Teleology and Abortion: Must Women Provide their Uterus to the Fetus?

My idea of natural law; “If it feels good, do it.”

What could be more natural than that?

Survival of the fittest may/may not be more “natural”–but it’s certainly more naturally successful.

If I understand correctly, sitting in a room shooting opium without stopping might feel really good–but it would be counterproductive to me as a living organism. Eating Big Macs feels really good–but how productive is it to me as an organism?

When animals are presented with something that feels really good, we see examples of organisms willing to waste away before a button in a cage that administers drugs, for example. But is it “natural” to let myself die for a lack of self-control?

If by denying myself something that “feels good” I ensure my capacity to live longer and increase my odds of successfully breeding, then I am more fit than my counterpart who does what “feels good”–if that happens to not coincide with a longer life and more successful breeding capacity.

Again, this doesn’t really address what is “natural”–because the same experiments that show animals refusing food for access to drugs also show that to some degree it is “natural” to do what “feels good” to one’s own detriment. But it also means that if that drug became readily available to that particular species (which would die for it), then that species (or those individuals, if it was only some and not all) would be less naturally fit, and would go extinct in short order.

So, in the larger picture, such a philosophy flirts with extinction. However, it’s certainly no guarantee of extinction–it actually would only be a problem where what “feels good” conflicts with what is most beneficial to survival and reproduction.

So, that’s an intersting point you make. I’m not sure where I would come down on that. There seems to be an argument “for it” in that some animals will slide quickly to their deaths for “what feels good”–they support that “if it feels good, do it” is quite a natural compulsion.

However, what “feels good” is usually a misfire of a natural compulsion that would normally aid survival.

Like a moth to a flame. If the flame weren’t there, the moth would use the moon to navigate–as the brightest night light. As the flame is closer and appears brighter or as bright–the moth goes for the flame–it’s healthy, natural impulse confused by the fire. A mechanism meant to aid survival is redirected to the animal’s detriment.

Is it natural for a moth to fly into a flame? It seems to be. But the core of the nature of the compulsion is actually evolved as a mechanism to aid the moth’s survival.

So, in that regard, “doing what feels good” isn’t really “natural” so much as a confused natural compulsion–a diversion of “natural” to a detrimental event.

Certainly something to consider anyway. Thanks for positing that.

Excellent post, thank you.

I think a good analogy is a situation where you caused another person to become injured or ill (especially by means of an STD or something), and you could keep them alive throughout their months of recovery by means of constant blood transfusions, but you would have to go about with some sort of medical device strapped to you, it would greatly impact your own health (cause constant weakness and sickness, etc), and there were serious risks (including a possibility of death or permanent injury). I find very few people willing to say the government (or anybody) should be able to force you to, say, donate an organ to someone injured in a car crash caused by you, but somehow forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is “different.” (I stress the “caused by you” part since so many people take the stance that a pregnancy is somehow a “fair punishment” or “consequences” to be suffered for engaging in sex,” since I think the number of people who want to refuse rape victims abortion access is rather small.)

Anyway, seriously, it makes me happy to see some sane, consistent folks in the atheist community. It’s always so depressing when someone goes about announcing what a great humanist they are and how they value rationality, then you find out they’re pro-life, or vaguely in that camp. Bodily autonomy is such a basic human right it boggles my mind to see educated people speaking against it.

tracieh.

You are absolutely right, “if it feels good, do it,” can be detrimental – not to mention immoral – but it certainly is a natural urge; one that proponents of “natural laws” have to explain or defend.

Austin,

If you’re assuming that the fetus does have some level of rights here, then the legal concept of negligence could come into play. In terms of physical neglect of a child, refusing to provide food, clothing, shelter can be a criminal action.

It is less direct, but I don’t see how you could provide food, clothing or shelter without using your body to do those things.

We don’t have the ability to say, “I’m going to do what I want with my physical body and organs and I’m not using them to provide for my child.”

Another potential problem in the comparison is that in regards to the uterus, you aren’t talking about a decision to give access or not unless you’re talking about birth control.

In the case of a pregnancy, the relationship between fetus and uterus is established. Assuming the female wasn’t raped, her choices and actions of a consentual nature resulted in the pregnancy, even if it wasn’t planned.

At that point, you have an established relationship between the woman’s organs and the survival of the fetus. So it isn’t about deciding to share a uterus with a fetus, that choice has already been made. The choice is whether to continue sharing it or not.

It wouldn’t be like giving someone a kidney or not.

It would be like giving someone a kidney, having them be dependant on the transplanted organ to live, and then deciding to take the organ away.

I think you could refuse to give blood in the first place (with the analogue of birth control in the comparison), but stopping a life saving transfusion of blood, once the transfer has already started is a very different ethical and moral question.

humble,

A woman who has given birth to a child is not required to provide food, shelter or clothing for the child. She can surrender the child to the state.

John K.,

I’m not sure what happened, but it looks like Austin just deleted my post.

That’s even better than mobathome just changing the words.

Free speech is great, unless someone disagrees with you.

Very weird – there it appeared again. Apologies for the last post.

It honestly was not appearing. John K’s showed up as #5 right after his comment to tracieh.

humble says: That’s even better than mobathome just changing the words.

You lie: I never changed the words to your post. I posted under my name a version with more reasonable alternate conclusions.

mobathome,

You can’t discourse with idiots or crazy people. Everyone who read the post saw what you did, we all understood your little shot at me, and your lack of an actual point.

By your ethical standard I could take issue with every single one of Austin’s articles by just mocking him and plagiarizing his words, then changing his quote slightly to say the opposite and claim it was my own and more reasonable.

This has nothing to do with the topic, please play with someone else who is amused by your lack of an actual argument.

John K wrote:[A woman who has given birth to a child is not required to provide food, shelter or clothing for the child. She can surrender the child to the state.]

Yes, but our analogy really breaks down at that point into a fundamentally different notion. If that surrendering results in the child’s death, everytime – that is different from a woman choosing a course of action and the child living somewhere else.

I think this argument really does boil down to the fetus having rights or not.

humble says: You can’t discourse with idiots or crazy people.

Which one are you? Both?

humble says: Everyone who read the post saw what you did, we all understood your little shot at me, and your lack of an actual point.

Using the “Royal ‘we’” now? Isn’t that grandiose? But it does seems in character for you.

As for my point, it may have gone over your head, but it was clear to at least one other in the comments. It’s not too late for you to read comments 12 and 13 again s l o w l y.

humble says: By your ethical standard I could take issue with every single one of Austin’s articles by just mocking him and plagiarizing his words, then changing his quote slightly to say the opposite and claim it was my own and more reasonable.

You challenge my ethical standard, and yet you lied in comment (7) up above.

As for whether I “plagiarized” you, feel free to prove that that is what I did.

I will argue that my conclusion was more reasonable than yours. You claimed that although each argument for God is objectionable, somehow the entire collection was a less objectionable argument for God. Instead of supporting your claim, you then compared the disparate collection of arguments to a Van Gogh, and each objectionable argument to a square inch of the painting’s canvas.

Any argument leading to a conclusion is as weak as its weakest premise. Thus, the collection of arguments for God taken as an argument for God itself is as weak as the weakest of its constituents. Furthermore, if each of the constituents is flawed, the collection has multiple points of known attack. Then “when you take them all together it becomes easier to say that these arguments have no validity at all,” as I claimed in my comment.

humble says: This has nothing to do with the topic, please play with someone else who is amused by your lack of an actual argument.

You are projecting your own inability to argue onto me.

>You are absolutely right, “if it feels good, do it,” can be detrimental – not to mention immoral – but it certainly is a natural urge; one that proponents of “natural laws” have to explain or defend.

I thought I did explain and defend it? “What feels good” is very generally connected with what promotes fitness in most cases. But exposure to new things in an environment can confuse naturally evolved preferences. That’s why I gave the example of the moth. Its instinct is a good, healthy instinct. But it is derailed when a flame is introduced. Moths evolved this capacity long before fire light or electric light was used by human beings. In the absence of artificial lights, the draw to bright light (moonlight) is “what feels good”–and it works great. But competing lights generate a problem for the moth’s biological drive toward light.

Most often “what feels good” works and promotes fitness. But in environments where unhealthy choices present themselves that also appeal to those same drives, if intellect is not employed (as the moth cannot determine the difference between a flame and the moon), it can be destructive. Luckily people have both biology and intellect to guide them. Biology drives us very generally toward healthy things. And intellect aids us in avoiding those triggers–such as heroine–that move us toward a “feeling” of “what feels good”, but are actually detrimental.

I don’t understand why this is problematic or requires any explanation or “defense” beyond that–beyond what can be obviously observed…?

mobathome,

Ignoring most of your post, let’s try to dial into the point.

mobathome wrote:[Any argument leading to a conclusion is as weak as its weakest premise. Thus, the collection of arguments for God taken as an argument for God itself is as weak as the weakest of its constituents. Furthermore, if each of the constituents is flawed, the collection has multiple points of known attack. Then “when you take them all together it becomes easier to say that these arguments have no validity at all,” as I claimed in my comment.]

A couple of problems here.

First, a “premise” is not the same thing as an “argument”. Second, “weak” is not the same thing as “flawed”. Third, “flawed” is not the same thing as “no validity at all.”

If you change your terms as you go to be progressively worse, when you’re actually referring to the same thing (the potential problem or weakness of an individual argument), that is a dishonest use of language.

At least you’re consistent in your dishonest and unethical tactics.

Changing the words to get things to mean what you want them to mean, instead of following the thought through to conclusion, even if it is a conclusion you don’t like, isn’t reasonable – or honest.

Another way of characterizing your progression would be as follows:

Any argument seeking to “prove” the existence of God, taken in isolation may be weak or incomplete. However, if these individual arguments are weak or incomplete, to the extent that they have any strength, or partial validity, then the collection of arguments for God as they explore different lines of inquiry may actually take on a cumulative effect and become stronger taken together, than they are when considered separately.

I understand that YOU think that each argument has NO validity at all, even though you don’t think that enough to lead with that claim. In that context, a bunch of broken parts cobbled together doesn’t make a working machine.

But a lot of people disagree with you about the strength and merit of the individual arguments for God. And you’re not the only voice in the room. Just because people can raise objections, or potential objections, doesn’t mean the argument is invalid.

It might be completely valid and the objections are misplaced. Or it might be partially valid… and the objections are partially valid, or the objections may be completely correct and the argument is bogus.

Regarding the arguments for God, it just isn’t a clear cut and dried case one way or the other. It seems likely that on the grounds of logic and inquiry it never will be.

You have reasons to believe or disbelieve, great. You feel like they are compelling, fine. But to act like the philosophical implications are simple when they aren’t is simply wrong and simply arrogant.

humble says: First, a “premise” is not the same thing as an “argument”.

