ironphoenix | Current issue

Current Location: Home
Current Music: Byrd--various choral works

Current issue

I've been reluctant to post on this subject for a while, because my position isn't a popular one, I fear. Recent events, however, have made it harder to stay silent, so here goes. If you don't stop reading here, I ask that you go all the way to the end.

I believe abortion is wrong. I believe it is a killing of a helpless human being, with all that entails. In cases where if the child doesn't die then the mother will, I can support it, but not otherwise.

That said, I believe a lot of other things, too.

I believe that safe, effective contraception and thorough, realistic sexual education should be universally available. I believe that sexuality, and current reality being what it is, women's sexuality in particular, should not be stigmatized. I believe that child care should be available and affordable. I believe that staying at home to look after children should not be a "CLM." I believe that victims of rape should be supported and treated with dignity and respect, not further victimized. I believe that in law and in practice, women should have free access to safe abortions. I believe that women who choose to have abortions should not be stigmatized either, and should have access to support and counselling services. I believe that we as a society need these things. I believe that the consequences of not having these things are contributing or would contribute to a lot of suffering and oppression. I hope that we, as societies, can overcome the systemic and structural factors which lead women to consider having their children aborted. I believe that the best ways to do this are by providing the support I described, not by imposing restrictions on vulnerable women at the time of their need.

That beling my fundamental position, let me now write a few things about the recent murder of Dr. Tiller, a doctor who specialized in late-term abortions, apparently motivated by his practice.

I believe that killing this person was wrong and unjustified. I believe it was an intrinsically wrong act of itself, and more. I understand the position that could be taken, that killing someone who would themselves kill many others is the lesser of two evils, and I reject it. I believe that it's a false saving, and one which merely contributes to the violence and oppression that encourage women to seek out abortions. I believe that "preemptive" acts or punitive vigilanteism undermine the social relationships of trust and mutuality that build lasting solutions to systemic problems. Let me say this again clearly and unequivocally: I repudiate this killing.

In closing, I ask that you not quote me out of context. I've written short sentences here, but they're part of a whole. It would be easy to misrepresent me by taking bits of this and leaving the rest behind; please don't.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

zenten already got #1 for me.

#2 is tricky. I believe that there is a difference between what's morally right and what's legally enforceable. Giving bone marrow or a kidney is morally right, but it can be argued (and usually is, implicitly) that it should not be legally enforceable, because the negative consequences of diluting the right of sovereignty of the body outweigh the positive consequences of saving lives by such involuntary "donations". I can imagine a society that might decide otherwise, and in fact it could make a very good premise for a science fiction story.

Your last statement is a bit loose. I believe that human identity begins at fertilization, at which time the genotype is set. I think it's not an ironclad argument, but to say that it's an unreasonable assumption would be hard to justify.

I believe that human identity begins at fertilization, at which time the genotype is set. I think it's not an ironclad argument, but to say that it's an unreasonable assumption would be hard to justify.

You need to define "human identity" before we can continue, here.

(While we're at it: What's your opinion on IVF and HeLa? Is HeLa fully human with all human rights? It's got a MUCH stronger case for being a separate, individual organism, given that, unlike a blastocyst, it *can* survive nonparasitically. And they've got the exact same amount of functional brain matter!)

Why are assuming that he's caring about how "parasitic" something is to determine personhood? He's choosing to base his definition on religion, you're choosing to make up some definition based on what feels right, and probably a desire to take fundamentally arbitrary concepts and put some sort of scientific sounding reasoning behind them. His method is hardly less legitimate than yours.

Do you even know what HeLa is, or why I might be bringing it up in a discussion of human-ness?

His method is hardly less legitimate than yours.

Define "legitimate" for me, will you?

(And, if you look at the thread, I haven't expressed a definition or claimed a superiority of method. I've simply been pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions.)

Do you even know what HeLa is, or why I might be bringing it up in a discussion of human-ness?

The cancer cells originally taken from Henrietta Lacks. You're suggesting for some reason that cancer cells are able to be kept alive under specific laboratory conditions are more viable to be called a person than an unimplanted embryo, in an attempt to discredit

ironphoenix's religious views by suggesting they are ridiculous.

Define "legitimate" for me, will you?

In this context? "Non-arbitrary" pretty much sums it up.

(And, if you look at the thread, I haven't expressed a definition or claimed a superiority of method. I've simply been pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions.)

You've presented a series of leading questions meant to lead someone to a specific view. You might just be a dick and want to have people believe things that you don't believe in just for fun, but I'm discounting that right now.

I'm saying that HeLa is genetically human, *just like a freshly fertilised egg*, and that it reproduces in undifferentiated cells, *just like a freshly fertilised egg* - so what's the difference? Why is an egg in a pregnant person fully human with all human rights, and HeLa, or a fertilised egg in an IVF test tube, *not*?

in an attempt to discredit ironphoenix's religious views by suggesting they are ridiculous.

I have no need to suggest that his religious views are ridiculous. In this case, at least, it doesn't matter *where* he gets the premises - my argument is that his premises don't match his conclusions.

In this context? "Non-arbitrary" pretty much sums it up.

Fair enough. I tend to add "internally and externally consistent" to my personal definition of legitimacy - which is why I brought up the question in the first place.

You've presented a series of leading questions meant to lead someone to a specific view.

I wouldn't say I have - not exactly. While "how is X different from Y?" carries the obvious implication that I *don't* see a difference, it doesn't lead to an inevitable conclusion. After all, you might have an answer to the question that I just don't see.

I'm pointing out things I think are inconsistent within the framework of the discussion and asking how they can be reconciled. And yes, my expectation is that if you can't reconcile an inconsistency, you re-examine the premises that led you to it, because *that's how rational thinking works*. But the fact that I ask the question doesn't mean there's no answer to it. It's just something that I think really should be examined.

