Abortion plays hell with logic. In a piece in the Boston Globe, Cass Sunstein writes: "As it was written in 1973, Roe v. Wade was far from a model of legal reasoning, and conservatives have been correct to criticize it. The court failed to root the abortion right in either the text of the Constitution or its own precedents." A few paragraphs later, he nevertheless concludes that the bad ruling should be upheld. "Roe v. Wade has been established law for 35 years; the right to choose is now a part of our culture. A decision to overrule it would not only disrupt and polarize the nation; it would also threaten countless doctors, and pregnant women and girls, with jail sentences and criminal fines." A similar glimpse into the innerworkings of abortion logic comes from Camille Paglia, who writes: "I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful." Despite this, Paglia supports a complete right to "murder"--her word--the unborn.

"Roe v. Wade has been established law for 35 years; the right to choose is now a part of our culture. A decision to overrule it would not only disrupt and polarize the nation; it would also threaten countless doctors, and pregnant women and girls, with jail sentences and criminal fines."

Wouldn't that argument have worked just as well in favor of not over turning a decision like Dred Scott ?

I'd find it strange that people would argue in defense of a known bad ruling if there wasn't more to it than that.

But hey, the same sort of tactics are used today by abortions proponents as those used by the slave holders of the past.

Funny how justifications for evil always fall back on the same old set of plays.

Good post Dan.

I am going to share my thoughts on this one, and I am sure that everyone will lash out at me for this, but here goes.

There are several issues involved here.

1) Does the federal government have any business with this issue? I see this very much as a tenth amendment issue, as privacy and similar concerns are not enumerated to the federal government by the Constitution. Therefore this power belongs to the states or "to the people." Whatever happened to "or to the people?"

2) My personal belief is that the soul joins the body at the moment of conception. However, I also firmly believe that per the first amendment, I do not have the right to force my belief system on another. What if someone else's belief or non-belief says that life does not begin until the moment of birth? As an American and a Christian who does not wear a crown of thorns, their beliefs are none of my business.

And now I will anger the liberals...

Since I believe that the soul joins the body at conception, what happens to the souls of aborted babies? I believe that they either go straight to God...or better yet, into the body of a child that is truly wanted and loved by the woman carrying it.

I ask you all...if a woman can murder the life inside of her, just because it is "inconvenient" what kind of mother will she be? Some talk about adoption, but do you think that same woman will take her prenatals and avoid things that might harm that baby? Frankly, that kind of woman should never know the joys of being a parent, she is not worthy.

My judgement on this issue is clouded by my experiences. Mother told me that if abortion had been legal in 1966, I would not have been born.

I was the product of her illicit affair. From the moment I was born, I was loathed by both of my parents. I still have nightmares about being beaten with an old barber's razor strap. I had 4 broken bones and 150 stitches and 4 broken bones by age 7. "Dad" even knocked my gums off before I had my first tooth. Had I been aborted, my childhood might have been better, or I would have been in the arms of the only "Father" that ever loved me...my loving God.

Now then, I have to say that I regret nothing from my youth. Those hard years taught me how to be strong. That strength helped me cope with the illness I now have. They also taught me how to be a good Daddy....for I am a firm believer that the welfare and needs of my kids always come before my own desires. To date, each kid has been spanmked just once, when they were toddlers. The cycle of abuse has been boken (take that you bleeding hearts that think abused kids have an excuse to be rotten adults).

My parents were evil and rotten to the core. Somehow God gave me the strength to deal wih the daily beatings and "Dad" putting his pistol in my mouth.

However, I would not wish that life on anyone. For the sake of those innocent kids, I say let the women "choose." Their children deserve better parents than those selfish turds could ever be.

Be well,

Sponge

It is simply a biological fact that life begins at fertilization. All talk of the "soul" is a red-herring here (human life is the issue -- not the "soul"). All talk of whether or not the developing thing is human is non-sense (what else would it be? a fish, a frog, a salamander? a dog or mushroom?).

Paglia is brilliant and honest: it is murder. Hers is a pagan brutal honesty that simply doesn't care about murdering unwanted and inconvenient people. This is the heart of the cultural and moral divide in this country. If more democrats said this aloud, the democratic party would implode.

Sponge Daddy,

I'm not sure what about your point 1 is supposed to outrage conservatives. All overturning Roe will do is push the issue back to the states, and the people. As it is now, an unelected judicial fiat has constructed a one-size fits all decree that none of the people can be satisfied with. Vast majorities of even the so-called “pro-choice” would choose extensive restrictions on abortion. Overturning Roe sends the issue back to the states, where the people thereof will come up with at least 50 different sets of laws and regulations concerning abortion.

Re: your #2, let me change your statement just slightly and let's see if it sounds as preposterous to you as your original does to me: "I firmly believe that murder is wrong, even if the victim is not a fetus. However, I also firmly believe that per the first amendment, I do not have the right to force my belief system on another. What if someone else's belief or non-belief says that murder is okay? As an American and a Christian who does not wear a crown of thorns, their beliefs are none of my business."

Is a legitimate function of government to prosecute murder, or not? And even if we acknowledge that in most cases that power has not been delegated to the Federal Government, Is a legitimate function of local-level and state-level government to prosecute murder, or not?

As for the rest, I am saddened by your treatment by your parents. But if life begins at conception, then abortion is the equivalent of a parent sticking a gun in your mouth - but pulling the trigger. Your spiritual conjectures - which have no basis in the Scriptures - cannot mitigate that fact. It is not our place to play the Judge and say which life is worth it and which is not. That is for God alone to Judge.