A premise is what serves as the basis of an argument. This is the role each individual argument plays with respect to the collection of arguments.

humble says: Second, “weak” is not the same thing as “flawed”.

A flaw can be a weakness that hinders effectiveness.

humble says: Third, “flawed” is not the same thing as “no validity at all.”

The argument lacks validity because it is not well-grounded.

As I told you before (comment 26): Get a dictionary!

humble says: At least you’re consistent in your dishonest and unethical tactics.

You’re projecting again. Remember, you’re the one who lied in comment (7) of this section.

humble says: But a lot of people disagree with you about the strength and merit of the individual arguments for God. And you’re not the only voice in the room.

The number of people who disagree with a proposition has nothing to do with its truth.

humble says: Just because people can raise objections, or potential objections, doesn’t mean the argument is invalid.

It might be completely valid and the objections are misplaced. Or it might be partially valid… and the objections are partially valid, or the objections may be completely correct and the argument is bogus.

Feel free to show that this is true of the best arguments for God.

humble says: First, a “premise” is not the same thing as an “argument”.

A premise serves as a basis for an argument just as each of the individual arguments for God serves as a basis for the argument collection in your claim.

humble says: Second, “weak” is not the same thing as “flawed”.

A flaw can be a weakness that hinders effectiveness, which is what each argument’s weaknesses do to its effectiveness. Get a dictionary!

humble says: Third, “flawed” is not the same thing as “no validity at all.”

I didn’t claim that. Go back and read what I wrote c a r e f u l l y.

humble says: If you change your terms as you go to be progressively worse, when you’re actually referring to the same thing (the potential problem or weakness of an individual argument), that is a dishonest use of language.

Feel free to show that this is what I did … without misrepresenting me.

humble says: At least you’re consistent in your dishonest and unethical tactics.

You’re projecting again. Remember that you’re the one who lied in comment (7) above.

humble says: Another way of characterizing your progression would be as follows:

Any argument seeking to “prove” the existence of God, taken in isolation may be weak or incomplete. However, if these individual arguments are weak or incomplete, to the extent that they have any strength, or partial validity, then the collection of arguments for God as they explore different lines of inquiry may actually take on a cumulative effect and become stronger taken together, than they are when considered separately.

You misinterpret what I said to ascribe to me a statement much like what you had originally claimed, a kind of tactic you previously stated was dishonest.

Feel free to prove your own line of reasoning applies to the collection of arguments for God.

humble says: But a lot of people disagree with you about the strength and merit of the individual arguments for God. And you’re not the only voice in the room.

The number of people who believe a claim doesn’t matter to its truth.

humble says: Just because people can raise objections, or potential objections, doesn’t mean the argument is invalid.

It might be completely valid and the objections are misplaced. Or it might be partially valid… and the objections are partially valid, or the objections may be completely correct and the argument is bogus.

Feel free to show that this is true of the best arguments for God.

humble says: Regarding the arguments for God, it just isn’t a clear cut and dried case one way or the other. It seems likely that on the grounds of logic and inquiry it never will be.

You have reasons to believe or disbelieve, great. You feel like they are compelling, fine. But to act like the philosophical implications are simple when they aren’t is simply wrong and simply arrogant.

Feel free to show that this is what I did.

I apologize for the unintended repetition. It seemed to me that after two hours, my original response hadn’t posted, so I rewrote it to the best of my recollection.

mobathome wrote:[A premise is what serves as the basis of an argument. This is the role each individual argument plays with respect to the collection of arguments.]

No it isn’t. Your basing your point on an analogy that I’m not making. The relationship of premise to argument is not a good analogy for what I’m suggesting as a cumulative effect of several arguments all pointing in the same direction. It’s the difference between antecedent and concurrent.

mobathome wrote: [A flaw can be a weakness that hinders effectiveness.]

Something can be weak but still be effective. Something can be flawed without being weak. Those words just don’t mean the same thing, dictionary boy.

mobathome wrote:[The argument lacks validity because it is not well-grounded.]

That’s not the same thing as a flaw.

mobathome wrote:[You’re projecting again. Remember, you’re the one who lied in comment (7) of this section.]

I never lied regarding this. My claim is that you took my quote and changed words. You did do that. You then claimed to have “fixed it” for me.

You saying that I lied, repeatedly, does not mean that I did. Anyone can pull up my quote and yours and read that you took my quote and only changed a few of the words.

If you want to dispute that, please show my original quote, then show your adjusted quote and expose your own ridiculous behavior to anyone still reading. Again.

mobathome wrote:[The number of people who disagree with a proposition has nothing to do with its truth.]

That is true. But we’re not talking about large numbers of Nazis here, we’re talking about the people who disagree with you including most of the greatest minds in the history of art, music, literature, philosophy, mathematics and science, along with many of the finest minds alive today, it should at least make you nervous – and a bit less arrogant about your claim.

mobathome wrote: [Feel free to show that this is true of the best arguments for God.]

So now some are better than others? I thought you held that they were all completely invalid. Tell you what, pick three that you think are the best and I’ll show how they are stronger when considered together than they are when considered apart.

Or if that is just too much work, just change a few words of what I say here to “fix” it for me and claim that this invalidates what I said again.

humble says: Tell you what, pick three that you think are the best and I’ll show how they are stronger when considered together than they are when considered apart.

To avoid errors, we must agree on a definition for God. Will Austin’s definition do for you?

While waiting for your reply to comment (19), I’d like to address your claim:

humble says: I never lied regarding this. My claim is that you took my quote and changed words.

by quoting your comment from (7):

humble says: I’m not sure what happened, but it looks like Austin just deleted my post.

That’s even better than mobathome just changing the words.

The context of “mobathome just changing the words” is “Austin just deleted my post” implying that I acted on your actual post. Perhaps you’re just clumsy with context.

humble says: You saying that I lied, repeatedly, does not mean that I did. Anyone can pull up my quote and yours and read that you took my quote and only changed a few of the words.

If you want to dispute that, please show my original quote, then show your adjusted quote and expose your own ridiculous behavior to anyone still reading. Again.

The ridicule, I’m afraid, is on you for blowing your top and making unwarranted accusations over my posting a modified version of what you said to mock you.

tracieh,

I don’t know that you defended “natural law”, but you certainly expounded upon it.

Clearly, I know nothing about natural law except what I read at this blog. I was responding to Austin Cline’s observations:

“Many conservative religious believers quickly reach to ‘natural law’ arguments to bolster their position: some particular situation is ‘natural’ and therefore must be protected or enforced by the law.” and “…what we think qualfies as ‘natural’ or ‘natural law’ is frequently just a rationalization for ideological preconceptions.”

I was expressing my “humble” opinion that “if it feels good, do it”, with all it’s potential for excesses, is as natural as it gets and is just as worthy of protection if you are going to be silly enough to accept “natural law” as the basis for enforcement by the law. Or at least, that’s what I was trying to express.

If abortion is murder, then it must still be murder even if the pregnancy is the result of rape. If you make an exception in this case, then the whole abortion-is-murder argument falls to pieces. It can’t sometimes be murder. That just doesn’t make any logical sense.

If abortion is murder then would not a miscarriage be manslaughter?

Could everyone stop talking about ending “the child’s” life in their analogies? It’s not the same thing. Terminating a pregnancy != negligently causing the death of a child, sorry. And by *having* the child, you are accepting the responsibility to take care of it, either by raising it as your own or turning it over to the state. The point is that you do not accept that responsibility at the moment that you *have sex*, which is what conservatives would like to argue.

Why is separating conjoined twins not a point of contentious legal debate? There are plenty of situations where separations mean one twin will die, and of course it causes a lot of heartbreak for the parents, but I don’t see anyone suggesting that the child with the greater option of survival should be *legally obligated* to remain attached (or that the parents should be legally obligated not to try to separate them), even if it greatly reduces the other twin’s quality of life and greatly increases the potential for serious health risks.

What is the difference between a child with a parasitic or underdeveloped twin, and a woman with a fetus? The only difference is that the woman is “responsible” for her state (usually). Just face facts; conservatives want pregnancy to be a punishment for sex. As Jim pointed out, if abortion is murder, abortion is murder, and there is no exception for rape victims (or health risks). But then the pregnant rape victim is in exactly the situation of the conjoined twin. So why is there still a difference?

mobathome wrote:[The context of “mobathome just changing the words” is “Austin just deleted my post” implying that I acted on your actual post. Perhaps you’re just clumsy with context.]

No, it was comparing you reposting my words, in italics, as if it were a quote from me – while altering that quote as if it had been typoed, but still appearing to be mine – to another post that looked as if it had been deleted.

It was a bad comparison, because the issue was the post not appearing / disappearing, and was technical related to the website (which you also experienced yesterday), instead of someone taking an active role.

The clue here, is the phrase “better than” implying a comparison between two things, instead of two references to the same thing. You’re very free with your advice to use a dictionary… maybe you could too!

If you asked me, I would be happy to clarify. No need to infer things that aren’t actually there.

mobathome wrote:[The ridicule, I’m afraid, is on you for blowing your top and making unwarranted accusations over my posting a modified version of what you said to mock you.]

It’s not unwarranted to say that you posted a modified version of what I said to mock me. That’s all I’ve ever claimed. It’s also not unwarranted to say that if we all decided to do that, or if 100 Christian fundamentalists showed up to do this to every one of Austin’s articles, it would be a bad thing for any actual discussion. It would be dishonest and unethical to engage in that sort of practice.

mobathome,

That isn’t Austin’s definition. He has gathered them into an article – but those are classic definitions and characteristics attributed to God for hundreds, and in many cases, thousands of years.

But yes, the definition(s) for “God” in the article you linked to is fine.

“If abortion is murder, then it must still be murder even if the pregnancy is the result of rape.”

Right. From the point of view of the fetus, it doesn’t make any difference. Terminated is terminated. It only makes a difference from the point of view of the woman. Did she consent or not? Why the difference? And why does consent to have sex automatically become consent to carry a pregnancy to term when we have the means to terminate unwanted pregnancies? Why is a woman who consents to sex punished by having fewer rights than a woman who is raped?

Is it because of the psychological trauma carrying a pregnancy to term would have on a rape victim? If so, who is to say the trauma of carrying one unwanted pregnancy is worse than another?

Is it because a woman who consents to sex but does not want to be pregnant must be having sex for physical pleasure and intimacy? Are women who are not, for whatever reasons, ready to be pregnant to be denied sex for pleasure and intimacy? Isn’t that kind of twisted?

Is it because thousands of years ago men wrote books about the supposed dictates of an undetectable god who wanted people to “multiply” or to refrain from sex completely (depending upon which chapter you read)? That’s really weird.