One thing to keep in mind is that

ironphoenix was talking about Dr. Tiller and the abortions he performed, which were late term abortions. So all this talk about blastocysts and whatnot isn't strictly relevant, although he probably considers those to be murder as well.

To be fair, I did take a rather general stand, so the discussion is germane.

Still, this kind of reinforces the slippery-slope argument for defining humanity where I do: if a child on day n is not a person, what magically happens on day n+1 that makes it one? One has to pick some state change as defining, and leaving the womb is no more justifiable than any other, especially given questions like, as

theweaselking raised, IVF and HeLa cells.

My own personal belief is that "personhood" is something that we make up to make considering moral, legal, etc type questions easier, and does not actually exist. It's like saying "when is red no longer red but orange?" We might somehow all end up agreeing on an answer with a dogmatic enough education, but it's not going to really change anything besides making definitions more consistent.

*is curious*

What, if anything, then morally differentiates a person from a dog, or a germ, or a rock?

Dogs, germs and rocks aren't people.

I really don't see how you can have a "first cause" when it comes to morality. The best you can aim for is consistency, and even then I don't know if that's always desirable.

Your first sentence seems to me to beg the question; can you explain?

"First cause," meaning an answer to the question, "why?" to which "why" need not be asked again? I'm guessing most parents want one of those! Dogma posits one; mystical experience grants one, but it's nontransferable except indirectly (see "dogma"). In either case, but especially the latter, relating that to practical matters is a tricky matter of interpretation and discernment.

I think consistency is something to pursue with caution: inconsistencies signal things that need work, but often need not be resolved immediately.

I've come to the conclusion that there isn't a first cause to the question. I basically have to decide "what is a person" for myself, and there isn't some formula or set of logical reasoning based on facts or anything that can allow me to come to the conclusion.

What do you base it on, then?

I don't know of a way to get to a provably right answer either, mind you.

I go by what feels right.

I'm of the opinion that's what everyone else does, they just come up with elaborate justifications for taking that position. At least the ones that aren't going by "this is what this authority figure tells me is a person".

Fair enough... I already explained why I picked the point I did.

In a certain sense, where I want to get is the recognition that everything is sacred and inextricably connected. That's a whole other discussion again, though!

I'm pointing out things I think are inconsistent within the framework of the discussion and asking how they can be reconciled.

That's not what I'm getting, mostly. You're saying there are inconsistencies, but I don't hear you being specific about what they are and why you consider them inconsistent.

The trouble with this kind of argument is that you're taking no firm position of your own, contenting yourself instead with challenging mine. "Formlessness" is a good defense, but it makes little forward progress towards any goal.

I have, frankly, been trying to avoid taking a stronger position because that tends to lead nowhere good in arguments like this.

If I stop trying to make my point obliquely, I start here:

A) You say that abortion is killing a helpless human being with all that entails.
B) You go on to say that this should be legal, there should be no stigma, there should be no punishment, and you'd *like* it to stop but you feel that it *should* not currently be stopped.

These two things do not go together.

EITHER:
1) You DON'T actually think abortion is the killing of a helpless human being with all that entails, because you think killing helpless non-fetal human beings should be treated differently

or

2) You DO actually think abortion is the killing of a helpless human being with all that entails, and by extension you think killing a helpless human being - shooting a sleeping adult or smothering an infant, for example - is something that should be minimised and you should be sad about it but you shouldn't punish someone for doing it and you shouldn't make it illegal.

I happen to be pretty damn certain that 2 isn't true.

Meaning, you can't possibly simultaneously hold both position A AND position B. If you really held A, you could not possibly hold B without also feeling that OTHER killings of helpless human beings were acceptable, and you don't.

Eliminate "with all that entails" from statement A and you're getting a lot closer to internal consistency. As long as that clause is there, though?

Yeah, some (many?) people don't take well to direct, clear arguments. I prefer honesty and openness in this kind of debate.

In discussing B, I do not want it to be stopped by law or by stigmatization. I believe there are other ways to at the very least greatly reduce its incidence. I also qualified my original statement by "in law and in practice." For a religious person, this is a critical difference, where it likely isn't for an atheist/non-spiritualist one. A pretty widespread religious tenet is that morality carries consequences independent of human law or social censure.

In law, 1 is pragmatically hard to avoid without bringing down the consequences I described in my original post. I guess one thing that troubles me is that this too has a slippery slope on it, towards infants, children, mentally incompetent people... that's a road I wouldn't want to go down.

As for 2, I think we do it all the f'ing time, just collectively, by omission, and at a distance. How many people die because they work in places with terrible safety practices, no health care, and wages insufficient to provide for proper housing and nutrition? How many die because they're denied the medical care they need because they can't pay, or because the wait is too long and their condition becomes irrecoverable in the interim? How many people starve because it was economically practical to grow cash crops instead of food there, and then discover how expensive it was to have food shipped in?

Death is far from the greatest evil we can inflict on another, I believe. To not care (and express that caring in word and action) about another is the root of moral failure. One of the great challenges to modern Christianity, at least for me, is that we're now aware of so much of the world that there's just too much to care about for any human. Reconciling that contradiction is the work I'm more interested in.

Do you even know what HeLa is ...?

This is verging on uncivil; please avoid ad hominem argumentation, even by implication (in this case, that

zenten is too ignorant to carry on this argument).

I don't think the medium matters, so an IVF embryo is, at least in principle, as human as a uterus-borne embryo.

HeLa requires a finer distinction, and the question is still too new to me for me to have constructed a position I'll stand solidly behind. My gut feel is "not human," but that's not well-substantiated for me right now.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Current issue

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject