Picture Courtesy of Hawaii.edu probably from someone else.
I never really wanted to so a post on this topic at all. Since this has been started up I suppose it is only right that a post is delivered on the topic (pun not intended) and the debate can follow on in the comments section or die out there.
Abortion as a technique, I have no idea how long it has been around for but depictions within Asia do show attempted abortions through abdominal trauma since around 1150 AD (haha... citation needed) so there is that.
The positions both sides lay out focus around the morality of the act. At the moment no one can say for sure when exactly a embryo becomes a human being. Which is a bit like the philosophical conundrum of nobody is exactly sure how much sand you need to make a pile. Take one grain of sand away from the pile and does it suddenly become scattered grains instead a mound building up in a pyramidal fashion?
I think these distract from the actual crux of the argument. The actual crux of the argument and debate is :
Whether Religous Doctrine can/should override the wishes of an individual to undergo a medical procedure.
The argument that it is the sanctity of life still stems from Religous text. Which is a bit rich for a lot of texts since heretics, blasphemers and unbelievers can all get put to the sword sanctity be dammed.
This is where it gets nebulous. It is accepted everywhere* that once the baby has left its mother's womb it is a human being and afforded the Rights of the Child.** Even countries where abortion is legal don't permit abortion when the fetus is distinctly baby looking.
My personal position on it is that it should be legal. It is a medical procedure chosen by the individual. Why should society intervene on that part? People who undertake abortions do so because they feel the situation they are in necessitates it. There are often societal, personal, sometimes medical or criminal (rape) causes that result in people turning to it.
I understand it is a very personal, invasive and unpleasant procedure and really, if someone is desperate enough to turn to that procedure they'll do it legally, or illegally. It might as well be done in a sterile clinical environment rather than a back alley with the fetus in a dumpster.
Making abortion illegal doesn't preserve the sanctity of life. There are still babies carried to the full pregnancy and then abandoned to die. Is that any better? No. Is it illegal? Yes. Does it still happen regardless of the legal status of abortion? Yes.
Do we as a society care enough to look at the multiple factors that cause these things to occur? Or shall we simply fall back to knee-jerk reactions and decry a moral collapse?
Choose what you believe holds more authority, but at the end of the day, it is an unpleasant medical procedure that some turn to when they feel there is no other alternative. So many societies shun birth out of wedlock, and some women are abandoned by their partners as soon as they discover they are pregnant.
It is easy to forget when debating nebulous points of morality that nobody enjoys going through that procedure. Keep that in mind before condemning the individual for undertaking it.
*I think it is accepted everywhere. I think some tribes have different views on that. No wait, thats adulthood. nevermind.
**Hopefully the government the baby is born into subscribes to the U.N Convention
Here is one opinion:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzY0L2g1f64
Peter Singer believes that abortion is perfectly fine as long as it is performed in the first 20 weeks of gestation. The determining factor he believes is the ability to feel pain. From a scientific point of view the foetus in the first 20 weeks does not have a sufficiently developed brain to feel pain.
However he believes there are circumstances under which an abortion is justifiable even after the first 20 weeks. The most conspicuous example being, when the life of the mother is threatened. In such circumstance the paramount goal must be pain minimisation for the foetus/baby.
Well, that certainly seems like a reasonable basis for it. On where/when the pain factor comes in.
ReplyDeleteWhich is a lot easier to ascertain over the much more difficult "when individual conciousness is present in the fetus."
I have no idea if it is even possible to ascertain when conciousness is present.
Anyway, the pain threshold seems like a good measure. Good find on that.
Personally, anyone that thinks that there is a simple rule set assigning moral value to abortion action pathways is naive.
ReplyDeleteDecisions related to human life and death should be difficult, as such difficulty is indicates the value of human life.
No one is arguing that it is a simple systematic process. Peter Singer does not have a fetish for killing babies. In fact, with his “A life you can save” charity campaign he has probably done more than most to prevent the deaths of infants. Like Chomsky has said there are array of conflicting values. If one believes it is the right of the woman to choose, then 20 week rule can be used to determine up to what point abortion can be morally justified using scientific method.