And what about the practical application? How is “only women who are raped are allowed abortion rights” going to be enforced? Are we going to accept a woman’s word that she was raped, or are we going to demand proof? If we accept her word, doesn’t this just force a woman to sometimes lie when she seeks an abortion? If we’re going to demand proof, what level of proof is required? Does she have to supply a copy of the police report? What if she was too traumatized or for whatever reason did not report the rape when it happened? Is she now saddled with the unwanted pregnancy because she didn’t file a report? Reports can also be falsified. Is a report sufficient? Are we going to demand the contents of the rape kit? Are we going to demand the woman identify the rapist and participate in the prosecution? What proof do we require?

Again, none of these questions matter from the point of view of the fetus, but I think it is important to look into the psychology of those who are opposed to a woman’s right to choose. That seems to be where the dispute begins.

(24) humble says: It’s not unwarranted to say that you posted a modified version of what I said to mock me. That’s all I’ve ever claimed. It’s also not unwarranted to say that if we all decided to do that, or if 100 Christian fundamentalists showed up to do this to every one of Austin’s articles, it would be a bad thing for any actual discussion. It would be dishonest and unethical to engage in that sort of practice.

You did this very thing in your reply to Dean in comment (25) of another post. You must think you use “dishonest and unethical tactics” (ref:comment 14 above). If not, you are either inconsistent or dishonest and unethical.

(25) humble says: But yes, the definition(s) for “God” in the article you linked to is fine.

Good. To recap, you agreed to:

(18) humble says: Tell you what, pick three that you think are the best and I’ll show how they are stronger when considered together than they are when considered apart.

The three arguments that I selected are:

– the kalam cosmological argument,

– the Transcendental argument for the existence of God, and

– the Will to believe doctrine.

You are to “show how they are stronger when considered together” as an argument for the existence of the God having all of the properties listed in Austin’s page on defining God.

Jim: “If abortion is murder then would not a miscarriage be manslaughter? ”
Of COURSE, Jim…but only “IF”…
However, the Xtians don’t bat an eye at [or consistently never mention, or address] the fact that two out five (the latest Stat.) pregnancies ends in miscarriage. After all (for the believer), those are God’s abortions! And He [we'll stick with the male version]…that all-time “Archetype” of unjust Tyranny and cruelty…can do whatever “He” wants. And, of course, the brainwashed believers will always, no matter what, bow down and worship the “Infinite Arshole”. Yeah…that Eternally invisible…sneaky, so-called Almighty, Ever watching, “Omnipresent”, Supreme Voyeur in the Sky. For believers, as most of us atheists know (not so for…”Humble” or is it “Not-so-Humble” (or Nazi-Humble?)…and, personally, I was raised all the way through college with the Cat-lick version of the Xtian BS…
Sado-Masochism ALWAYS rules!
This subject always reminds me…of just how slave-like it is to be dragged kicking & screaming; peeing and crapping on everyone too close; held upside down…after painfully slithering out of the womb…carefully slapped on the arse to clear the, hopefully functional lungs…with a sort of:
“Welcome to the World, you frail, bloody, bald, actually…rather ugly, blessed little, potential monster!”
I know…cruel?…
I call it….REALITY!
OK..I’ll end this, slightly tangential, mini-rant brought on by the…ultimately futile…incessant arguing [you know...Humble vs. mobathome (or whomever); you can guess whom I side with?] that we’ve all been a witness to with my little, personal tweak of nomenclature:
I call “Right to Lifers”…”Right to Strifers”. Meaning those Nosey, Religiously arrogant, self-righteous jerks who, no matter what; want to drag every possible (including everyone ELSE’S) so-called “Soul” into this strangely evolved, earthly STRUGGLE that we humans call Life.
And to any ‘Eternal Hell’ threatening godbotherer who portrays it as “A Gift”…I say:
“Struggle?, YES…Gift?…Absolutely NOT!”
[I'm almost finished]…On one more related note; the popular saying:
“All men are created equal?”
HUH? Say what? “Created?”…by whom?…parents (OK!)…by some, (obviously incompetent) God?…Prove it!
“Equal”?…Stickin’ with just humans…nothing in my 68 years of observation, demonstrated anything ‘equal’ regarding comparative human intelligence, physical attributes, yada-yada. Fair?…Just?…NOT! (unless, possibly, you’re a Reincarnationalist…you know…ala Karma?)
I guess it’s obvious that I’m an atheist…and that I was never a “parent”…meaning, I never shifted into the “child adoration” mode of most people who become parents.
What’s that?…I’m still a child?…One look in the mirror tells me otherwise!
Anyway…Have fun, you guys!

mobathome wrote:[You did this very thing in your reply to Dean in comment (25) of another post. You must think you use “dishonest and unethical tactics” (ref:comment 14 above). If not, you are either inconsistent or dishonest and unethical.]

No. I used the alteration of Dean’s quote, then REJECTED my own use of his quote as a valid tactic – in the very same post. I did that to illustrate how dishonest and unethical it would be if continued and I rejected the use of even my own altered quote as stupid and childish in the same post.

If you want to argue that this kind of change is fine, then why are you now trying to fashion an actual response? Why not let it stand as the only response needed? Or why not just continue to do it?

By having an actual conversation here, it seems like you’re rejecting the validity of your original tactic. That isn’t intended as a complaint by the way.

I’d much rather try to have a conversation where we agree on terms and take a shot at a real dialogue – even if it doesn’t ultimately go anywhere – at least it is trying to go somewhere.

mobathome wrote:[Good. To recap, you agreed to:
(18) humble says: Tell you what, pick three that you think are the best and I’ll show how they are stronger when considered together than they are when considered apart.

The three arguments that I selected are:
- the kalam cosmological argument,
- the Transcendental argument for the existence of God, and
- the Will to believe doctrine.]

Ok – those look fine to me.

Understanding that Russell and others have raised objections to these, do you believe that these arguments have any weight or validity at all?

I’m not asking if you ultimately accept them, it seems pretty clear that you don’t. But I’m asking if you think they have a valid point, raise real questions that haven’t been adequately answered or if they have any strength at all for considering an actual being defined as God.

If not, we’ll just have to agree to disagree here. Because no validity plus no validity plus no validity – just equals no validity.

But these are complex arguments, with lots of possibilities and if the arguments have some validity, even if it is weak or inadequate to be accepted or convincing, then we can at least take a look at the question.

At that point, the inquiry will be something like, is there any facet from one argument that creates an interesting possibility in addressing an objection from another? If so, how?

In short, is it possible that the arguments compliment each other in some way?

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not optimistic about my ability to convince you, or any one else here that what I’m claiming is true. But I’m willing to take a shot at it and we have a good setup I think.

mobathome wrote:[You are to “show how they are stronger when considered together” as an argument for the existence of the God having all of the properties listed in Austin’s page on defining God.]

I’m not sure about that one, but we’re probably close. The “all the properties” clause is the one I’m having trouble with.

Would you be willing to amend this to an “argument for the existence of the God who ‘could’ have all of the properties listed…” in the article?

The reason I’m suggesting this is that the above arguments don’t address some of the attributes listed.

And I’m not sure we’re gunning for an actual proof of God in a completely comprehensive sort of way.

Rather, we’re looking at a question of smaller scope. Namely, do the arguments listed above become stronger when taken together than they do when considered apart, or do they become weaker?

Is that fair?

I’m traveling so it will likely be this weekend before I’m able to give this a response, but I’ll commit to having it up before 9 am on Monday.

ChuckA wrote:[(not so for…”Humble” or is it “Not-so-Humble” (or Nazi-Humble?)…]

Just humble. No need for capitalization or association with the Nazi party.

I’m not sure about the created part… but I do think people should be treated as if they are equal, even if they aren’t in some measurable ways.

humble (30): “…I do think people should be treated as if they are equal, even if they aren’t in some measurable ways.”
That, I think, is something we can ALL agree on; but it’s a noble GOAL that is based on a strictly human created understanding of the “Justice” notion. More to the point; it’s related to…”Equal treatment under the Law”…meaning, of course…purely man conceived, SECULAR law.
[Not, of course, that there's anything other than "man conceived" notions! Hmmm...Inter-dimensional/Galactic Aliens? ]
In other words:…”No “thought-form”, imaginary god (or Aliens!) needed “…just some, basic, rationally informed, totally honest, and even highly motivated…Earthly…human COMPASSION!
Does that, indeed, rule out those ultra-hypocritical, so-called: “Compassionate (Bush-wacko) Conservatives”?
On that note…(F#?)…
Peace!

(29) humble says: No. I used the alteration of Dean’s quote, then REJECTED my own use of his quote as a valid tactic – in the very same post. I did that to illustrate how dishonest and unethical it would be if continued and I rejected the use of even my own altered quote as stupid and childish in the same post.

You’re claiming that it is not “dishonest and unethical” when you did it because you intended to prove a point. Feel free to prove this.

Also, you only rejected it as “childish and ridiculous” and not the much more serious “dishonest and unethical” claim you’ve repeated at length on this page and on the other one. Feel free to prove that these are identical claims.

Furthermore, you had the chutzpah to do this to a responder who was only pointing out that your claim was out of place:

(24) Dean says:

Humble, changing your posts while calling attention to the changes may be mocking you, but it is not dishonest. The only dishonest way to quote someone is to change their quote and present it as if it were unchanged. I hope that this clarification is helpful.

Finally, you have ignored my requests that you prove that this form of mocking is “dishonest and unethical”, which is a very serious claim.

(29) humble says: If you want to argue that this kind of change is fine, then why are you now trying to fashion an actual response? Why not let it stand as the only response needed? Or why not just continue to do it?

By having an actual conversation here, it seems like you’re rejecting the validity of your original tactic. That isn’t intended as a complaint by the way.

I took pity on your confusion and decided to be explicit. I had thought that you would be able to get it, just as Dean saw what I was doing.

(29) humble says: mobathome wrote:[The three arguments that I selected are:
- the kalam cosmological argument,
- the Transcendental argument for the existence of God, and
- the Will to believe doctrine.]

Ok – those look fine to me.

Good!

You claimed you could show how a collection of arguments for God that have weaknesses are stronger when considered together, so the arguments I chose must have weaknesses. (Are there any arguments for God that have no weaknesses?) But while these arguments have weaknesses, they should be engaged.

I’m concerned you’re trying to set up an out for yourself here, where you can just say “we’ll just have to agree to disagree” if your efforts are challenged as inadequate to the goal you set. Are you backing out?

humble says: At that point, the inquiry will be something like, is there any facet from one argument that creates an interesting possibility in addressing an objection from another? If so, how?

