes a human. Our consensus (as reflected in the law) is that it hasn't happened yet up to the end of the first trimester.

This begs the question that the fundamental nature of humanity and the fundamental nature of "adulthood" are the same. That both exist on a sliding scale, evolving from a state where they do not exist in an organism to a state where they do exist.

Yes, these are both cases where there's no hard and fast line that is true in all cases, so we set one up somewhat arbitrarily that we generally believe is safe.

Personally I think that seeing humanity as an arbitrary state that can be defined according to convenience results in more ethical dilemmas than it solves.

I disagree. I think it makes a conventional standard that can decide the moral dilemmas.

I find drawing the line at "conception" to be much more problematical.

But I don't want to use the term as part of an emotional appeal, so I fail to see the relevance. You still seem to be using me as a proxy for your disagreements with other people who aren't actually participating in this thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but earlier you said that you believe abortion is murder, just not that EVERY abortion is murder.

I don't believe you ever answered my question about how you distinguish which ones are murder and which ones aren't (and the problem of how many of these "murders" are being committed per year).

That's part of the what I'm wanting to look at. If you think abortion is murder, then how is it excusable in cases of rape and incest? In those cases is the fetus somehow NOT a human, but in cases where it's simply an unwanted or inconvenient pregnancy the fetus IS a human?

Also, why not jail the woman who has an abortion?

 

[Cavemonster]

Without wilful intervention, a dead skin cell will never become a viable human being.

Without wilful intervention, a viable first-trimester human will become a viable second-trimester human being.

How does that apply to the act of blocking a sperm at the last second from entering an egg?

Without that willful intervention, that sperm and egg would become a viable second semester human being too. By your definition, does that make that act of sperm blocking a murder?