ReplyDeleteA foetus within the first 20 weeks is not a human being, it merely has the potential to be a human being. But so does a cell, especially given the advances in biotechnology. Does that mean everyone should stop washing and stop moving because potentially they are killing human beings? Try stopping 14 year old boys from masturbating.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo Hairy Patch: I'm curious to what difficulty aspect you refer to. For the individual mother making the choice, of course, she would have to weigh up the decision and make her own choice.
ReplyDeleteIf it is society in general, than there is no difficulty. Legalize that procedure. It is not society's place to tell people whether they should or should not go for a medical procedure.
To Anarcho: Damn you ;-) I got first worlder guilt now looking up the Peter Singer charity. Well, I don't earn any income at the moment so I can't pay up according to the helpful scale they have here. I should make a new post about that. Charity and the welfare state.
Although I agree with giving the individual the choice I must point out the cell argument is a improper analogy. Because the foetus already is in the process of developing into a human being. Your average cell will never ever have the capacity to develop into another human being in contrast with an embryo.
Sperm have no potential to become embryos unless paired up with an egg. Their waste into tissues or other absorbent material is not the same.
I did think about that on a walk though. I figure until the baby has left its mother's womb it is in effect part of the mother's body. And if we agree the individual has a right to choose what they do to their body then there is no issue with legalization.
When the baby is born, then I feel they become a de-facto citizen of the state and the law shifts. That would definitely be murder at that point. Unless you know, dingos occur. Then that is an Act of God (Is that accurate? Hah... heyo, topical)
To Victorius: People ought not to lie but many do. White lies grease societal interactions. But that is a separate issue.
I am lost on the intrinsic value definition, which in turn means I can't grasp the concept of "moral consider-ability (consideration?)"
I'll explain how the examples have left me confused.
Example 1: I can't see any value here beyond Anarcho's self gratification. At any rate, the satisfaction and value would be his alone (statement does not take into account any fetishes. Also, eurgh.
Example 2: The stamp collection only holds value because people value it. If no one values it, you have a collection of coloured paper. That by itself has no automatic value. The rope also holds value in your scenario through its utility and immediacy. But again its value is situation and person dependent. At the moment I have no use for such rope sitting at the computer. Any value I ascribe to it would be at the market rate.
With that explained, I cannot adequately reply to the point of moral consider-ability/agents or patients.
I haven't read Albert Schweitzer's book but I can see where he is coming from. I don't view all life as wanting to live in that sense. All life aims to reproduce itself. The end goal of most of the current generation of species is to reproduce the next generation of the same species. At the expense of their own life if need be. (See Salmon for a quick example. I'll make this into a separate post)
For a person in a coma, their fate is now left in the hands of their immediate kin or spouse within the legal guidelines of society.
Hey Voodoo Child,
ReplyDeleteI have re-read my post, and there are sections in which I jump into the topic, failing to make the context/relevance clear.
May be Anarcho can crucify me for it ;)
Though, to answer your question, regarding Examples 1 and 2, I completely understand how the rope, the stamp collection, and Anarcho's self gratification, are tied to individual experiences, and the importance attributable starts and finishes with the particular individual.
That is, however, exactly the key though. The ability of the individual to appreciate the value of the rope, the beauty of the stamp collection, etcetera. That is the hall mark which takes traditional human logic/reason towards attributing moral standing to a creature. It is what Anarcho referred to as:
"The determining factor he believes is the ability to feel pain."
This is called sentience. The ability to inter alia feel pain.
Much of Singer's work revolves around animals, because they are sentient creatures, and therefore Singer extends moral standing, or moral consider-ability to them.
What I wrote about is a different perspective altogether. It does not extend moral standing to women, then to blacks, then to natives, then to fish and dogs...
I started from Singer's point, i.e. sentience, but deliberately added life and the value of life itself.
Why? you ask. Well, many philosophers who endorse an environment ethic are uneasy with the philosophies of singer (and others) because their focus on animals, so the critique goes, is not much better than traditional moralists' obsessions with humans.
From the environmental ethic point of view, Yes! animals will need to be treated better, but this concern for animals should follow from a larger concern for nature. The trouble with Singer (and others) is that they have it the other way around. That is, whatever concern they have for nature comes from their concern about animals. And the preeminent value of nature is not recognised.