In short, is it possible that the arguments compliment [sic] each other in some way?

The goal you originally set would require you to show that the arguments complement each other in a way that shows the collection is stronger than each of the original arguments. Let’s not get lost in some weaker form of the goal that just shows there are relationships between the arguments, or brings up a form of an existing response to a weakness that has previously been raised about an argument.

humble says: mobathome wrote:[You are to “show how they are stronger when considered together” as an argument for the existence of the God having all of the properties listed in Austin’s page on defining God.]

The reason I’m suggesting this is that the above arguments don’t address some of the attributes listed.

That is one of the many weaknesses that some of these arguments have, so we should not rule out your being able to address it. Some of the creators of these arguments were trying to eventually prove the existence of a God with all of the properties listed even though they make have only tried to take a step towards the goal with the argument, so we should have the same goal. Also, the “Will to believe doctrine” seems to go for the whole package.

Humble,

I wonder if we should take this discussion into Austin’s forum. The editor there is easier to use and includes a spell checker.

mobathome

mobathome wrote:[You’re claiming that it is not “dishonest and unethical” when you did it because you intended to prove a point. Feel free to prove this.]

Actually I think it was dishonest and unethical then too, that is why I rejected the tactic immediately, in the same post and haven’t kept using it. I think it would equally apply to both of us.

mobathome wrote:[Also, you only rejected it as “childish and ridiculous” and not the much more serious “dishonest and unethical” claim you’ve repeated at length on this page and on the other one. Feel free to prove that these are identical claims.]

Something can be dishonest, unethical, childish and ridiculous all at the same time.

mobathome wrote:[Furthermore, you had the chutzpah to do this to a responder who was only pointing out that your claim was out of place:]

Do what exactly? Engage in a completely honest and ethical debating practice? Why would it take chutzpah to do something that is perfectly ok to do?

You can’t have it both ways. Either it’s fine or it’s bogus. If it is fine, just say so, and don’t complain when people start engaging every single one of Austin’s articles this way. If it is bogus, you were wrong to use it in the first place.

mobathome wrote:[ Finally, you have ignored my requests that you prove that this form of mocking is “dishonest and unethical”, which is a very serious claim.]

Yep. And you’ve ignored my question of, “would it be ok if a large group of people move in and did this to every single one of Austin’s articles as soon as it posts?”

I think that would be a serious and unethical treatment of this blog. Don’t you?

That’s my proof. If the point of this is to further our understanding and sharpen our thinking, which for me it is… as hard as that may be to believe then it seems to me that this is a tactic which could completely short circuit any benefit.

mobathome wrote:[I took pity on your confusion and decided to be explicit. I had thought that you would be able to get it, just as Dean saw what I was doing.]

I got it and apologies to Dean for dragging him (or at least his comment) into this silly back and forth.

mobathome wrote:[Good!
You claimed you could show how a collection of arguments for God that have weaknesses are stronger when considered together, so the arguments I chose must have weaknesses. (Are there any arguments for God that have no weaknesses?) But while these arguments have weaknesses, they should be engaged.

I’m concerned you’re trying to set up an out for yourself here, where you can just say “we’ll just have to agree to disagree” if your efforts are challenged as inadequate to the goal you set. Are you backing out?]

Not my intent to back out. But I’m not sure you’ve answered the question. Do these arguments have weight, strength, or validity you can take seriously? If not, we’re both wasting our time. If we don’t agree on that point, we’re already done.

If you can’t bring yourself to agree that these arguments have any weight considered apart, then we’re just adding up zeroes. So what do you think? Willing to agree to that one?

mobathome wrote:[The goal you originally set would require you to show that the arguments complement each other in a way that shows the collection is stronger than each of the original arguments. Let’s not get lost in some weaker form of the goal that just shows there are relationships between the arguments, or brings up a form of an existing response to a weakness that has previously been raised about an argument.]

Look at it this way, if the arguments have some level of merit and some level of weakness, then taken together there should be three basic possibilities:

- The separate arguments when taken together will complement each other (not compliment, sorry) and will be stronger when considered together

- The separate arguments when taken together will detract or contradict each other and will be weaker when considered together

- It won’t make any difference

I’m suggesting the first, you’re suggesting the second. Let’s beat on it a bit and see where we land. I think this will prove interesting and insightful regardless of whether or not we agree at the end of it.

This will sound odd. But I’m looking forward to taking a legitimate run at this… and I’m also looking forward to you taking a run at showing the opposite in response.

mobathome wrote:[That is one of the many weaknesses that some of these arguments have, so we should not rule out your being able to address it. Some of the creators of these arguments were trying to eventually prove the existence of a God with all of the properties listed even though they make have only tried to take a step towards the goal with the argument, so we should have the same goal. Also, the “Will to believe doctrine” seems to go for the whole package.]

Ok am with you, that seems extremely fair to me.

If you wanted to move this to the forum, that would be fine. Would you be willing to start the thread and link to it? I haven’t actually posted on Austin’s forum yet.

(34) humble says: mobathome wrote:[You’re claiming that it is not “dishonest and unethical” when you did it because you intended to prove a point. Feel free to prove this.]

Actually I think it was dishonest and unethical then too, that is why I rejected the tactic immediately, in the same post and haven’t kept using it.

Good, you’re consistent: you say you were being dishonest and unethical, but you’ve reformed.

(34) humble says: mobathome wrote:[Furthermore, you had the chutzpah to do this to a responder who was only pointing out that your claim was out of place:]

You can’t have it both ways. Either it’s fine or it’s bogus.

I’m not trying to have it both ways. I’m calling you out on acting in a way you say is dishonest and unethical, while complaining that acting this very way is dishonest and unethical.

(34) humble says: mobathome wrote:[ Finally, you have ignored my requests that you prove that this form of mocking is “dishonest and unethical”, which is a very serious claim.]

That’s my proof.

Asking me a question is not stating a proof. Since you made the claim, you should support it.

(34) humble says: But I’m not sure you’ve answered the question. Do these arguments have weight, strength, or validity you can take seriously?

I take these arguments seriously, and think it is important to address them. Some of their weaknesses have been exposed through criticism. The question is whether you can shore up these weaknesses by considering three arguments simultaneously. If you can, then I will recognize that.

(34) humble says: Look at it this way, if the arguments have some level of merit and some level of weakness, then taken together there should be three basic possibilities:

I’m suggesting the first, you’re suggesting the second.

In fact I’ve never claimed the second. My point was different from yours; you hadn’t yet explained what you meant. I meant that with so many failed attempts, the prospects of attaining the goal should seem slimmer.

(34) humble says: If you wanted to move this to the forum, that would be fine. Would you be willing to start the thread and link to it? I haven’t actually posted on Austin’s forum yet.

I’ll be happy to do that. What do you suggest I copy over to introduce the discussion? Perhaps I should just link back to the comments on this page?

mobathome,

Yes, linking to the comments here would be fine, and thank you for setting this up.

mobathome wrote:[Asking me a question is not stating a proof. Since you made the claim, you should support it.]

Ok.

Plagiarism is defined as, “To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another.”

Misquote is defined as, “To quote incorrectly.”

The synonyms for “misquote” are: misrepresent, twist, distort, pervert, muddle, mangle, falsify, garble, misreport, misstate, quote or take out of context.

If the statement was your own, you used too many of my words to not be guilty of plagiarism, even if you changed the meaning.

To plagiarize someone is a dishonest and unethical practice.

If the statement was mine, then you didn’t quote it correctly.

To misquote someone is a dishonest and unethical practice.

The altered statement contained words from my original statement verbatim, with slight changes, that I did not approve. The altered statement either came from you, or it came from me. Since it came from you, or from me, then it is either plagiarism, or a misquotation.

It is not ok to take a statement by someone and mangle it to say the opposite, even if that is clever or mocking in intent.

If that is our honest and ethical standard for refuting or contesting a claim, then no one can ever say anything again without immediately being faced with a stated quote of the opposite, and that somehow being considered a valid criticism or response.

Especially taken in isolation, with no surrounding context or argument, this would not be allowed in a medical journal. It would not be allowed in a peer reviewed scientific response. It would not be allowed on an essay test for a philosophy exam. It would not be allowed in popular music, without the express permission of the orginal author. It would not be allowed in court testimony, either during an engagement with witnesses or during cross examination.

If this tactic would be rejected as a dishonest and unethical tactic in any level of formal discourse, then it must be rejected as such here.

Therefore, the use of the altered quote was dishonest and unethical.

If it feels good or looks good, don’t do it!
It’s probably another con job.

A fetus is not a child because a fetus cannot breathe.

(36) humble says: Yes, linking to the comments here would be fine, and thank you for setting this up.

I’m happy to do it, and will do so over the weekend. I’ll then drop off a link here. You should also know that Austin’s forum is a rough and tumble area, that it is likely that some of the inhabitants will jump in unbidden, and that some of what you read might be insulting and rude. To help with this, I intend to ask for the conversation to be for ourselves, and I will also create a separate comments conversation as an outlet for any who need it.

(36) humble says: The synonyms for “misquote” are: misrepresent, twist, distort, pervert, muddle, mangle, falsify, garble, misreport, misstate, quote or take out of context.

Feel free to show that each of these words has substantially the same meaning as “quote incorrectly.”

By the way, what thesaurus are you quoting?

(36) humble says: To misquote someone is a dishonest and unethical practice.

Feel free to show that to “quote incorrectly” is dishonest and unethical.

(36) humble says: If the statement was your own, you used too many of my words to not be guilty of plagiarism, even if you changed the meaning.

The definition of plagiarism you provide makes no mention of the number of words used. Feel free to show that plagiarism has to do with the number of words used.

By the way, what dictionary are you quoting?

(36) humble says: It is not ok to take a statement by someone and mangle it to say the opposite, even if that is clever or mocking in intent.

This is a restatement of the heart of your unproven claim, so it cannot be used to support it.

(36) humble says: Especially taken in isolation, with no surrounding context or argument, this would not be allowed in a medical journal. It would not be allowed in a peer reviewed scientific response. It would not be allowed on an essay test for a philosophy exam. It would not be allowed in popular music, without the express permission of the orginal [sic] author. It would not be allowed in court testimony, either during an engagement with witnesses or during cross examination.

What do you mean by “in isolation” or “no surrounding context,” and how do they apply to what I did?

Also, feel free to support each of these broad claims, especially since the claim that this holds for music is false in the U.S. since in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1994).

(36) humble says: If this tactic would be rejected as a dishonest and unethical tactic in any level of formal discourse, then it must be rejected as such here.

What do you mean by “level of formal discourse”?

humble:

I have created a thread for our discussion in Austin’s forum. See you there by Monday, I hope.

mobathome,

1000 apologies for the delay here, I’ll have something posted tonight.

