Legislating morality, Kerry-style

Remove all ads!

Chandos warns me that I've entered into Falwell-Robertson territory. I think this will dig the grave deeper still...

Um...the Founding Fathers did come from English stock...where warmongering Queen Elizabeth was seen as one of the greatest rulers England had yet known.

Interestingly, although some of the Founding Fathers accepted slavery, none of them held it was OK to kill them for reasons of convenience, career, or cost.

I think you mean that pro-lifers are "deceived", not "dishonest" - unless the pro-lifers know very well that we don't have souls but lie about it to trick the opposition.

I assume your argument is thus:

1) Humans don't have souls.
2) Humans invent the idea of a soul because they suffer and die.
3) Because a fetus doesn't have a soul, it can be killed.
4) Because a fetus doesn't have a soul, it is immoral and irrational to prevent a woman from killing it because "it is a potential deteriment to her life".

Questions:

- If #1 and #3 are true, then who's to say we aren't allowed to kill ANYONE? After all, none of us have souls. All of us, whether big or small, is just a clump of conscious cells. We're just atoms. Someday we'll be buried and get eaten by earthworms, and our atoms will be devoted to some other object - other people, animals, buildings, dirt, whatever. What rational reason can you give to not permit the killing of all humans?

- If #4 is true, if a woman may kill her child as "a potential detriment to her life", may she also euthanize her elderly parents if they prove "a potential detriment to her life"?

- If you grant that there are reasons not to permit the killing of any and all humans, then you must also grant that there are reasons beyond mere imagination to support preserving life. Oh, but wait...

So you criticize pro-lifers for relying on "hugs and chocolate" imagination to seek to preserve the lives of children...and yet judge the value of a human life based upon it having "hopes and dreams".

I think humans have value beyond effervescent "hopes and dreams" - that is, their imagination. But that's only because, in my turn, I believe it's truly immoral for others to dictate THEIR irrational imagination upon the real life of a baby.

Oh, wait...

I think I'm coping well. But then again, I am building my house upon a pretty shaky foundation - the idea that humans have value, soul or no soul, and should not be idly killed. What wild imagination!

 

Probably because most of us do not consider eachother to be just clump of cells without any brains which I atleast consider to be that which makes us human. A fetus has no developed brain and is not able to think nor is it aware of its own existance therefore it is not human. The fetus is not "holier" than animals it is in fact less than animals until a certain point of development it might even be considered something like a chicken egg.

This might sound awfully coldhearted, but it's late and I'm tired so forgive me. I'll come back once I've had some sleep to see if my words need some editing

 

That's cool, Morgoroth...I talk in my sleep all the time

In reference to you comments about a human fetus being less than the animals...I again must direct your attention to a link I posted earlier, but likely got lost in the shuffle.

Look at this , and tell me if a 12 week fetus is a "clump of cells". If you truly can, then I fear for anyone whom you determine to be "not useful for society"...sound familiar?

 

Abortion as we think of it today is just an early step in the evolution of a process to terminate an unintendend pregnancy. As technology progresses the process that we have labeled abortion will most likely cease to exist, being replaced by something else.

Additionally, before you can say that something is alive from conception, you have to define what it means to be alive in the sense of your argument.

Thirdly, you have to consider the context of what surrounds an abortion. Most times the mother isn't capable of taking care of the child in the first place, and would most likely bring the child into a horrible environment. Aborting the fetus early on is probably preferable to the enormous psychological and emotional damage that is going to occur during the child's life.

Once again, you have to define what it means to be alive. A fetus isn't experiencing or learning, and it doesn't have a personality. It is a group of dividing cells, but doesn't actually exhibit any behavior of being alive as we think of it.

Lastly, in the post 9/11 world in which the Bush Administration has caused so much damage to their own country and the rest of the world, voting against Kerry because of an issue as insignificant as abortion right now would be a tragedy. I have never been more afraid for the human race as after seeing the horrible things Bush has done.

 

You know, I had not considered this. Eventually, due to technology, an unwanted pregnancy in an afluent society will probably become almost unheard of. Excellent foresight...