To cut a long story short.
This is where a Biology or Environment centered approach differ from Singer, and others. Enter Schweitzer (and others since) who critique Singer et al for limiting their attribution of moral consider-ability, moral standing to sentience.
A biocentrist and or ecocentrist approach goes further and values life. (Insert Schweitzer's quote here)
The first dude I came across who spoke about this difference was Kenneth Goodpaster. I cannot remember the name of the book now, but I will try to remember.
Goodpaster thinks we should be suspicious of sentientism because, (and BTW in using a quote from my last long post.)
"The reason why my moral consider-ability thought goes beyond mere sentience, and includes life and the value of life itself, is because sentientism merely explains our capacity for pleasure and pain. This simply means that some organisms, such as humans, use sentience to realise their ends. It provides a way of obtaining information about the environment. More precisely, sentience is a biological adaptation that occurs in some organism that is conducive to fulfilling their biological functions. However, I think it is implausible that a single particular adaptation, directed towards solving some particular biological problems, faced by some particular organisms, should be seen as the criterion of moral consider-ability, alone."
Therefore, (and to get back on point) the real question is a question of value. Revaluing value. Evaluating value, maybe.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the value of being alive (to me and you), and what is the more general value of life itself?
This is the holistic crux of the matter, because we can all agree sentience is important, but what about living and the value of life.
First up, a quick reference. This is where intrinsic and instrumental VALUE become relevant considerations.
To summarise, value exists where a transaction exists, and it is between (1) the valuer, and (2) the world.
I will give a few further e.g.'s of intrinsic/instrumental VALUE.
1- I value a photo of my mum because it shows my mum.
2- I value the meowing of my cat because it reminds me of my old cat, when I was a little kid.
3-I value my lovers smile because embodies her kindness and generosity.
4- I value every step on the way up to the law and commerce courtyard because it is part of getting my parchment. etcetera.
Now, the limiting factor of environmental philosophers (like Singer) is that they focus on this intrinsic/instrumental value distinction. (see 1st post, instrinsic/instrumental value are interchangeable, one not more important than other)
But one and the same thing can be valued intrinsically and non-intrinsically at the same time, as well as at different times. We can value things urgently, intensely, and even desperately, but not value them intrinsically.
This all adds up to the clear fact that we have a very rich resource for valuing, whether we consider ourselves as anthropocentrists, sentientists, biocentrists, ecocentrists, or whatever.
Finally, because every has valuing systems, and everyones values may differ, a new domain of discussion that has opened up is "Value-pluralism"
There is ongoing debate about the meaning and plausibility of value-pluralism. Some think it is a view that there are distinct values that cannot be reduced to a single value such as pleasure.
Others think that value-pluralism means that distinct values cannot be meaningfully compared or ranked (as it were)
=> This is where I leave you, and ask you to return to the question which I posed in my last long post.
I hope that comes a little towards clearing it up for you Voodoo.
Hey Anarcho,
ReplyDeleteJust check out the Chomsky-Singer video. Its an instructive video. Insightful, I thought. And just as I thought that a definitive answer is hard to come by, Chomsky said the same with his abortion vs hand-washing example.
Where do we draw the line? Which is why I preferred to finish my 2-cents with a question, rather than answer.
I however do not totally agree with Singers view that a fetus is not conscious or sentient (at 5 minutes)
He acknowledges that a fetus is a member of the human species and alive, but bases his judgement on "certain capacities". One of which is the capacity to want to go on living.
Now, I know you will probably disagree with me on this, BUT, I believe, something cannot live, if it does not want to keep on living. Everything which is alive, therefore, from a plant to a human, if it is alive it must have a life purpose for living.
Everything has a purpose and capacity to live. A plant has the purpose of being, procreating, and the capacity to receive water and sunlight.
Similarly, humans have purpose and capacity to live.
The complexity, I think, arises where psychology gets mixed-up with biology.