Thank you! I’ll be looking for you.

Of course, the general argument (a fetus may be a person, but it has no right to use a woman’s organs’ only makes sense if a fetus just sorta’… happens. This is not the case. I doubt that many, if any, people reading this piece do not know A) where “babies come from”, B) how freakin’ difficult it is to prevent certain actions from resulting in pregnancy. The Teleological argument here is not about the purpose of the *uterus*, it is about the typical consequence of *intercourse*.

Since the people involved are (or darn well should be) aware of the possible, even probable consequences of intercourse, they are morally and ethically required to shoulder the burdens of those consequences. Or should all those men paying child support be excused their payments? After all, what possible claim on their resources does a child have?

Well, according to the law (and moral and ethical principles) those men owe their resources to that child because of the decisions they made that led to actions that resulted in a child being conceived. It isn’t about the nature of reproductive organs, it is about the consequences of actions – intercourse.

Of course, the general argument (a fetus may be a person, but it has no right to use a woman’s organs’ only makes sense if a fetus just sorta’… happens.

Why?

The Teleological argument here is not about the purpose of the *uterus*, it is about the typical consequence of *intercourse*.

So since pregnancy is a possible consequence of intercourse, the state has the authority to prevent women from ending any particular pregnancy that happens to result? Since pregnancy is a possible consequence of intercourse, women have a moral obligation to carry the pregnancy to term? Since pregnancy is a possible consequence of intercourse, a fetus has a moral and legal claim on the use of a woman’s body and organs?

I’m sorry, but I don’t see any of the logical and ethical connections you seem to be making here. You’re going to have to spell them out for me. Given the unusual nature of what you propose — forcing an adult human being to provide their organs and body for the use of another — it would help if you could spell out the legal and ethical precedents. In what other cases can a person be obligated to provide their body and organs for the use of another because that’s part of the consequence of the actions carried out by the first?

Since the people involved are (or darn well should be) aware of the possible, even probable consequences of intercourse, they are morally and ethically required to shoulder the burdens of those consequences.

Why? Since an abortion stops the consequences from fully developing, aren’t you saying that women should be prevented from stopping the consequence from developing?

How does the woman in question assume an ethical or legal obligation to provide her body and organs for the use of the fetus?

Or should all those men paying child support be excused their payments?

How are child support payments analogous to providing one’s organs and body for the use of another against one’s will?

The teleological argument here is, actually, very clear. Let me give an example.

If I eat 5,000 calories a day and do not engage in heavy exercise at the same time, the natural consequence is that I will probably become obese. There may be a few people with unusual metabolisms that will not, but the vast majority will. This is why there is a general rejection of lawsuits where obese people attempt to collect “damages” from places that sell food – they are facing the consequences of their own decisions and volitional actions.

This is also the reasoning behind men paying child support – the men consciously and willingly engaged in behavior that can result in engendering a child. Thus, their very action of engaging in intercourse was the tacit admission that they may be responsible for a life that they must thereafter support.

Another example – if a woman adopts a child and then allows it to starve, she is guilty of criminal negligence, not ‘exercising freedom’. When a woman accepts the risk of becoming pregnant, she accepts the risk of becoming responsible, too. Unlike a man (who faces a primarily financial responsibility) she faces a biological responsibility.

When a woman engages in intercourse she knows that there is a chance that she will become pregnant. The decision she makes to have intercourse is a tacit acceptance of the responsibility to bear that child to term. As you say, if the unborn child does indeed have a right to life, then she accepting responsibility for that life willingly and knowlingly when she engages in intercourse, even if the odds are low.

Further, your argument about ‘use of organs’ is slim, anyway – women are not *denied* the use of their own kidneys, etc., they share them (and, as teleology argues, voluntarily). Going on to comparing pregnancy to forced organ donation, when organ donation is permanent and denies use of the organ to the donor, is a false analogy.

I also must comment on this quote of yours;

“Given the unusual nature of what you propose — forcing an adult human being to provide their organs and body for the use of another…”

Despite your rather strained language, I hope that you are aware that pregnancy is so very common and natural that it takes extreme measures to reduce the possibility or pregnancy to low levels. Your verbal gymnastics are entertaining, but there are literally tens of millions of women doing just that – being pregnant – just among the potential readers of this piece!

Further, since one of the setups for this piece is the idea that this is the concession (within this context) that a fetus does have a right to life, I could state that it is far more unusual to assert that the right to life is trumped by inconvenience to others!

If I eat 5,000 calories a day and do not engage in heavy exercise at the same time, the natural consequence is that I will probably become obese.

Or you can get liposuction. Unless you wish to argue that liposuction is immoral, you must concede that, in principle, it’s morally licit to use mechanical means to eliminate an expected consequence of chosen behavior. Therefore, your objections must be focused on the specifics of the pregnancy situation. This entails that for an analogy to be sufficiently relevant, it must involve more of the most relevant issues: a life or at least health at stake and dependency on the body/organs of another. Such analogies have been raised in the original post and in subsequent comments. So, why not actually use them instead of making up new analogies which contain none of the most relevant and important characteristics?

When a woman engages in intercourse she knows that there is a chance that she will become pregnant.

And why does this justify criminalizing abortion? Why does it justify saying that the fetus has a legal and/or moral claim on the use of the woman’s body and organs against her will?

Further, your argument about ‘use of organs’ is slim, anyway – women are not *denied* the use of their own kidneys, etc., they share them

My argument does not require the woman being denied use of her body and organs, so your objection is a straw man. I’d say it’s a deliberate straw man if you are aware of JJT’s original argument; if you are not aware of JJT’s original argument, then you simply don’t know enough to offer an informed opinion about the question. The fact is that the woman’s body and organs are being used by another. Extra strain is being put upon them. Can you provide any moral or legal basis for this?

I hope that you are aware that pregnancy is so very common and natural that it takes extreme measures to reduce the possibility or pregnancy to low levels.

Avoiding and ending pregnancy is as natural as becoming pregnant.

Further, since one of the setups for this piece is the idea that this is the concession (within this context) that a fetus does have a right to life, I could state that it is far more unusual to assert that the right to life is trumped by inconvenience to others!

In the context of this argument, you could indeed state that — but be completely wrong. In the context of this argument, the situation is that one person is being forced to provide their body and organs to sustain the life of another. Whether the person finds this utterly intolerable or merely inconvenient is ultimately irrelevant because there is no moral or legal basis for forcing the person under threat of legal sanction to remain in such a situation. This remains the case even if, hypothetically, the original person engaged in behavior which precipitated situation.

Let me quote the lead-in to this piece;

“One argument in defense of abortion which does not dispute the pro-life position that the fetus might have a right to live …”

Liposuction does not involve the termination of a life. Although I think it can be argues that liposuction is immoral, even if it is licit morally to remove the unintended consequence of an action, that does not extend to the termination of the life of another human, a key point in this piece, that this article can concede the pro-life position that a fetus has a right to life? So far, many of your arguments make your lead-in a bad-faith statement.

Also, I fail to see how you respond to the key argument here – that the woman in question has *already* tacitly accepted responsibility when she accepted the inherent risks of intercourse. “unintended” does not equal “unforeseeable”, does it? If a person takes a risk with a well-known, well-documented 4% chance of causing the death of another, they will be morally guilty of manslaughter (at least) if that action results in the death of another. A woman engaging in intercourse knows and tacitly accepts that she is facing some probability of becoming responsible for the life of another person for at least normal gestation.

Within the context of your statements, this is the acceptance of at least the chance that yes, she will be pregnant. Far from it being imposed upon the mother by some alien force, it is the natural consequences of her own moral and ethical decisions at the time of conception. This moral consequence involves the initiation of a person who is helpless *because of* the actions of the mother and father – we cannot create fully-formed adults. To then claim that the existence of a life that is both in existence and helpless because of your own moral decisions and positive actions is grounds to free you of moral constraints on ending the life of that same person is ludicrous.

Indeed, that is why some secular opponents of abortion support exceptions for cases of rape – rape is the denial of moral choice to the woman concerning intercourse (amongst other crimes). Conception as part of rape does *not* involve the woman’s assent to the consequences of pregnancy (mainly, being pregnant) which is the basis for much of the ‘rape and incest exception’ argument.

Further, the state is not in this case mandating that ‘another person be granted the use of a woman’s organs’, it is mandating that ‘a helpless person may not be killed for the convenience of another’ – a very different argument. In the concept of teleology, the moral exchange looks like this

[woman]
1) I am interested in intercourse
2) I am aware that, regardless of preventative measures, there is a non-zero chance that I will conceive
2a) Conception results in the creation of a new human life for which I am morally responsible while it is gestating
2b) I may be further morally responsible for this person until they reach adulthood unless I surrender them for adoption after gestation
3) I choose intercourse and accept its risks.

The only way to dodge this teleological bullet, the tacit acceptance of responsibility during the act of conception, is the argument that a fetus is not alive/not human/without rights/etc. that is typically used. Or, conversely, the argument that in at least some circumstances the convenience of one human being is more valuable than the life of another human being.

Liposuction does not involve the termination of a life.

It doesn’t involve questions of life and death at all, which is why your analogy of eating was an invalid analogy to begin with — and thus why I haven’t engaged in any bad-faith arguments. In fact, by accusing me of using bad-faith arguments, you imply that you didn’t understand or are simply ignoring my explanation for why your analogies are invalid. I notice that you don’t bother to deal with any of the much more valid analogies, further reinforcing that conclusion.

Also, I fail to see how you respond to the key argument here – that the woman in question has *already* tacitly accepted responsibility when she accepted the inherent risks of intercourse.

That’s not an argument, that’s one of your premises — and I have engaged it by challenging it. When you spend time supporting this premise, I’ll engage it in more detail. Before that, though, you might want to stop for a moment and consider the difference between arguments and premises — and why it’s inappropriate to complain when people don’t “respond” to a premise which you have only just now stated directly and which you have never spent any time explaining or justifying.

“unintended” does not equal “unforeseeable”, does it?

No, but not every foreseeable consequence is one which we have a moral obligation to see through to the end of. It is possible to be confronted with a foreseeable consequence and then take steps to eliminate it. Sometimes this is licit; sometimes it is not. You cannot make the argument the abortion is wrong merely because it is eliminating a foreseeable consequence; instead, you must make the argument that this is a case where, for some reason, it is illicit. You don’t do this. Instead, for some reason, you keep repeating the fact that the consequence of pregnancy is “foreseeable” as if that alone makes a difference.