Eric. Points well taken. However, my very stance that the abortion issue is not the business of the federal government angers some who call themselves conservatives.

And I know my thoughts on this issue are a bit out of touch. As I said, my thoughts on this matter are too clouded by my own emotions.

Criticism accepted, and appreciated.

But..what does happen to the souls of aborted babies???

Be well,

Sponge

Sponge,

I don't think we can know with absolute certainty what happens to those little souls. But we can trust in the goodness of our Sovereign Lord.

But we can say for sure that they do not enter "the body of a child that is truly wanted and loved by the woman carrying it," since that would be reincarnation and would presuppose a Gnostic understanding of creation, that soul and body are ultimately separable. Rather, spirit re-unites with body at the final resurrection. We are incarnate creature of our incarnate Lord and Savior.

Further, I do not for a moment believe that it would somehow be better for an aborted soul to be re-incarnated in another body - even if it were into the home of the most loving and wise parents. Much better is to be in the eternal Presence of our Great God and King, who loves perfectly.

So, I say we can't say for certain what happens with these little ones. God is sovereign and righteous in all His decrees, and He has not deigned to reveal this. Nevertheless, from good and necessary consequence we can de-duce their likely destination from Scriptures like Luke 18:16; Matthew 18:14; 1 Timothy 1:15; James 1:27; Revelation 6:10-11 and many others. And that gives me great hope.

Xantippe,

It's not a question of when life begins, but when life acquires certain rights. If you think the right to life begins at conception and that the state has an obligation to protect life beyond this point then that would mean certain kinds of birth control are also "murder."

When life acquires certain rights -- and why it does -- is a moral question and any specific designation is partly arbitrary. Most people don't really believe that humans have an absolute right to life; rights also depend on circumstances and consequences.

If you think the right to life begins at conception and that the state has an obligation to protect life beyond this point then that would mean certain kinds of birth control are also "murder."

True.

Very well,

But the important question -- the devil is always in the details -- is how far do you think the government should go in exercising its power over women who have abortions or couples who use specific forms of birth control? If abortion is murder, should women, doctors and couples who use birth control be charged with murder?

Also imagine this scenario: a 6 month pregnant woman is overhead saying "I need another child like a need another hole in my head," and she then proceeds to play 6 hours of rigorous tennis and then she miscarries. Should the state investigate? Was it intentional or not? How far should the state pry into peoples' personal motivations and conversations?

Dumbest hypothetical ever. (What is "rigorous tennis", BTW?)

The attempt to legitimize the Roe decision via casuistry concerning a troubled mother's miscarriage and her interaction with the state doesn't work.

Fabricated circumstances such as these are aside from the heart of the matter. Under our common legal standards, the inconvenience and/or undesirabilty of a human's life do not confer rights to eliminate that life.

Q: "How far should the state pry into peoples' personal motivations and conversations?"

A: To the extent that those factors unduly detract from the lives and/or well-being of other humans' lives.

The state pries into the motivations and conversations of people on a daily basis, and very deeply, when they endanger or kill other humans; and its determinations routinely amount to the difference between many years in prison and none at all.

Instead, the matter here reverts to the issue of when the life in question is entitled to full human rights. Whether and how far the state intervenes in the protection of such rights is a separate matter altogether.

Eric,

I think your questions are good ones. But I agree with DLH's response otherwise.

All I would add is that via federalism, each locality and state would deal with the issue and the difficult "what if" scenarios differently, in reflection upon community standards. Many cases are cut and dry: partial birth abortion would/should probably be prosecuted in most cases like post-birth infanticide is: as first-degree murder worthy of "20 to life" or even the death penalty. But abortion at different stages in the unborn child's development, and under different circumstances of the mother, will be dealt with in myriad different ways. Consider that other forms of the taking of life are handled differently (first-, second-, third-degree homicide, manslaughter, etc) with consideration to intent, motive, premeditation, form, etc. Presumably, many additional classifications and prescribed penalties will emerge in a post-Roe world.

Also, the practical wisdom of the whether or not and to what degree to prevent or prosecute certain forms of abortion will be in consideration. So, many forms of birth control that work through abortifacient (whether via toxin or mechanical effect) will (or should) be banned. These would/should include the "morning-after" pill, IUDs, and even many of the pills take regularly as "prevention," since many work primarily or secondarily by killing the fertilized egg. And in decidedly odd-ball scenarios like the one you sketch of the tennis-player, they will likely be deemed beyond the practical reach of the law; that is, the cost to society/community in trying to prosecute or prevent such crimes is deemed much higher than the cost of not doing so. (Btw, in most circumstances, excercise - even vigorous exercise - does not truly jeopardize the fetus. And even to the extent it does, it is so far from a fool-proof way of accomplishing the intent that is akin to trying to murder someone by blowing smoke in their face everyday. It may be wrong, and it may occasionally be effective, but come on!)

But in many of these fringe cases, they will be handled through social ostracism, shame, orthodox preaching, etc. Not all crimes and certainly not most sins are nor should be subject to temporal penalty through the justice system.

But many crimes can be practically prosecuted, and should be. Again, the way that will happen will vary from community to community, state to state, and will depend on community standards, circumstances, fetal stage, practicality of delivering punishment or preventions, etc.

Great response, Eric (F. L.)

Eric: "If you think the right to life begins at conception and that the state has an obligation to protect life beyond this point then that would mean certain kinds of birth control are also "murder.""

Not only is this sentence false, it is simply nonsense. If conception has happened then human life has started and it is too late for contraception.