 

I am not nearly as educated on all of the data so many people have presented here, but I will say something that I don't believe has been mentioned. Edmund Burke, I believe, wrote a letter to his constituants(sic) in England telling them that when they elected him, they elected his judgement; they didn't elect him to merely parrot their opinions, and that if they didn't like his judgement, they were free to elect another person. That is where my problem lies with present day democracies -- very few politicians will step forward with a clearly defined platform; they will always hedge so as not to alienate particular groups, and they all end up looking quite similar.

The second thing I want to bring up may take this thread in a whole different direction, and that is the whole "separation of church and state" issue. I'm not an expert on Calvin, Presbyterianism, or even the American Constitution, but my understanding of this phrase is that it prohibits one particular religious group from hijacking the political course of the nation -- that is, one particular religious group taking control of the government and eliminating the rights of other religious groups

Now, there is a feeling in the States, I believe, that the "religion" of humanism / atheism has hijacked the political system. We are supposed to be ashamed of our values and beliefs, and we are told on a regular basis that we are "living in the past" and "not progressive". Just because we do not believe as Humanists do does not make us "unprogressive".

I'm religious, I'm proud of it, and while people try to make me out to be someone who is opposed to a woman's rights, I know that is simply not true -- I'm opposed to doing the wrong thing, no matter what that may be, whether it be killing a baby or shooting an abortionist. <edit - spelling>

[ July 27, 2004, 00:14: Message edited by: Lord Keldin Depaara ]

 

I'll leave the defining of when a fetus becomes human to those who are experts in human biology. It may not be a clump of cells after 12 weeks, but those primitive reactions most certainly do not make it yet human either.

I consider abortion sad and a thing that really should be avoided since it can be quite a traumatic process. I do however consider it inhuman to deny the right for abortion from the woman as in many cases there is no chance for the child to have a stable enviorment to grow up in. We do not want to end up like China do we now where newborn babies can end up thrown in dumpsters? In some social circumstances abortion is acceptable but damned be those who use abortion as a normal method of preventation.

 

What I find fairly amusing is the sheer lack of foresght anti-abortionists and pro-lifers have. Now, it's not going to be true for all, but the vast majority protest at how "evil" abortion is. These cells deserve the right to devolop, blah blah blah. You dont see these people queing up to look after them though. I mean, they will criticise abortion etc, but are completely incapable of providing an alternative. They dont set up orphanages etc.

After the baby is born, it can have a bad life, or get dumped in a dumpster, but hey, what do the pro-lifers etc care. So long as it gets born. I'd personally like to see more of them stop yapping about how evil it is, and start providing an alternative solution, or a home for all the un-wanted babies.

 

In yesterday's sermon, the pastor reminded us that just because someone challenges our beliefs, we don't necessarily have to respond. Clearly I should've been paying more attention to the pastor than the oh-so-lovely 4th-grade teacher sitting right in front of me...eyes ice blue, hair so long, alto harmony...just six more days 'til church again...

...ahem! OK, back to replies.

An interesting point, Morgoroth, except that it requires a great deal of LNT's favorite toxin, imagination. Coldhearted science indicates that the fetus is fundamentally human. It cannot develop into a zebra, lion, or giraffe; it is produced only by other humans; it carries the physical traits of other humans; it carries the DNA code of other humans; it is not its own separate species.

Philosophy permits us to argue that the fetus, although human, does not possess human rights; or, that its rights are trumped by those of the mother. But science does not permit us to deny that the fetus is fundamentally human - especially not on the grounds that it its brain is small. Are those beheaded hostages in Iraq any less human for losing their brains?

You don't need modern technology to terminate unintended pregnancies. The classical Greeks and Romans, far more cultured than us in many respects, saw no problem with low-tech infanticide as the ultimate solution to the unintended pregnancy.

It is indeed tragic, Morgoroth, when a child has to grow up unloved and unwanted. But what's the suicide rate in orphanages? Something less than 100%. Which means that although we may think it compassionate to kill a kid to save him from a unloved life, those kids who are actually LIVING those lonely lives see something worth living for.

To go back to our question of rationality vs. imagination: on the one hand, we have people rationally looking at statistics (suicide rates of children of unwanted pregnancies) to see what life really IS, and on the other we have people imagining what life COULD be.