It’s little wonder that many have conclude that for anti-choice activists, pregnancy is a “punishment” which women must endure for the “sin” of being sluts and having sex — and that’s why they shouldn’t be allowed to evade pregnancy through contraception and abortion. Everytime you repeat the undisputed fact that pregnancy is “foreseeable” as if that alone matters without making an argument for why this foreseeable consequence in these circumstances is not licit to avoid, you reinforce that conclusion.

If a person takes a risk with a well-known, well-documented 4% chance of causing the death of another, they will be morally guilty of manslaughter (at least) if that action results in the death of another.

Do they? Please, do provide documentation of this legal standard. I’ve never heard of it and, quite frankly, I don’t think it exists — I think you just made it up.

This is not to say that there aren’t any legal standards involving manslaughter. There is a difference between punishable behavior which can foreseeably result in the death of another and non-punishable behavior which can foreseeably result in the death of another. To put it another way, it is possible for you to engage in behavior which has a non-zero chance of causing injury or death to others without you bearing legal liability if in fact injury or death occurs.

Now, if you are going to bring manslaughter into the discussion, perhaps you can explain how abortion fits in there by falling under the same standards as those used in manslaughter convictions.

Far from it being imposed upon the mother by some alien force, it is the natural consequences of her own moral and ethical decisions at the time of conception.

That pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether that fact gives the fetus a moral or legal claim on the organs and body of the woman. You have not offered an argument linking the undisputed premise with the disputed conclusion. The closest you come is to offer the additional premise stated above, but it’s a premise which is both disputed and which alone cannot serve to establish the truth of your conclusion.

To then claim that the existence of a life that is both in existence and helpless because of your own moral decisions and positive actions is grounds to free you of moral constraints on ending the life of that same person is ludicrous.

If it’s so ludicrous, then you should have little problem articulating the moral and legal principles establishing the fact that the fetus has moral and legal claims on the body and organs of the mother which the state has the authority to enforce through legal sanctions.

Indeed, that is why some secular opponents of abortion support exceptions for cases of rape – rape is the denial of moral choice to the woman concerning intercourse (amongst other crimes).

You don’t say whether you agree with this; indeed, you suggest you don’t with the phrase “secular opponents.” If you do agree with this, then you are staking your entire position on the idea that a woman’s consent to sex creates moral and legal obligations to provide her body and organs for use by the fetus whether she wants to or not — obligations which the state has the authority to enforce via legal sanctions. This is a position you have yet to establish; you merely state it.

If you do not agree with it and oppose legal abortion even in cases of rape, then clearly the consent to sex is not what creates the aforementioned moral and legal obligations — those obligations exist even when consent to sex does not exist. So you’ll have to drop that line of argument and explain what really does ground your position then make a case for that instead (and I’lll ask why you wasted time with an irrelevant line of argument).

Further, the state is not in this case mandating that ‘another person be granted the use of a woman’s organs’, it is mandating that ‘a helpless person may not be killed for the convenience of another’ – a very different argument.

In principle, those are different arguments. In this case, however, the latter entails the former because the latter can be described as the goal and the former can be described as the method. So to put it another way, you are arguing that the state has a legitimate goal in preventing a “helpless person” from being “killed for the convenience of another,” and the state has a legitimate means for achieving this goal in forcing the “other” to provide their body and organs for use by the “helpless person.”

If the state criminalizes abortion and uses legal sanctions to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, then the state is necessarily forcing an adult citizen to provide their body and organs for use by another against their will. This is an accurate description of the situation and it is a state of affairs which you have to be able to justify. If you cannot or will justify the power of the state to force an adult to provide their body and organs for the use of another, then you cannot justify the power of the state to criminalize abortions.

The only way to dodge this teleological bullet, the tacit acceptance of responsibility during the act of conception, is the argument that a fetus is not alive/not human/without rights/etc. that is typically used.

No, I can simply challenge you to support 2a, though it has to be stated immediately that you have not expressed 2a to the fullest extent. Here, I’ll restate it more completely:

2a. Conception results in the creation a new human life for which I am morally and legally responsible while it is gestating, such that I have a moral and legal obligation to provide it with my body and organs for its use even against my will and under threat of legal sanctions from the government.

So, this is the 2a which is being challenged. The fetus’ life depends on its ability to continue using the body and organs of the woman. Even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that the fetus has the same moral and legal status as a fully grown adult, the right of a fully grown adult to bodily autonomy — to control the use of that body and organs — outweighs the right of another to use that body to survive.

No matter how much you, for example, might need to temporarily use my body to survive, my right to decide what happens to my body outweighs it — even if my decision is based entirely on my own convenience. People may morally condemn me for disconnecting you from me and thereby causing your death, but the state would have no authority to force me to remain connected. That’s my position and you are more than welcome to cite legal standards which demonstrate that there is a basis and there is precedent for the state having such authority over my body. If you can’t, then the rest is just smoke and mirrors — hand waving to distract us from the absence of the one key argument which could justify criminalizing abortion.

Deep Thought: you are one of the most engaging, respectful, organised and coherent religious debaters I have read on this site. I enjoyed reading your posts.

I have one observation: wouldn’t this statement of yours (below) imply that all vehicle drivers must be found guilty of manslaughter in every vehicle accident where someone is killed?

“If a person takes a risk with a well-known, well-documented 4% chance of causing the death of another, they will be morally guilty of manslaughter (at least) if that action results in the death of another.”

I’m not trying to “trip” you, just asking. Cheers.

A fetus can’t breathe. It is just like a turd which can’t breathe.

Austin,
Sorry for the delay – busy week. I will review and respond soon.

Drew,
Thanks! Well, in cases of fatal accidents there is usually a review and often a trial to see if risks were increased by negligence, etc. and, if so, criminal penalties are invoked.

John Hanks,
And once you, too, were a fetus.

Austin and many others here miss that the pro-life argument is not that the woman caused the pregnancy (in the sense of the medical condition), but that she is responsible for the baby’s neediness (fetus vs. baby is not the issue here).
Imagine a drunk driver who crashes into others. Would we treat his injuries? Yes. Does that fact mean he can dodge his obligations to those he injured? No. Alleged disanalogies do not negate the main point that one can avoid natural consequences as they affect himself/herself, but must still remedy them as they affect others.
People also miss is that if the woman is not responsible for the child’s uterine neediness, then the father is not responsible for the need for money.
With conjoined twins, the state should sometimes stop the separation.
Ann and Jane are conjoined twins. Ann loves sexaphoriaxamine. It is injected into her brain to simulate the pleasures of sex. She uses a method to keep it from permeating the blood stream. It has a small chance of causing heart-lung failure if it permeates. Well, Jane makes a mistake with the permeation prevention and it permeates the system, causing Jane’s heart-lung damage. It will only last nine months. If the two are separated before the nine-months has elapsed, Jane will die. However, Ann is incredibly selfish and demands to be separated now, even though it will kill Jane.
I will not even entertain any argument that Ann has a right to be separated. She does not. She is responsible for Jane’s need to halt the separation.

Austin and many others here miss that the pro-life argument is not that the woman caused the pregnancy (in the sense of the medical condition), but that she is responsible for the baby’s neediness (fetus vs. baby is not the issue here).

Feel free to explain how there is any “responsibility” which entails a moral and legal obligation on the part of the woman to provide the fetus with the use of her body and organs against her will.

Imagine a drunk driver who crashes into others. Would we treat his injuries? Yes.

Am I legally obligated to? Not unless I have training. In fact, if I have no training and try to administer any care which then makes things worse, I believe that would lead to charges against me.

Is the driver legally obligated to provide her with the use of their body or organs until she can survive on her own? No. Can the state charge the driver with murder for refusing? No. The driver can be charged with respect to his actions but not with respect to his refusal to provide his body and organs for use by the person he injured. Why? Because there is no basis for anyone to have any such obligation, even in cases where they are responsible for the neediness of the one who needs the body and organs.

So what you’ve done here is provide an analogy which helps support my argument. Thank you.

People also miss is that if the woman is not responsible for the child’s uterine neediness, then the father is not responsible for the need for money.

Feel free to make an argument for this position.

With conjoined twins, the state should sometimes stop the separation.

Why? Feel free to provide the legal basis and precedents for this position. If you can’t, then you aren’t providing an analogy which establishes any legal obligation on the part of a woman to provide her body and organs for the use of a fetus against her will.

I do not care at all about legal precedents here. I only care about what is morally correct.

Treating the drunk driver’s injuries illustrates the natural consequence issues. He must still bear financial liability for the injuries, even though he has the right to receive medical care.

If prenatal adoption were possible (another woman or a machine), the woman could use those to relieve her of the burden of pregnancy, since those would not harm the baby.

Do you accept that the mother is responsible for the neediness? If you do, I need not press the child support issue.

The drunk driver would be morally obligated to provide the organs he/she caused the need for. I feel no need whatsoever to justify that position. It should be obvious.
I have never heard any rational argument against forcing the donation in a hypothetical case like that. People just say “everyone has an absolute claim to their bodies”, but give no support for the claim.

I have never heard of a court case in which one has sued to force organ donation when the donor caused the need. Not only is the situation exceedingly rare, but the driver must be a suitable donor, which lowers the odds of the issue arising even more.

I have also heard of no similar case to the conjoined twins here (The “Jodie” and “Mary” case was vastly different, since both would have certainly died without the separation).

I am dealing strictly in hypothetical cases which resemble as much as possible a typical pregnancy.

I do not care at all about legal precedents here. I only care about what is morally correct.

If you want the state to criminalize abortion, you must be able to articulate some basis for the state having the authority to do so. Not everything that everyone thinks is immoral is illegal.

So, are you admitting that while you think abortion is immoral, it cannot be criminalized?

Treating the drunk driver’s injuries illustrates the natural consequence issues

It illustrates the fact that putting a person in that position does not entail a moral or legal obligation to provide them with the use of my body or organs. It also illustrates the fact that you cannot explain how or why the woman has any such obligation to the fetus.

Do you accept that the mother is responsible for the neediness? If you do, I need not press the child support issue.

Sorry, but you do have to support your claim regarding the child support issue.

The drunk driver would be morally obligated to provide the organs he/she caused the need for. I feel no need whatsoever to justify that position. It should be obvious.

Sorr, but it’s not obvious to me. I’ve never seen nor heard of anyone asserting such a position, which would make it rather unique to you. So you do need to justify it.

I have never heard any rational argument against forcing the donation in a hypothetical case like that.

I’ve never heard a rational argument in favor of forcing the donation in a hypothetical case like that. In case you are unaware of this, though, the burden of proof lies primarily on the claimant.

Also, here’s a strong reason against, and one which you may not be familiar with: bodily autonomy & integrity.

People just say “everyone has an absolute claim to their bodies”, but give no support for the claim.