Where our human purpose is converted into bigger cars, bigger houses, more money, hotter girlfriends etc, and where our human capacity is converted into FITTING INTO THE SYSTEM disassociated from other people and nature (the smiling depressive, as Freud put it)
On the flip side, however, I am still trying to figure out what a more biological interpretation of human purpose and capacity would entail and consist of.
On the whole, good video.
To Victorious: Ah, this the philosophical aspect of valuing.
ReplyDeleteMy moral basis is more from the governmental point of view. What steps need to be taken so that society as a whole is stable and prosperous? Abortion in this case is a individual's medical procedure, so why so much fuss about its legalization. If it was illegal who steps up to take care of the unwanted child. The state? The people who want to make it illegal?
American (any) politicians who place the sanctity of life on a pedestal amuse me. The same politicians will then sign off for the military to develop a new more effective weapon of war. I'm not saying don't research new weapons, nor avoid pandering for votes, just that it is amusing. And hypocritical? Oxymoronic? We value life. So we take someone else's life so the lives deemed more valuable live. Would that be morality applied to warfare?
I agree, all living things are immediately born with a purpose for living. (Outside of humans, some who decide curb the instinctual impulse)
The purpose of all life is to use their (the individual organism's)genes to create the next generation. Many will try and only the fittest will succeed.
Hey Voodoo,
ReplyDeleteI see what you mean. Its a good point, who would take care of every unwanted life? the state, the ones who voted against legalisation? etc.
However, let me premise this to you. Suppose there are million of Tasmanian Tigers in SA. Then after continual exploitation for fur, they are put on rare and endangered species listing. They are not extinct, just rare and endangered.
Now, what we have done is through scientific, zoological (or whatever it might be) observation made a value judgement that when there were millions of Tas Tigers, they were fine and without need for special evaluation.
Once observed to be rare and endangered, there value increased, and special treatment was accorded.
This is logical, is it not?
Now apply the same logic to humans on earth... See what I mean? We are reaching 7billion in only 2 months, or so, i heard on abc RN just a few days ago.
Regards government forms/types I must admit I have been a slow moving convert.
I no longer really pay attention to governmment, rather prefer Thoreau's argument that we must break the citizen-state union, because government is corrupt, and to lesser extent, because gov which governs least is best. (not literally, but figuratively). We still need rule of law, but the fact is Western gov's overtly undermine law in the 21st century. The only thing that keeps it afloat is that most people are sedated and actually believe in Obama's "humanitarian interventions" pyramid scheme.
Value is dependent on the species, its availability and its use locally. Good example would be Asian carp. Valued in China and a major invasive pest in the USA. Depends who is doing the valuation. I would like to see a live Tasmanian Tiger. A sheep farmer would probably be content with their status as is.
ReplyDeleteI don't follow the analogy. A medical procedure is not the same as over-hunting an animal for their pelt. Its like air-strikes and candy shops. Two different activities.
All governments bend from the rule of law in some form or another. The only question is to what degree. I don't think people are sedated either. The mass protests breaking out worldwide are a sign that the population are clearly unhappy with the way things are being done. But... how is Obama's intervention a pyramid scheme? 0_o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_carp
Firstly, the analogy is this... If we follow the same logic, the fact that there are so many humans on the earth, renders each individual life "cheap."
ReplyDeleteIf we were rare or endangered on Earht we would merit special consideration but we're not.
Like a heap of ants, there are so many of us that its "ok" to stomp on several hundreds of them.
Now, im not saying thats my opinion (please dont form that opinion), but what I am saying is that's the way it is. Individual life has become insignificant.
Therefore, because, I believe, life is so cheap today, I find it difficult to proclaim an outright bias, whether to legalise abortion or not.
the reason: Mainstream society has gone from Liberalism to Libertinage.
Very small linguistic difference. Very large practical difference.
Secondly, I'm not sure what 'medical procedure' you refer to? Please explain.
Thirdly, pyramid scheme. The following is the wikipedia definition.
"A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public. Pyramid schemes are a form of fraud.[1][2]"
This is Obama's pyramid scheme (I think)
Obama's Pyramid scheme is a non sustainable government model that involves promising voter's hope and jobs, primarily for convincing other people to vote for the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or infrastructure, or public-spirit (culture) to the public. Obama and Pyramid schemes are a form of fraud.