Eric Wilds: You say, "It's not a question of when life begins, but when life acquires certain rights."

False. It isn't about "rights" at all, but about wrongs. It is always wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life.

We don't need to appeal to some confused superstitutious notion of soul or to some special moment where the human gets annointed with "rights", we just need to ask: is it alive, is it human? -- and if the answer is "yes," then it is obvious that killing it is wrong.

xantippe,

As I mention in my previous comment, many forms of "birth control" work through abortifacient. So Eric Wild's statement was valid.

I agree with your statement about "wrongs."

Hi, Eric L: I assumed that Eric W. was talking about the so called "emergency contraception" -- which is simply sinisterly misnamed since it is mostly a form of abortion. It shouldn't be called birth control at all, since that phrase connotes contraception. Regarding the pill, it does contracept most of the time, fails some of the time, and kills some of the time. Should it be called birth control or murder? If someone took it knowing that it is also sometimes an abortifacient, and a killing happened, that would be murder, in some sense. Prolife people shouldn't be taking the pill.

My objection is to Eric saying that simply because we normally call something "birth control" it is absurd to classify it as murder. His point shouldn't make us lighter on post-conception "birth control" but harder on it.

Xantippe,

"False. It isn't about 'rights' at all, but about wrongs. It is always wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life."

If you think it's wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life that's only because innocent human life has a right not be killed. Most people can accept killing animals because no one thinks animals have rights, at least not in the way humans do.

Besides, do you really believe it is always wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life? This would imply every war we've been in from Iraq to WWI has been wrong because it's involved the killing of innocent human life. There are a few people who think like this -- Leo Tolstoy -- but I don't regard it as universal ethic or even a mainstream Christian norm.

Moreover, there is also the question of whether a fertilized egg is human -- perhaps it's a potential human -- but it's not human in that it doesn't yet embody a human nature.

Besides, do you really believe it is always wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life? This would imply every war we've been in from Iraq to WWI has been wrong because it's involved the killing of innocent human life.

Eric, the key word there was intentional. Though I would argue there is culpability in being too nonchalant about "collateral damage," too. The concept of Just War has, unfortunately, been stretched to a point that would be unrecognizable by our medieval forebears who coined the doctrine.

Moreover, there is also the question of whether a fertilized egg is human -- perhaps it's a potential human -- but it's not human in that it doesn't yet embody a human nature.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. The fertilized egg has 100% of the genetic components he or she will ever have. It is alive, not dead. Any argument about size, location, consciousness, mobility, etc. can be similarly used to dehumanize humans at various other stages of life, too; so those lack the force of logic. So, if you are to deny the fertilized egg has a human nature you are either engaging in illogic (iow: nonsense), or you are stealthily importing your own spiritual conjectures.

Sorry: ...the key word there was "intentional".

Eric W.: I think that you are making a few unwarrented philosophical assumptions, aided by a bit of ignorance of philosophical history.

The concept of rights is not needed for some actions being good or bad, just or unjust, noble or shameful. In the history of ethics, most philosophers do not speak of rights, and in the cultural history of morality most cultures don't fetishize rights as the primary moral concept. That legacy is a radicalization of something we Western moderns inherited from the Roman (esp. Roman Catholic) tradition of (esp. canon) legal practice. Even if you want to say (as a matter of definition, which is your right) that in order for something to be wrong it must imply a corresponding right, then I will simply deny your earlier premise. Rights in that sense don't need to be "acquired" at any time; they could be built into humanness. So the question would still go back to: when does human life begin?

Regarding whether or not the embryo is human rather than a potential human: a little history of embryology might help here, but there isn't much space. Needless to say, this was a popular view, even among anti-abortion Christian philosophers/theologians/scientists for about one and a half millenia. It is no longer tenable given the discovery of the human ovum and the process of fertilization in the 1820s, and even more so after the discovery of "genes" or DNA and the life-activities (esp., nutrition and self-organization) that belong to the zygote immediately upon fertilization.

Eric "So, if you are to deny the fertilized egg has a human nature you are either engaging in illogic (iow: nonsense), or you are stealthily importing your own spiritual conjectures."

Using Aristotle's language we can say that a fertilized egg is human in "potentiality," but not in "act." If we take Aristotle's view of human nature -- man is a political animal -- would it make any sense to apply this definition to a fertilized egg?

Xantippe, I agree with you about rights, but if you think rights are just a distraction then what moral/philosophical basis are you referencing to say that abortion -- right after fertilization -- is wrong? It's true that most other cultures haven't developed the concept of rights, but I also don't think any -- or very few -- have thought abortion, even in its earliest stages, to be a categorical wrong.

Even if we could answer the question of when "human life begins," that still hasn't settled the issue, because you're still trying to leap over the "naturalistic fallacy" -- no 'is' implies an 'ought.' Whether or nor a fertilized egg is a potential human or just human is partly a semantic argument, but this doesn't change the fact that there are qualitative differences between an adult human and a fertilized egg and that we should therefore accord them different moral standing.

I imagine you're thinking that because there is continuity between an adult human and a fertilized egg that whatever rules or laws or ethics we apply to an adult human we should also apply to a fertilized egg. But I don't think this is right. Continuity doesn't preclude significant change and ethical rules should take these changes into account.

Other non- or "potential" humans, according to Aristotle Wilds: all babies born and yet-to-be-born, all infants, all toddlers, all young children, all pre-teens, all teenagers (until they turn 18, perhaps?), everyone in a coma, all Down's Syndrome and mentally-handicapped individuals, all Helen Keller-types-at least until they aquire the skills she did, everyone intentionally apolitical.