Here we return to your refusal to provide any legal arguments. Stop and think about the fact that you aren’t just making a moral argument here. Those organs aren’t going to magically remove themselves from the driver’s body, are they? No, the state will apply force to have them removed. Ergo, your argument depends on justifying the existence of some basis for the state having the authority to do this.

And this is where the argument of “bodily autonomy & integrity” comes in. You see, a person’s right to their bodies is supported by the fact that the state has no authority over or claim to them (in the manner you claim is “obvious”).

I have never heard of a court case in which one has sued to force organ donation when the donor caused the need.

Maybe because that’s because the state has no authority to force a person to provide their body or organs for the use of another and what you call “obvious” would be laughed out of court?

I am dealing strictly in hypothetical cases which resemble as much as possible a typical pregnancy.

Since we are dealing with hypothetical cases, the fact that they haven’t come up is irrelevant. All that matters is whether you can articulate a legal basis for giving the state the authority to force a person to provide their body and organs for the use of another.

But you can’t. You refuse. You side-step the issue by claiming that you position is “obvious” and doesn’t need to be justified. It’s as much as an admission that you have no argument but can’t bear to give up your position.

What you did not answer is whether you accept that the mother is responsible for the child’s neediness.

Asserting “bodily autonomy & integrity” is not an argument. You must back up why this right cannot be lost when all other rights can be.

We can lose the right to live by killing others. We should be able to lose bodily integrity rights by inducing the need to have them violated.

Anything we think of as immoral (not just indecent) should be illegal. If the donor lost the moral right to the organ, the state can use any force to take it.

No, the people who need an argument are those who reject the concept of responsibility. To say the drunk driver can refuse the donation believe that one can induce neediness and not remedy it. This position condones irresponsibility. Forcing the donation is not punitive. Punishment means that the penalty does not tangibly benefit the victim.

The reason you have never heard anyone argue such a position is that the question hardly ever comes up. I have seen only one debate on it, and I am not the only one who thinks the way that I do.

The correct approach to banning abortion is getting a constitutional amendment, which helps avoid any precedent issues.

What you did not answer is whether you accept that the mother is responsible for the child’s neediness.

What you have not established is whether it makes a difference.

Asserting “bodily autonomy & integrity” is not an argument. You must back up why this right cannot be lost when all other rights can be.

The loss of other rights typically occurs as a punishment. Does this mean you are treating forced pregnancy as a punishment?

We can lose the right to live by killing others. We should be able to lose bodily integrity rights by inducing the need to have them violated.

There are specific arguments to justify the state’s authority to execute people. Perhaps you should consider providing specific arguments to justify the state’s authority to force a person to provide their body and organs for the use of others?

Anything we think of as immoral (not just indecent) should be illegal.

Some people think that following the wrong religion is immoral. Some people think that atheism is immoral.

Some people think that blood transfusions are immoral.

I think that forcing a person to provide their body and organs for the use of others is immoral. I think that forcing a women to remain pregnant against her will is immoral.

If the donor lost the moral right to the organ, the state can use any force to take it.

Why? On what basis can you claim that it’s ever possible for a person to “lose the moral right” to their own organs? I can’t let such a dramatic claim with such far-ranging consequences go unchallenged. I’d like to see a strong argument in defense of it.

If a person can “lose the moral right” to their own organs, does that include organs they need to survive – such that the state has the authority to remove them and kill the “donor”? Why even call them a “donor” if they are essentially being executed for their organs?

If a person can “lose the moral right” to their own organs, can they also “lose the moral right” to their bodies such that they can be sold into slavery as punishment for some crime? For example, if I cause an accident and leads to a person being paralyzed, should I “lose the moral right” to my own body and become this person’s slave? If so, I’d like to see a justification for this position as well.

No, the people who need an argument are those who reject the concept of responsibility.

So, you assert that the state has the authority to force others to provide their body and organs for the use of others, but you also assert that you have no obligation to justify this, explain what it’s basis is, or articulate the limits of this authority?

No one has “reject[ed] the concept of responsibility.” What I reject is the automatic assumption that “responsibility” makes a legal difference here. You have yet to articulate any sort of legal argument demonstrating that the state has the authority to take away the use of my body or organs once I pass the threshold for some level of “responsibility” but not before. Unless and until you do, that’s not a premise that you can keep relying on.

To say the drunk driver can refuse the donation believe that one can induce neediness and not remedy it.

If you wish to explain when, why, and how the state is authorized to use force to compel a person to remedy neediness in others, feel free. If you don’t wish to, you can’t ethically use this as a premise in your argument.

The reason you have never heard anyone argue such a position is that the question hardly ever comes up.

It comes up here, and as of yet no one has provided an argument. You flat out refuse to do so.

I have seen only one debate on it, and I am not the only one who thinks the way that I do.

Feel free to cite any philosophers, scholars, or jurists who have articulated and defended this position. Maybe they have been willing to offer arguments where you have not.

The correct approach to banning abortion is getting a constitutional amendment, which helps avoid any precedent issues.

It doesn’t avoid the question of what basis there is for the state having authority in this area.

What punishment do you conceive is appropriate for all the people involved in abortion — the woman, the doctor, the nurses, the secretaries, etc.? If abortion is murder, they are all at the very least accomplices in murder. If the get-away driver in a bank robbery where murder is committed can get the same punishment as the guy who pulled the trigger, then surely the secretary who makes the appointment should get the same punishment as the doctor with the surgical instruments. Since you seem to approve of capital punishment, shouldn’t they all be put on death row?

Addendum:

Here is an analogy which might help illustrate why I think you still have a lot of work to do in order to establish that being “responsible for the child’s neediness” and why that’s so important:

I, as a man, have a right to father a child — this is a right rooted in the exact same constitutional arguments as the right to an abortion outlined in Roe v. Wade.

That child could, in theory, be born with a defect that causes its kidneys to malfunction and therefore need a kidney transplant. It’s possible that I could know this is a risk and it’s possible that I have no idea — my right to father this child is the same either way. Indeed, I have a right to father a child even if I know, for a fact, that that child will suffer from some form of genetic disorder.

It is also the case that, either way, I have some responsibility for the existence of this needy person. There would not be a need for a kidney if it weren’t for my actions.

Now, what if my kidney is a perfect match? I know, the size would make me an unsuitable donor, but I think we can ignore that for our purposes here. Is there either a legal or a moral obligation for me to donate a kidney? You might be able to make a case for the existence of a moral obligation and a lot of people would probably think much less of me if I refused, but since the issue here is whether abortion should be legal or be a crime, what you ultimately must be able to do is establish the existence of a legal obligation.

I don’t think you can do it, but what’s significant here for me is that I am aware of no basis for idea that my being responsible for the existence of this needy person, or the existence of neediness in this person, makes any legal difference. My personal autonomy, which encompasses an absolute right to refuse to have it cut open and organs removed, is the same whether the person needing the kidney is a stranger living on the other side of the world or a child I fathered.

My legal and moral position is that the same should be true of women. I, as a man, should have no more legal rights or moral status than a woman. If I as a man can refuse to provide the use of my body or organs to another being then so should a woman. Thus far, the idea that any responsibility on my part for the neediness of the recipient has not been supported in any way, shape, or form; in contrast, there are many strong analogies which indicate that this neediness does not create any such legal obligation.

“…I haven’t engaged in any bad-faith arguments. In fact, by accusing me of using bad-faith arguments, you imply that you didn’t understand or are simply ignoring my explanation for why your analogies are invalid.”

Uh, no. Actually, as I clearly showed with direct quotes my complaint about you making a bad faith argument is that the premise of the teleological position is that a fetus has a right to life but your rebuttals imply that you do not share that belief. It has nothing to do with my analogies!

“That’s not an argument, that’s one of your premises — and I have engaged it by challenging it. ”

My, my. Parsing language so closely so soon. As Socrates would say “oh, I am such a fool. Now – what’s wrong with my logic?”. BTW, Austin, *ignoring* my premise is not “challenging” nor is saying ‘nuh-uh’. The closest you come to challenging this is this exchange

” [quote]When a woman engages in intercourse she knows that there is a chance that she will become pregnant.[/quote]

And why does this justify criminalizing abortion? Why does it justify saying that the fetus has a legal and/or moral claim on the use of the woman’s body and organs against her will?”

Well, the first is that abortion is the removal of life from a human being that has a right to it. And the entire thrust if the teleological argument is simply this – the woman’s will was engaged *at the time of conception*. She decided to ACCEPT the risk of engendering a human life with a right to nurturing in her womb when she freely decided to engage in intercourse? Get it? I might regret pulling the trigger later, but I still decided to do so at the time. The time lag between decision and consequences does not remove the moral obligations of decisions made.

If there is a woman out there that does not know that eventually intercourse = pregnancy, then she is probably incapable of making a moral decision anyway. Because of this causal link, the moral choice is made at the time of intercourse.

“Everytime you repeat the undisputed fact that pregnancy is “foreseeable” as if that alone matters without making an argument for why this foreseeable consequence in these circumstances is not licit to avoid, you reinforce that conclusion.”

Maybe because, oh, murder of an innocent person is never licit? [Remember the entire 'right to life' portion of the set-up I keep mentioning?]

” [quote]If a person takes a risk with a well-known, well-documented 4% chance of causing the death of another, they will be morally guilty of manslaughter (at least) if that action results in the death of another.[/quote]

Do they? Please, do provide documentation of this legal standard. I’ve never heard of it and, quite frankly, I don’t think it exists — I think you just made it up.”

Don’t you drive? DUI is a crime merely (and sufficiently) because DUI increases the odds of causing harm or death to others. Driving in and of itself is not a crime because if everyone follows the rules and cars are in good repair (see: vehicle inspections) everybody is OK barring the unforeseeable. But reckless driving, DUI, running red lights, etc. are all crimes because they add the risk of harming or ending human life.

“You don’t say whether you agree with this; indeed, you suggest you don’t with the phrase “secular opponents.””

That is because I am making the teleological argument. Whether I agree with it or not doesn’t matter. I felt compelled to because your statements as to what it is differ so much from the actuality that I feel compelled to show what a blatant straw man you had erected.

I stated the argument clearly as

“1) I am interested in intercourse
2) I am aware that, regardless of preventative measures, there is a non-zero chance that I will conceive
2a) Conception results in the creation of a new human life for which I am morally responsible while it is gestating
2b) I may be further morally responsible for this person until they reach adulthood unless I surrender them for adoption after gestation
3) I choose intercourse and accept its risks.”

You responded by stating I must support it. Sorry – you must support *rejecting* it. After all, rejecting it involves the willing, purposeful termination of a being with a right to life. *That* is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. I state that the woman’s will was engaged at the time the pregnancy was begun, giving her consent to the pregnancy – you need to explain, very carefully, how consent to activity that results in pregnancy is NOT consent to pregnancy.