Fourthly, this is my last post for 4 weeks.
Victorius:
ReplyDeleteTo part 1) I actually think human life has become more valued instead of less to be honest. Even with the population increase. In most developed countries some form of state subsidized medicine prolongs people's lifespan, we care about what happens to the elderly. Countries fund relief efforts for other countries etc... I'm not saying there aren't issues but I think value wise it is definitely alot more than say... 1910. Or the industrial revolution with its kids pulling carts of coal. It is still an issue (slavery/ sexual trafficking) but it is recognized as an issue.
2) Abortion is a medical procedure.
3) Well... its not a pyramid scheme if its governmental is it? I mean, just following the Wikipedia definition. As for what his scheme is... I don't know what financial action the Feds can take at this point. Quantiative Easing 3 seems like it wouldn't do much since there is no consumer confidence.
I am Gawd. I say abortion is a woman's choice. It is her body. She will live with the moral consequences.
ReplyDeleteTheological argument against pro life
ReplyDeleteThe bible is clear on many a teachings, and often insightful in its reasoning. Principles of equality and forgiveness are indeed profound; what we take for granted would have been radical teachings at the time. It is those teachings which should be championed at a universal level. However, attention sometimes is diverted from those principles in an attempt to build an argument of pro life by drawing from inferences in the bible. The bible is neither pro choice nor pro life. It is silent on the subject of abortion. The argument propounded by some that the bible is pro life because of a number of inferences drawn from various extracts is I think far fetched. The bible does not mention the word abortion or any synonym and there is a good reason for its silence. That is, the same reason the bible is silent on many issues of importance today. Those issues were just not in the minds of the Christian revolutionaries back then or at least not in the common minds of the revolutionaries worthy of note. It was indeed a "no issue".
To make it an issue now in support of pro life, and to draw fickle examples from the bible is unsupported at best, and foolhardy at worst. Nevertheless arguments are made often in support of pro life by drawing from, for example, the following quote.
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23.)
At first blush, this quote seems to be dealing with some sort of negligent action by a party in a fist fight that causes harm to a bystander, with a remedy determined by the husband. The first sentence is in relation to the miscarriage – fetus; the second, "any further injury", to the wife.
It is the first sentence that interests us, and this remedy of a "fine" determined by the husband seems more like compensation for emotional harm to the wife, rather than a universal penalty for taking the "life" of a fetus. Either way the penalty is determined subjectively entirely by the husband. There is no universal moral teaching here. Move along.
While my position is that the bible is silent on the issue, it could be argued that the bible is actually pro choice as it does not mention or outline an express punishment for "murder of a fetal life" while in fact other murder offences and/or their defences are extensively outlined in the Law of Moses:
• The murder of a neighbour
• Spouse
• A foreigner
• Intentional and unintentional
• Self defence
• During time of war/homicide; and
• Executions.
With an omnipotent and omniscient God, to not foresee abortion as a moral issues of our time, raises a serious query about the act itself.
The paradigm shifts to the present, and the question from the Christian perspective becomes what stance could one take if the bible offers no guidance on the subject.
The following paragraph needs to be kept in perspective. This comment is written by a male, who has not himself ever been in such a position; having dealt with the hypothetical, the suggestion is theoretical. One should make the decision on their own. But if that decision is made to include others in a collective decision making process, then so be it. Offer guidance and support for the decision that is ultimately made without reproach, blame, or levelling guilt. Far be it from me to say more than what I have already, and tell anyone else what they should do, unless it is asked of me, and even then, I hesitate in the utmost.
Well, the theological argument for pro-choice. Or more accurately, a lack of argument or documentation one way or another within the Christian... Biblical framework. It is quite an interesting take on the discussion.
ReplyDeleteSo insufficient information to take a strong stance on the position? I'm sure a theologian could come around and make a convincing argument otherwise. Is it a Catholic thing? Because Papal announcements carry significant weight. So maybe the Catholics have that angle figured out, unlike the other branches.
The ending paragraph is quite striking to me, I think for the wording employed. But correct me if I'm wrong, it essentially is pro-choice allowing for communal advice?