Yours is a case of specail pleading, which has nothing going for it other than subjective preference. Biology and genetics, and much more, though, rule against you.

And yes, I was being intentionally tongue-in-cheek in pulling that list together. But the point itself is a serious one.

Eric W.: I think you are misunderstanding Aristotle's philosophical biology. It is not right to say that an infant is not human because it is bot yet political (or linguistic or reasonable). Soul is first act/second potency of the body -- not full act. Now empirical details of Aristotle's embryology are outdated and wrong, but using his principles, clearly biologically life begins at "conception" (form "taking hold" of matter) and that for us means fertilization. (Of course life begins at conception, the quesion is when that happens, and ever since the discover of fertilization, that has been biologically identified with fertilization.)

Now do children need to be treated the same as adults? No. Do zygotes need to be treated like adults? No. Do you need to treat every stranger as a friend and ever man like your husband? No. But insofar as they are alive and human they are all capable of being mistreated in certain ways. In all cases, intentional killing of innocent humans is wrong. No you can go pagan on us, who aren't squeemish about killing infants, etc. But I won't go there.

And this isn't at all the so-called naturalistic fallacy. I was assuming that intentionally killing innocent human life is wrong. Let's just put that up as a civic axiom. People who won't grant me that can be philosophical interlocutors with me of course -- everything is up for grabs-- but I don't want them to be fellow citizens.

My point is that regardless of how you define human -- or human nature -- it's difficult to apply that definition to a fertilized egg. We may say that humans are 'rational animals,' that is rationality is the specific difference that distinguishes us from the other animals, but again that wouldn't apply to a zygote.

I think pro-lifers prove my point better than anyone because they never argue that women (and men) who use a certain form of birth control should be charged with murder. And even for later stage abortions no one argues that we should bring the woman and doctor up on charges of murder. Of course this doesn't mean that abortion should be allowed or that there should not be some penalties for women who seek abortion, but it does show that we all recognize a difference between an embryo and an adult human.

I don't think animals have rights but that doesn't also imply I think it's permissible for people to torture animals either; or that cruelty to animals should not be punished.

That said, I think Roe should be overturned since it's bad Constitutional law and the politics of abortion should be returned to the states.

Hmmmmm... It seemed at least one pro-lifer disproved your point on September 16, 2008 at 10:29 AM. And the notion that an unborn child, even in its first moments after conception, is somehow sub-human, has been shown to be false - according to biology, genetics, etc. - in a few places and by at least two pro-lifers.

But we wouldn't want the record to get in the way of an assumed presupposition, now would we?

I recognize that life begins at conception. That point is not in dispute. But you're making the case that because life begins at conception that the state should protect that life and impose the same penalties on anyone who injures that life as though it were an adult human. There are a lot of 'oughts' you've drawn from this 'is'.

Moreover, you acknowledge that your 'civic axiom' isn't reflective of 'human life, but 'innocent human life.' So you're conceding that your axiom isn't a scientific term, but a judgmental one, and this just raises the question of what life is innocent and what life isn't?

Is it always wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life? Would it have been wrong for U.S. fighters to shoot down the planes that hit the World Trade towers? This would be the intentional killing of innocent human life, but I think a strong case can made for it.

Likewise, assume you knew that someone in a building was going to detonate an atomic weapon, but didn't know exactly who? Would it be justifiable to kill everyone in the building -- one guilty and perhaps hundreds of innocents? I think so.

Morality certainly "feels" categorical, but declarations that 'this is always right,' and 'that is always wrong,' don't help us in navigating complicated moral questions.

I've never characterized an unborn child as "sub-human."

Eric W: I think you have been unfair in this debate in several ways. You deny that a zygote is a living human, but then you say that whether life starts at conception is not in dispute. You admit that the living thing doesn't actually need to be able to reason right now to be human (rather than subhuman), but then you say that because it cannot yet reason the developing human (zygote) isn't human. (It's alive, but neither human nor subhuman? I am confused as to your view.) You have then accused me of the naturalistic fallacy but then deny me the premise that it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life because it is normative ("judgmental") instead of "scientific." Moreover, you ignore, though I assume you are aware, of the very long and well-developed moral traditions that have tried to distinguish between intentional and accidental killing. Moreover, I did not at all say that the punishment for abortion by the morning after pill should be the same as that for strangling your mother in her sleep for her penny jar so that you can buy tonight's meth. I have said nothing at all about punishment. We punish different unjust killings differently.

The only important point here: biologically human life begins at conception and intentional killing of innocent human life is always wrong. It is not clear to me, now, whether you actually disagree or agree with these two claims.

Xan,

"You deny that a zygote is a living human, but then you say that whether life starts at conception is not in dispute."

You're not paying attention. I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to say that a zygote is a 'living human.' My point is that a zygote is fundamentally different from an adult human and that whatever rules or ethics we apply to zygote shouldn't necessarily apply to an adult human.

"You admit that the living thing doesn't actually need to be able to reason right now to be human (rather than subhuman), but then you say that because it cannot yet reason the developing human (zygote) isn't human."

Again, we can call a zygote 'human,' but that doesn't change the fact that there are profound differences between a zygote and an adult human. Should these differences imply different ethical rules? Everyone seems to think so. That's my point.

I have never used the term 'sub-human.' That's your imagination.

"You have then accused me of the naturalistic fallacy but then deny me the premise that it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life because it is normative ("judgmental") instead of "scientific."

If you want to argue that it's wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life then you are making a value judgment, not a scientific one. The term 'innocent' belongs to the realm of ethics; not science.