First - It is not the responsibility of pro-lifers to adopt all unwanted children or let them die. To give a hideous example which I truly, truly do not mean to be inflammatory: Hitler originally hoped to merely exile the Jews (to Madagascar, or the West, or wherever - anywhere but greater Germany!). But the US refused to take in these helpless millions of immigrants. Did America's selfish lack of compassion justify Hitler's concentration camps? The US does share part of the blame because it had the opportunity to act and did not take it. But it was not the US' responsibility to indulge Hitler's murderous mania.

Second - It is not the responsbility of the fetus to defend its right to survive. The fetus does not have to prove itself to the mom. The fetus should not have to hire a lawyer to convince its mother to not drop it in the nearest dumpster. There should be no moral requirement that a baby convince its mom to want it. To the contrary, the bias should be in favor of the fetus, and it should be up to the mother to demonstrate why there is a compelling moral reason why the pregnancy should be terminated. Convenience, career, and even (yes) choice are reasons, but that they should prove so compelling should frighten us more than the fear that a few kids will end up in a dumpster after birth instead of before.

Third - Abortion is regularly used as a solution for "unwanted pregnancy". That suggests that the real "sheer lack of foresight" is on the part of those who got pregnant (rape victims excepted).

Fourth - If I may indulge a bit of reckless imagination, the real "sheer lack of foresight" is on the part of those who do not recognize the very real dangers of falling below the replacement rate of birth. Besides the strain on productivity and the welfare system, plus the cultural vulnerability from an influx of immigrants to fill the gap, a lower birthrate also makes a population vulnerable to catastrophes like disease, war, and environmental disasters.

Fifth - Bear in mind that these thoughts are derived from religious rationalism; you're free to ignore them in favor of secular imagination. Imagination provides us with so many possibilities! We can rewrite morality on the fly; call ourselves humanitarians even as we deny others' humanity; reinterpret the past even while envisioning the future; and happily prescribe death to innocent clumps of cells while proscribing death to guilty criminals. All in all, we're happier and safer in the world of imagination!

Me, I'll save my imagination for that blue-eyed alto.

 

Well you see the problem is that there are three parts involved here and not just the child. An unwanted child can make the life of the mother and the father a living hell, which could be avoided if they would have been allowed to have abortion.

I do not consider the fetus itself to be anything to be worried about in abortion, as I do not consider it human and do not care what it might become some day. I am though far more worried about the physical and psychological effects on the parents which can be quite hard. Abortion is not an issue to be taken lightly and is only to be used if it is absolutely necessary. The problem arises when we try to decide in which cases is abortion necessary for the young couple to go on with their normal lives.

 

By whom? I've lived here in the States my entire life and I'm not sure that I'm familiar with this line of rhetoric ever taken in a serious way, at least not in any area that I've been involved in. Of course, there are always those who are irreligious, but I am unaware that our political system has been "high-jacked" by any particular view on the so called secular/humanist/ or Christian/pro-religion viewpoints.

Of course, there have been some comments by some famous Americans that can be taken in an irreligious manner. After the Constitution was finished, Hamilton was asked why God was not mentioned one time in the original document. To that, Hamilton quipped, "Oh, we just forgot."

Whether a comment such as this is just dry sarcasism, or if there is something more sinister at work here, is certainly an open question. But I don't think that Hamilton, or most anyone else in public service would attack someone strictly on his/her religious beliefs.

 

Your position mirrors mine, DMC. I've stated many times that I oppose abortion on demand. As someone who has two beautiful children also, I find it impossible to imagine that anyone would want to prevent such beauty from coming into this world for the sake of "convenience." Yet, it is chilling to realize that such beauty is discarded into trash bins by young mothers. It happens, and it is the worst possible expression of our humanity. That a teenage mother will have a baby in a restroom stall, and try to murder that which we should hold most dear and to give our best efforts towards, is even more distrubing than an abortion.

But it is the level that the argument has reached that such distinctions have proved too difficult. One is only with one group and against the other, or the reverse. There is no longer any rational middle ground in this debate. One is either a godless, liberal, baby murderer, or one is a tyrannical, doctor killing, religious autocrat. Take your pick.