Actually, as I clearly showed with direct quotes my complaint about you making a bad faith argument is that the premise of the teleological position is that a fetus has a right to life but your rebuttals imply that you do not share that belief. It has nothing to do with my analogies!

Of course I do not share that belief. It’s not a “bad faith argument” to not believe something but nevertheless show that, even if it were true, the opposing position does not work.

BTW, Austin, *ignoring* my premise is not “challenging” nor is saying ‘nuh-uh’.

Asking direct questions which challenge your premises cannot be equated with either.

Well, the first is that abortion is the removal of life from a human being that has a right to it.

What you need to explain is why engaging in an action which might lead to pregnancy gives a fetus a right to use the woman’s body or organs against her will. Repeating “right to life” over and over doesn’t mean anything unless there is also a right to use the other person’s body. Ignore the fetus for a moment and focus on yourself: if you have a right to life, but your life cannot be sustained except through some X which only I have, then simply saying “right to life” won’t give you the moral or legal grounds to take or even just borrow X from me. There are several extra steps missing there which I have repeatedly asked you to elaborate on.

And the entire thrust if the teleological argument is simply this – the woman’s will was engaged *at the time of conception*. She decided to ACCEPT the risk of engendering a human life with a right to nurturing in her womb when she freely decided to engage in intercourse? Get it?

Yes, she accepts that this might happen. However, you have to establish that accepting this risk gives a fetus a moral and a legal right to use her body and organs even if she decides she doesn’t consent.

The time lag between decision and consequences does not remove the moral obligations of decisions made.

This suggests that you think that the moral right of the fetus is created by the woman’s right to take the risk. You don’t establish what this connection is or how it is created.

Maybe because, oh, murder of an innocent person is never licit?

If the taking of the life of an innocent person is never licit, then abortion is not licit regardless of whether the woman knows about the risks of pregnancy. In that case, you don’t believe that a woman has a moral obligation to remain pregnant for the reasons you have stated.

DUI is a crime merely (and sufficiently) because DUI increases the odds of causing harm or death to others.

Yes, I know, but this doesn’t qualify as documentation of the legal standard you asserted. Please, either support your claim, retract it, or modify it to something you can support.

I stated the argument clearly as …You responded by stating I must support it.

Please, such blatant misrepresentation of what I have said does little to enhance your argument. I didn’t respond by stating that you must “support it” where “it” is your entire argument. I was very clear and very specific that you must support point 2a, and preferably my restatement of 2a unless you can explain why it’s inaccurate.

I deny that rejecting 2a, either your original or especially my expansion of it, is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. On the contrary, I will take the position that accepting 2a as I have expanded it is “extraordinary” in a very simple and provable way: there is absolutely no legal precedent for it or any basis in state authority for enforcing it. If that doesn’t qualify as “extraordinary” in the context of a discussion about what should or should not be legal, then please explain what is.

After all, rejecting it involves the willing, purposeful termination of a being with a right to life. *That* is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof.

You have a right to life. That right entails a lot, but it does not entail a right to use my body and organs against my will even if I am somehow responsible for your needing my body and organs. I assert this even though you are, without question, a human person with full legal and moral rights — there is no debate about this as there is with the fetus. If this is true about you and true about a child I have fathered (see my post immediately above your most recent), then it is unambiguously true about a fetus where that status is debated.

If I woke up and found myself hooked to you such that the continuation of your life depends upon this connection, then do you have a moral and/or legal right to be connected to me? Does the state have the authority to keep me connected to you even if I want to go home? Do any of the answers change if I took action which contributed to your condition?

My answer is “no” to all of the above. Leaving will cause the death of a human person who has an undisputed right to life, but that right to life does not entail a right to be hooked to my body and organs against my will. I do not believe that this is an extraordinary position (ignoring, of course, the fact that it would be an extraordinary situation).

…you need to explain, very carefully, how consent to activity that results in pregnancy is NOT consent to pregnancy.

Oh, that’s easy — much easier than the rest. The above is a somewhat complicated and difficult moral argument and this isn’t.

I don’t necessarily consent to every possible outcome of every decision I make.

A decision to drive to work isn’t consent to being paralyzed in an accident on the way — if it were, then the other driver who caused the accident (remember, I know that there is some small risk that someone else will hit me) wouldn’t be liable for damages. How can someone be punished for doing something to me that I consented to?

A woman’s decision to walk home at night isn’t consent to being brutally raped and beaten by thugs, even if she knows that there is some small risk that it could happen as a consequence of her original decision.

Joe’s decision to rob a liquor store isn’t consent to being brutally raped in prison, even though he knew that he might get caught and, if caught, sent to a prison where he wouldn’t be able to protect himself.

What do examples like this have in common? Although it’s not immediately clear, examples like this typically involve some basic right being violated and one thing about basic rights is that you can’t sign them away. It’s not possible for me to even sign a contract granting someone the power to violate any of my basic rights, so of course it’s impossible for me to implicitly “consent” to my rights being violated merely by taking some action which I know has some small chance of creating a bad situation down the road.

So if it’s generally true that we aren’t treated as though we consent to every possible outcome of every decision we make, and if it’s commonly true that we have a moral and legal right to restore ourselves and our lives to the condition it was before the outcome we don’t like, then I’m afraid the ball’s in your court to justify why this particular outcome of this particular action should be treated differently.

And, if you’re tempted to repeat “right to life” again, please be sure that you have first established how a “right to life” entails a “right to someone’s body and organs” first.

We can continue arguing over when life begins and if abortion should or should not be legal. My question to those who want to make abortion illegal, is how would one enforce that law?

I was out of college 5 years before abortion was legal. I personally know of 4 people who had illegal abortions while I was in high school, college, or into my early working life, before abortion was legal. In my Senior year of college, I was contemplating abortion when I had a miscarriage (Whew!) My miscarriage was natural, but there was a girl in my dorm who let everyone know she had “abortion pills” if anyone needed them. (I have no idea if there really was such a thing then or not, and if so, if they were effective.) Since abortion was such a taboo subject at that time, I would guess that there were many more abortions among my acquaintances that I didn’t know about.

Yet, I can’t think of one person that I know who has had an abortion since the Supreme Court decision in 1972. Probably someone had an abortion that I don’t know about.

A few years before the decision, birth control pills were developed and we have become more open about sex and therefore we talk more about means of preventing pregnancies than we had previously. As the years have past, it has become more acceptable to be single and pregnant. (In 4 of the last 5 weddings I have attended, the bride already had a child out of wedlock or was visibly pregnant at the wedding, )

Since people had abortions before they were legal, I can assume that women will continue having abortions even if they are illegal again. Unfortunately, they will be performed by unqualified people, as I would presume few doctors would risk losing their licenses to practice medicine. Abortions will become part of the black market, performed with coat hangers or in “back alleys” —risking many women’s lives.

Instead, I would like to see both anti-abortion and pro-life supporters join together to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, those most opposed to abortion are also the most opposed to the means of preventing them —sex education and birth control —and they are the most likely to be highly religious.

The hidden message of most conservative arguments against abortion is that women, the woman in question, is responsible for the child. If it were men who had to endure being called sluts, to carry the child for 9 months and spend the next 18 years raising the child, abortions would be available as a drive through service.

They aren’t pro-life, they’re anti-woman.

/respect to Rev. Carlin

“If I woke up and found myself hooked to you such that the continuation of your life depends upon this connection, then do you have a moral and/or legal right to be connected to me? Does the state have the authority to keep me connected to you even if I want to go home? Do any of the answers change if I took action which contributed to your condition?”

OK, here is the counter example – 2 months ago someone came to you and said “I propose that you press this button, initiating a random number generator. There is a non-zero chance that if you do press this button you will be required to foster a human life with your own body. Your body will be naturally modified to allow this.”
If you press the button, you are, indeed, accepting the consequences – the fostering of an innocent human life. There is no coercion involved in the choice, so you cannot claim coercion later!

OK, here is the counter example – 2 months ago someone came to you and said “I propose that you press this button, initiating a random number generator. There is a non-zero chance that if you do press this button you will be required to foster a human life with your own body. Your body will be naturally modified to allow this.”

What this analogy lacks is a reason why I would want to press the button at all. I don’t appear to be getting any benefit from it such that I would take the risk. The only reason to push the button is to initiate those specific consequences, thus reducing the viability of changing my mind.

But let’s ignore that flaw and go with what you suggest: for some reason known only to me, I push the button. The negative consequences occur and I have a human life in my body.

Upon what legal basis can the state force me to continue providing the use of my organs and body to the fetus inside me? I can find none. You personally might think it immoral of me to have it removed, but unless you can establish that the state has any authority in this matter, you can’t justifiably criminalize it.

The basis for any attempts to criminalize the removal of the fetus gets even worse if we add to the analogy factors which would make it more relevant: if I need to push the button in order to obtain some specific goods which I cannot (or cannot easily) obtain otherwise, if I take precautions to prevent the negative outcome, if there are many possible outcomes to pressing the button with the negative one being relatively remote, if there is nothing unusual or immoral about either desiring those goods or trying to prevent the negative consequences.

If you press the button, you are, indeed, accepting the consequences – the fostering of an innocent human life. There is no coercion involved in the choice, so you cannot claim coercion later!

No, by pressing the button I am accepting the possibility of those consequences; I do not also therefore accept the consequences themselves such that there is something immoral about trying to stop them.

If it helps, imagine that the consequences have nothing to do with human life — maybe the consequences are simply getting a disease. Does pressing the button mean that I necessarily “accept” the disease and must live with it? Of course not. People might not be as sympathetic to my suffering with the disease as they otherwise would, but no one could plausibly argue that there is anything intrinsically immoral about getting treatment to cure a disease that I knew could possibly result due to my own actions. There certainly wouldn’t be any movement to criminalize getting cured of that disease.

So if there is no basis for criminalization in the general circumstances themselves, the basis must lie solely with the factor of the presence of a human life. This means that no matter how good of an analogy you construct, your entire argument for criminalization comes down to “there is a human life at stake.” However, your argument can only be successful if you can make a case for the idea that the state has the authority to force me to provide my body and organs for the preservation of that human life — and independent of any other circumstance because, as should be clear now, none of those other circumstances serve to ground your case. They may be interesting. They might plausibly make your case easier. However, they are ultimately irrelevant because “there is a human life involved” is the sole necessary factor here.

And this is the argument you have thus far failed to make.

Menstruation and masturbation should be criminalized too. Think of all those little potential human lives that were cut short both unintentionally or for personal pleasure. God-the unprovable, must be really furious. So, arrest them all!