"Moreover, you ignore, though I assume you are aware, of the very long and well-developed moral traditions that have tried to distinguish between intentional and accidental killing."

Yes, I understand this distinction.

"The only important point here: biologically human life begins at conception and intentional killing of innocent human life is always wrong. It is not clear to me, now, whether you actually disagree or agree with these two claims."

I agree with your first point, but I can't say I support any categorical claim that something is ALWAYS wrong. But I think I agree with it more than most. Do most Americans think dropping the atom bomb on Japan was wrong? Do most think the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were wrong? No. Empirically speaking, the fact that it's wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life is a minority opinion.

Do most Americans think dropping the atom bomb on Japan was wrong? Do most think the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were wrong? No. Empirically speaking, the fact that it's wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life is a minority opinion.

Fundamental morality is not determined by plebicite. Mores are.

And what is a "potential human" than something less than human; i.e. "sub-human" ?

But glad you have given up that illogical distinction.

Eric: you did say this: "My point is that regardless of how you define human -- or human nature -- it's difficult to apply that definition to a fertilized egg. We may say that humans are 'rational animals,' that is rationality is the specific difference that distinguishes us from the other animals, but again that wouldn't apply to a zygote." You can disown it, but not deny that you said it.

Moreover, I'm allowed to make value judgments or normative claims when I'm arguing for a normative claim. To do so is not to commit the naturalistic fallacy but to avoid it. And I didn't claim that science alone settles the issue of whether abortion is wrong; I only claimed that knowing the biological science tells us when life beings, and that is at conception. This, is conjunction with the very widely held belief that it is wrong to kill innocent human life makes the pro-life position very strong philosophically. We can argue about double effect (what does "intention" mean?) and arial bombing, but please don't pretend like (1) it is obvious that arial bombing of civilian targets is a no-brainer regarding moral acceptability, or that (2) it is easy to evaluate arial bombing of mixed civilian/military targets using the double effect principle.

Your punishment argument is just a red-herring. I have never suggested punishing all killings or even murders the same, in fact I have explicitly rejected that view, and most prolifers simply don't discuss punishment because their primary point is to simply stop Roe, and sort out the details later.

It now seems that you disagree with the pro-life position on only one point: you don't think it is always wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life. I think if more pro-choicers were more honest that they think this then the prolife position would become a lot more popular.

Xantippe,

Sure, I said that, but you're not understanding my point. I also wrote, "Whether or not a fertilized egg is a potential human or just human is partly a semantic argument, but this doesn't change the fact that there are qualitative differences between an adult human and a fertilized egg and that we should therefore accord them different moral standing."

If you want to call a zygote human that's fine but you shouldn't let the distinction end there. There are differences between a zygote and an adult human and the conventional definitions we use to define human -- man is a political animal, man is rational animal, man acts etc -- would not apply to a zygote. And since there are differences between a zygote and an adult human, why not recognize these differences linguistically and ethically?

"This, is conjunction with the very widely held belief that it is wrong to kill innocent human life makes the pro-life position very strong philosophically."

I don't consider it a very widely held belief that it is wrong to kill innocent human life. In fact, I think most people (even pro-lifers) would not agree with it. If we were to poll the pro-life community in the United States would the majority be against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Would they all agree that dropping the atom bomb on Japan was wrong? I don't think so.

You never bothered to answer my questions. On September 11th would it have been wrong for a U.S. fighter pilot to shoot down the flights headed toward the World Trade towers? My guess is that most people would accept the killing of the innocents on board in order to save even more lives.

"We can argue about double effect (what does "intention" mean?) and arial bombing, but please don't pretend like (1) it is obvious that arial bombing of civilian targets is a no-brainer regarding moral acceptability..."

It's a 'no-brainer' if you think it's wrong to deliberately kill innocent human life. However, I doubt even you really agree with what you're saying.

"...and most prolifers simply don't discuss punishment because their primary point is to simply stop Roe, and sort out the details later."

Most pro-lifers don't discuss punishment because a) they don't want to make their cause even less popular and b) they simply haven't thought through the implications of their principles.

It's likely that I am too late to this discussion, but I'll comment anyway. I don't have much to add to X's correct criticism of Eric W's position. As she simply puts it, the biological fact that human life begins at conception, together with the normal belief that it is always wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life, does place the pro-life position on strong ethical ground.

In reply to this, Eric W writes, "man is a political animal, man is rational animal, man acts etc -- would not apply to a zygote." Neither would these apply to a newborn. Is it your position that it is ethically permissible to intentionally kill a newborn human? And if not, what, in this regard, differentiates a newborn from a zygote?

Excatly right, Ralph. And it also applies to those in a coma, and many, many others, as I pointed out many comments ago.

Eric, you don't think I believe what I'm saying . . . Okay. Sorry. But I'll guarantee you that I'm not the type of person who, when engaged in discussions of important ethical issues, misrepresents what I judge, after consideration, to be the likely truth.

When you say, that the wrongness of arial bombing is "a 'no-brainer' if you think it's wrong to deliberately kill innocent human life" you betray that you have not given thought to the claims of double effect, or thought through the question of what "intentionally" or "deliberately" means here. You may reject the double effect principle -- lots of people do, I can see why. But your entire discussion of arial bombing and your attempt to show that most people believe it's okay to intentionally kill innocent people shows you aren't familiar enough with your opponents' views to attack them. The crucial issue is whether one can foresee an action's outcome without intending it. This issue--a very prominent issue re: just war--doesn't apply to the vast majority of abortions that occur.