[ July 28, 2004, 05:02: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

If 10 teenage girls decide to terminate an unwanted pregnancy via abortion, I can gurantee you that 10 baby humans will die. The survival rate of abortion for the child is very slim... 100% mortality rate (not to mention 7% complication and 0.15 % mortality for the woman) The odds of survival for the child increase dramatically if 10 unwanted babies are born. I am sure that the percentage of unwanted born babies who end up dead in a dumpster is somewhat less than 100.

 

OK...I'm going to play devil's advocate (or Jesus's advocate as the case may be...) ...bah...sorry about the wit...it's ugly i know...

A young woman, age 18, is enjoying her freshman year at college when she passes out drunk at a party. Johny "If she blinks twice...it means yes" decides she has blinked twice. She wakes up the next morning feeling quite dirty and unkept but also quite hungover and not altogether functional. She doesn't notice. A month and a half later she finds out she is pregnant and has no idea how (or more specifically...who).

Abortion has been made illegal. Rather than throw away her education, future career, and ultimately her independence, she decides to have an illegal abortion. The procedure is dangerous and unsanitary. Even worse than the rusty edge and the microbes is the police officer who busts her on the way out.

Tell me...what punishment should be meeted out to rehabilitate this young woman?

Clearly, following the logic of pro-lifers she is a murderer. Or is she half a murderer?

So how much of her life should she lose in a cage?

If none...then illegal abortion will continue unimpeded. If you instead punish financially all you will do is assure the right of affluent women to abort.

Creating a solution for all of society is much more difficult than just calling a segment (i.e. slightly irresponsible women) "evil"...

[ July 27, 2004, 22:47: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

Maybe I should play LNT's advocate!

Walking through your unpleasant, but not unrealistic, scenario:

- The one to blame for the kid is the rapist. The young woman is guiltless - unwise to get unconsciously drunk, sure, but being foolish is not "asking for it".

- Abortion is not the only way to keep from "throwing away her education, future career, and ultimately her independence". She could put the child up for adoption. There is the very real cost of bearing the child to term, which is morally charged to the rapist's account but financially and temporally to hers (even if she tracks down the scum and gets him tossed in jail). She doesn't throw away her career and education, but it does set her back by at least half a year, just to keep the innocent kid alive.

Sound unreasonable? Well...not really. Take the typical American welfare family, which - taking all state and federal benefits in total (health care, child care, discounted housing, food stamps, cash benefits, etc.) - takes in at least $10,000 a year. (Still well below the poverty line of $16,000, incidentally.) Maybe we have some wealthy posters (you can identify them by their SPS accounts!), but I imagine that most of us don't pay more than $10,000 a year in taxes. Which means: a year's worth of your hard work is being invested to protect someone unable (or unwilling) to provide for themselves.

I don't think there's anything immoral in the idea that the State, by force, can take money from a taxpaying citizen and hand it to another in need. But it does illustrate the point: whether we realize it or not, even now our time and resources are being invested in strangers. We may not even want to pay those tax checks (darn libertarians!), and it isn't our fault that the poor are poor, but that doesn't change the fact that others need the help to survive and we've been tasked to keep 'em alive.

- The canard of the unsanitary dangers of illegal abortion is, frankly, besides the point. Carjackers may get pulled over for speeding; assassins may get hurt if their victims resist; rapists may catch AIDS from their victims. The goal should not be to minimize the risk to the perpetrator, but to the victim.

Yes, in a very real sense, the aborting woman is a victim - of her lying paramour or brutal rapist, of society's expectations, of uncompassionate family, of idols to choice that demand child sacrifice. But the carjacker is stealing because he grew up hopelessly poor in a rotten family; the assassin kills because his abusive father denied him love; the rapist is still trying to outgrow oedipal lusts that keep him from interacting well with women. In some respect, everyone (myself included) is both a victim and a victimizer. But that doesn't excuse the behavior. Eventually you have to break the murderous cycle - and if not for the sake of children, then for what? For what? Why can't we draw a line and say that finally, finally, finally, whatever came before, the kid should not be made to pay the ultimate price to make amends? When can we just say "stop"?