I think if you were to take a poll of Americans and ask "Is it wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life?", around 97% would say yes. Yes, this is mostly an unthought-out belief.

Xantippe,

"When you say, that the wrongness of arial bombing is "a 'no-brainer' if you think it's wrong to deliberately kill innocent human life" you betray that you have not given thought to the claims of double effect, or thought through the question of what 'intentionally' or 'deliberately' means here."

I'm referring to cases of aerial bombing of civilian targets e.g. Dresden, Japan etc. Most Americans accept this precisely because they don't agree with the idea that it's intentionally wrong to kill innocent human life.

If you think a moral case can be made for deliberately killing innocent human life in war I'd like to hear it. Just throwing out the 'double effect' doesn't really answer anything.

"The crucial issue is whether one can foresee an action's outcome without intending it."

You're not clear about what happens when an atomic or nuclear weapon is detonated in a civilian area? Is that your defense?

"I think if you were to take a poll of Americans and ask 'Is it wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life?', around 97% would say yes. Yes, this is mostly an unthought-out belief."

I agree with this, but don't see the significance of it because you can always word questions in different ways and get different answers. People contradict themselves all the time. Republican pollster Frank Luntz once asked someone a question about immigration and got the person to give totally contradictory answers. The point is that most Americans -- or any people -- wouldn't, in practice, follow the premise that it's always wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life. Maybe Quakers, Tolstoyites, and few Zoroastrians would, but it's a vanishingly small minority.

Ralph,

"As she simply puts it, the biological fact that human life begins at conception, together with the normal belief that it is always wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life, does place the pro-life position on strong ethical ground."

Scientifically, it's true that human life begins at conception, but that still doesn't answer the question of what values or ethics we should apply to this life versus the life of an adult human. Your ethical case that it's always wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life is not normal. As I've shown, it's held -- in practice -- by only a small minority.

"Neither would these apply to a newborn. Is it your position that it is ethically permissible to intentionally kill a newborn human? And if not, what, in this regard, differentiates a newborn from a zygote?"

Entirely true that it would not apply to a newborn, and that's because a newborn has yet to realize his full human nature. But that's doesn't imply the state should not protect the life of a newborn. A newborn is still fundamentally different from a zygote -- it's a developed human, with a heart, brain, and other functions. It has the full form of a human and it's sentient and can begin to think and learn. None of this apples to a zygote.

But again, I'm not saying anything that the pro-life community doesn't believe. No one -- or very few -- in the pro-life community believes a woman who 'aborts' a zygote should suffer the same criminal penalty as someone who murders another adult human. So even they recognize a sliding scale of value between a zygote and an adult human.

Eric: (1) You don't understand the principle of double effect. But that is for an argument regarding just conduct of war. (2) You're idea of "empirical belief" seems a little queer to me. The fact that most people tell lies occasionally doesn't mean that they don't think it is wrong to lie, e.g. Most people recognize that they err morally. I think incontinence is possible. More than that, I think it is possible to not understand the consequences of one's beliefs. Action is importantly related to belief, but it isn't as easy as you are making it out. (3) Again, to return to the issue of punishment is a red-herring. No one here has suggested equality of punishment for all intentional killings of innocent human life. The issue isn't, yet, how wrong and how would it be most appropriately prevented and punished, but whether it is wrong at all to intentionally kill a living human in utero.

That you self-consciously admit it is living and human and yet say there is nothing wrong with killing it intentionally is an acceptable view, philosophically, but you have put yourself in an extreme minority in American civil life.

Xantippe,

I understand the 'principle of double effect,' and it just doesn't apply to the doctrine of just war, unless you are using it in an unusual and idiosyncratic way. If you understand this 'principle' then please feel free to elaborate on it and tell me why you think it's acceptable to deliberately kill innocent human life during a war.

"The fact that most people tell lies occasionally doesn't mean that they don't think it is wrong to lie, e.g. Most people recognize that they err morally. I think incontinence is possible."

Okay, this isn't a good ana-logy of the point I'm making. I know that people often fail to live up to their ideals and will readily admit this. However, I'm suggesting something different; and that is that in practice most people don't always believe it's wrong to kill innocent human life. They aren't failing to live up to any ideal; they just disagree with the idea.

"Again, to return to the issue of punishment is a red-herring. No one here has suggested equality of punishment for all intentional killings of innocent human life."

Like Aristotle said, you treat equal people equally and unequal people unequally. No one argues for equal punishment because they don't regard the fetus /or zygote as being equal to an adult human.

"That you self-consciously admit it is living and human and yet say there is nothing wrong with killing it intentionally is an acceptable view, philosophically, but you have put yourself in an extreme minority in American civil life."

Most Americans -- and in this Americans are no exception -- have no trouble killing innocent human life all the time -- Germans, Japanese, Arabs, Russians, Muslims etc.

"A newborn is still fundamentally different from a zygote -- it's a developed human, with a heart, brain, and other functions. It has the full form of a human and it's sentient and can begin to think and learn. None of this apples to a zygote."

Does the absence of a heart make it permissible to kill a zygote, while the presence of a heart makes it impermissible to kill a newborn? Why? What about a heart is ethically significant? The same set of questions can be asked about a brain.

The addition of "and other functions" suggests that you weren't really interested in the organs, but in the functions they make possible. Is the function of pumping blood ethically significant? Perhaps you think the functions made possible by the brain are what ethically distinguishes the newborn from the zygote. But which functions? The brain is involved in nutritive functions, but the zygote also engages in nutrition and growth. Despite you claim that the newborn can "begin" to think and learn, in the minute after birth it cannot function rationally (it cannot think theoretically or practically). Certainly the newborn has human form, but so does the zygote (what other form would it have). This brings us to sense-perception. The newborn's sense-organs function, whereas the zygote doesn't have sense-organs (though at a later stage of pregnancy, unborn children do have functioning sense-organs). Is this the ethical divide between the newborn and zygote? The former can hear noises, while the latter cannot? What sort of argument can you provide to persuade me that the presence of sense-perception is what makes it wrong to kill a newborn? That is, what's so special (ethically speaking) about sense-perception? Insects have sense-perception. Is the killing of an insect ethically on a par with the killing of a newborn human? If not, why not?

Eric:

Re: The Principle of Double Effect
First, I have consistently held here that it is never just to intentionally kill innocent life. The fact that you frame the question that way betrays either a misunderstanding of the p.d.e. or a willful misrepresentation of my position. I just don't think you have done your homework here, because the principle of double effect most definitely applies to the just conduct of war.

There is a difference between deliberately killing innocent people and deliberately doing something that you know will also kill innocent people. The first is never acceptable. The second may be acceptable sometimes, according to the principle of duoble effect. Now, you can reject the principle and deny the distinction if you please, but you can't accuse me of inconstistency here because I buy the distinction.

I think that a lot of the bombing that has been normal in war for the last 100 years is morally unacceptable, under the principle of double effect, either because sometimes the death of civilians is aimed for, or because the cost in civilian life is out of proportion to the military victory gained. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible to bomb legitimately military targets, to do so knowing that some civilians will die, and yet not intend the death of the civilians.

You are claiming that because most people don't object to modern military bombing strategy they must believe it is morally okay to intentionally kill innocent human life. I don't quite think so. It is, generally, a matter of scandal when the military is accused of targeting civilians. What is not objected to is "collateral damage." Generally such collateral damage is, imo, out of proportion to the military good acheived, but still, that is the distinction at the heart of the principle, and I suspect that most people buy it, in a kind of vague way.

Re: Equality and the question of punishment
Why talk about "equality"? A child is not equal to an adult. A husband to a boyfriend. A mother at home in bed to a homeless man on meth trespassing in your backyard. Me to the president. There are many factors that make us "unequal," and many of them will be relevant when sentencing our killers.

Xantippe,

"I just don't think you have done your homework here, because the principle of double effect most definitely applies to the just conduct of war."

I know it applies to the question concerning a 'just war,' but it doesn't JUST apply to the doctrine of just war. It's applicable on many moral issues.

"There is a difference between deliberately killing innocent people and deliberately doing something that you know will also kill innocent people. The first is never acceptable. The second may be acceptable sometimes, according to the principle of duoble effect."

Well, this really doesn't tell me much. First if you think there are circumstances in which it's acceptable to 'do something' that will result in the deaths of innocent human life, then you are conceding that innocent human isn't inviolable, and that circumstances, not categorical rules, matter.

"Now, you can reject the principle and deny the distinction if you please, but you can't accuse me of inconstistency here because I buy the distinction."

Yes, I do acknowledge the distinction, and this reaffirms the point I've been making: innocent human life isn't inviolable.

"Nevertheless, it is certainly possible to bomb legitimately military targets, to do so knowing that some civilians will die, and yet not intend the death of the civilians."

This is really just a muddle. You accept the fact that it's wrong to intentionally kill innocent human life, but now your definition of 'innocent,' is just a formal / legal one i.e. you seem to accept the fact that anything 'military' is not innocent, and all civilian targets are 'innocent.' But why piggyback your ethical definition of 'innocent human life' on a mere legal formality of modern warfare? This just begs the question because you've never bothered to explain what makes life innocent or not innocent.

Is someone who was conscripted into the military and works as a cook at a military base not innocent? Is a civilian who works in a factory that produces armaments innocent?

Likewise, on the question of abortion, one could just accept the current legal definition that the fetus / embryo / zygote isn't a human and therefore it's permissible to kill it. But these legal distinctions don't resolve the ethical question regarding why it's acceptable to terminate a fetus.

"You are claiming that because most people don't object to modern military bombing strategy they must believe it is morally okay to intentionally kill innocent human life. I don't quite think so."

I think so and here's the evidence.

Majority Supports Use of Atomic Bomb on Japan in WWII

http://www.gallup.com/poll/17677/Majority-Supports-Use-Atomic-Bomb-Japan-WWII.aspx

"Does the absence of a heart make it permissible to kill a zygote, while the presence of a heart makes it impermissible to kill a newborn? Why? What about a heart is ethically significant? The same set of questions can be asked about a brain."

My point isn't that there is a specific biological organ or function that is ethically significant. What matters is that a newborn -- along a whole range of things -- is qualitatively different from a zygote. And if a zygote -- or even a newborn -- was the limit of human nature then naturally no one would think killing a zygote or a newborn would be wrong. In fact, there would no idea of morality at all.

But a newborn is much closer to being a fully realized human than a zygote, not to mention parents feel a much stronger connection to a newborn than a fertilized egg, and this is why it makes sense to accord newborn certain protections that you wouldn't afford to a zygote.

The pro-life community -- whether it wants to admit or not -- recognizes these distinctions as well, which is why they aren't demanding capital punishment for women who use birth control.

Eric W,

No one will deny that the zygote and newborn are different (e.g., the newborn has eyes, the zygote does not). You concede that none of these differences, considered by itself, is ethically significant. However, you seem to be claiming that the sum of these differences is ethically significant. That is, you seem to be claiming that it the relevant difference between the zygote and newborn is quantitative rather than qualitative. I have a few questions about this claim. How many differences need to be accumulated before it is wrong to kill a human organism? Does it matter at all which differences accumulate, or is the number itself all that's relevant?