STOP!

 

Probably because many of us disagree on drawing that line? Not allowing abortion causes a hell of a more problems to the society than allowing it and in abortion there is really no one paying the price except the woman. The fetus does not feel, know or realize that it dies it probably didn't even realize that it lived. If someone proves to me however that the fetus is aware of its existance they are free to show the proof, but at least my biology teatcher claimed that within the period when abortion is legal the fetus considers itself a part of the mother and not a separate individual whitch is pretty much enough for me.

 

How do we prove that anything - humans or animals - is aware of its existence? We can't know with absolute certainty that anyone else is self-conscious - theoretically, by the Descartes test of "I think, therefore I am", I could confirm that I'm self-aware, but everyone else could be an illusion in a giant holodeck or matrix. It requires faith to assume that others are self-conscious.

But not a blind faith - we can base it on some pret' basic physical signs. As conscious beings, we purposefully react to our environment. So when we offer food to a dog and a rock, and the dog reacts but the rock doesn't, it isn't much of a leap to assume that the dog is conscious and the rock isn't.

Given the way that the fetus reacts to stimuli - probing the womb, sucking its thumb, kicking its mom, recognizing voices, and even (yes) cringing as it is shredded or burnt by the abortion procedure - I think that's adequate proof that the fetus is conscious. Just as with animals - if you torture a dog, it doesn't take much to judge from the animal's reactions that the dog is truly feeling pain.

Now, does the fetus have a concept of such complicated ideas as life, death, and the universe? Is it aware, growing up in the comfy womb, that the world could be any different, and that death may wait around the corner? Oh, probably not. By that test, maybe the fetus doesn't merit protection, since it doesn't even realize the value of its own life or the tragedy of its own death. But by that standard, infants are also unaware that they live and die - does that justify infanticide?

Incidentally, awareness of one's existence is hardly a valid test of human value. A comatose man is no less human, despite his lack of self-awareness. Nor do we briefly lose our humanity when we slip away into sleep.

To reiterate: the idea that the fetus is not human, feels nothing, knows nothing, and is valued at nothing 'til the magical moment when it slips out of the womb, requires either mystical imagination or willful self-denial.

Embrace the path of rationality. Stop the madness - literally!

 

At what point do these 'basic signs' begin though? A fertilised egg that has divided a couple of times into 4 cells does not suck its thumb or kick its mum. When does it become 'conscious'?

 

Grey...how many children have you adopted? Is it something you plan on doing? How long are the waiting lists for non-white babies?

I realize that odds are a few posters on this board are adopted...I intend no offense, but I must speak from personal experience. I have known two adopted young men in my life. The first was a Vietnamese guy named Michael. He ran away from home repeatedly. He was always a bright guy though and I imagine things eventually turned around. The second was a young guy named Nick. He went by the nickname "Druggy Nick". It fit him well as he was known for driving to Philadelphia and then bringing back heroin among other things. I have no idea what happened to him, but I know his "parents" had to have him removed from the home.

There can be no question that being raised by people who are not your parents is...difficult. Consult the crime statistics of children raised by their grandparents. I am sure there are many successful stories, however, adoption is not ideal.

I guess I have no right to speak about adoption as I am not adopted.

My belief though is that it must be hard on the mother knowing that there is a person out there, a person whom will never know its mommy, and will never be known by its mommy. It is probably less hard knowing she stopped a biological process which would have become a person than it is knowing she created a person and then turned her back on it. Although I imagine in your eyes these two things are one and the same.

I am not a woman though. I have never even impregnated a woman. My interest in these subjects is purely academic.

Still though, I must say you are very noble person Grey. You certainly have more conviction in your beliefs than I do. You should adopt a couple black children and pass those beliefs on. (edit: I feel bad about that last line...maybe went too far.)


EDIT

You never did say how we should punish a woman who has an illegal abortion. Suppose she does it herself. How would you punish her for violating your belief system Grey? And don't avoid the fact that it is *your* belief that a fetus is a person as the differing opions on this board clearly indicate. How would you punish her Grey?

[ July 28, 2004, 03:37: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]