You add (the non sequitur), "if a zygote -- or even a newborn -- was the limit of human nature then naturally no one would think killing a zygote or a newborn would be wrong." Leaving aside the misuse of "nature here" (you seem to have development in mind), the implication is that it is wrong to kill a newborn because it will become an adult. Notice, however, that the same logic makes it wrong to kill a zygote.

Your comment about the emotional attachment of parents is irrelevant, as is your comment about punishment (see X's remarks about red herrings).

Eric: You move from my claim that it is sometimes okay to do something that results in, among other things, the death of an innocent human life, to the claim that for me innocent human life isn't inviolable, to the claim that I think it is okay to sometimes kill innocent human life and that my position is a "muddle."

Though you also insist that you understand and accept the distinction at the heart of the double effect principle between foreseeing an outcome and intending it, it is clear that you don't. You are proabably the type who simply doesn't buy the distinction and the moral principle it allows. Okay. I disagree.

The debate about "innocence" would be interesting, but like the debate about how the PDE applies to the just conduct of war, this would be a red-herring. The PDE isn't relevent to the vast majority of abortions, which are intentional. No matter what definition of "innocent" we use here (short of being free from original sin and its accompanying curse of mortality and pain), the unborn child will be innocent.

Regarding the atomic bomb: yes, it is very troubling, and the approval of it, largely having to do with patriotism and a natural American pragmatism and a tendency to villify the enemy during war, is also troubling to me. Nevertheless, it is still somehow always a scandal when the army attacks, or is accuse of attacking, non-combatants. That is significant, too.

"You move from my claim that it is sometimes okay to do something that results in, among other things, the death of an innocent human life, to the claim that for me innocent human life isn't inviolable, to the claim that I think it is okay to sometimes kill innocent human life and that my position is a 'muddle.'"

Well, look at it this way. If you think that it's acceptable to 'do something' that will result in the death of 'innocent human life,' then you are arguing that the ethics in question comes from the intention of the agent and not from the ontological status of the 'innocent human life.' So again, you are conceding that 'innocent human life' doesn't have an inviolable right to be protected from harm.

"You are proabably the type who simply doesn't buy the distinction and the moral principle it allows. Okay. I disagree."

You're being very vague here. Why not apply this rule to a concrete situation, and let's take the debate around whether it was acceptable to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. Use the PDE to explain its morality.

"The debate about 'innocence' would be interesting, but like the debate about how the PDE applies to the just conduct of war, this would be a red-herring."

Not really. Since you accept the fact that it is wrong to kill 'innocent human life,' you need to explain what makes life innocent. I suppose someone could argue that a fetus isn't 'innocent,' because it imposes hardships on a woman. Or because it has the possibility of endangering her health. Likewise someone may claim that anyone not 'with us' is 'against us,' a la President Bush, and that anyone who doesn't support the War on Terror isn't innocent. I suppose your definition of 'innocence' is just a word that reflects your own subjective whims.

"The PDE isn't relevent to the vast majority of abortions, which are intentional."

A woman could just argue that her intention is not to put on any weight, and naturally this will include terminating her pregnancy, but that's just necessary to prevent any weight gain.

Ralph,

"However, you seem to be claiming that the sum of these differences is ethically significant."

The difference is qualitative with plus and minus not being applicable to it.

"That is, you seem to be claiming that it the relevant difference between the zygote and newborn is quantitative rather than qualitative."

It's both, but the difference that matters is the qualitative difference. Of course the problem is that when we try and draw qualitative differences where there is no quantitative difference we introduce an arbitrary element.

"Does it matter at all which differences accumulate, or is the number itself all that's relevant?"

Again, numbers don't apply to qualities. Customarily we use numbers to draw lines between certain qualities, but these are partly and inherently arbitrary.

"the implication is that it is wrong to kill a newborn because it will become an adult. Notice, however, that the same logic makes it wrong to kill a zygote."

Yes, but as I've said before a newborn is still qualitatively different from a zygote, and it's closer to realizing its full human nature than a zygote. They aren't equal, so why we should we treat them as though they are?

"Your comment about the emotional attachment of parents is irrelevant, as is your comment about punishment..."

It's not irrelevant, but proves my point. The reason parents -- and even pro-lifers -- don't consider birth control to be the equivalent of infanticide is precisely because they recognize a qualitative distinction between a zygote and a newborn.

"The difference that matters is the qualitative difference."

Which qualitative difference, and why does it matter? I think you argee that, e.g., having a heart or the capacity for sense-perception is not sufficient to ethically distinguish the newborn from the zygote. You seem to be claiming (though it's hard to tell), that all of the qualitative differences together ethically distinguish the newborn from the zygote. So separately the differences aren't ethically significant, but taken jointly they are (and curiously, you don't see the quantitative nature of this claim). But why? Why is it wrong to kill an organism that has a heart, a brain, the capacity for sense-perception, etc., but it is not wrong to kill a zygote? My sense is that you want to beg the question by answering: Because the former has a heart, a brain, the capacity for sense-perception, etc. But that won't do.

Your other (separate) claim, viz., that it is more wrong to kill a newborn because it is 'closer' to an adult, entails the monstrous position that it's less wrong to kill a newborn than an adult. If your willing to defend that position, then you're not in need of argument but of training. I'm happy to let my position stand or fall with the obvious fact that intentionally killing a newborn is as evil as intentionally killing an innocent adult.