[Peace-discuss] abortion rights argument

Mon Mar 30 10:33:21 CDT 2009

Nevertheless.

Actually, Wayne, the scenario I mentioned is not supposed to be *likely*.  It's an analogy to illustrate a point, which is that even if - and again I have to say it's a big 'if' (as per e.g. Peter Singer) - we accept the position a human embryo is a 'person' from conception, a pregnant woman is not necessarily under any moral obligation to go thru with the pregnancy.

As an aside, I don't find your point about genetic differences to be that salient either, given that most of us have  body cells that are genetically different from the rest, as opposed to the oversimplification we learend in school.  Moreover, even if I had an 'identical' twin, say, or a clone, who was mostly the same genetically as me, I doubt that that fact would give me carte blanche to act on that person.  Genes I don't think are the solution to this controversy, popular tho they are these days as explanations for other sorts of things.

Not sure what you mean by "normal non-pathologic [sic] human sexuality" either.  Plenty of human sexual practices do not lead to pregnancy ever, and some at least frequently don't.  If this is your way of insinuating something about homosexuality again, I have to say your proselytizing on that point is becoming tedious.  But perhaps you mean something else.

I also don't know what you mean by "successful societies".  The phrase has been used in the past to refer to *dominant* societies, which would seem to imply that extreme, ruthless violence would be a necessary component of your so-called "Natural Law," which I believe is another phrase that has been used to mean a variety of things.  The term often has something to do with Thomas Aquinas, I believe, but I'm not sure if that's what you meant.  It often implies a monotheistic belief system, which I'm sure you know some of us don't share.  It is usually distinct from "positive law", though, which is what various societies come up with.  I guess I don't quite follow you there either.

And if by "path of error" you mean our society's alleged rejection of the God of Abraham, perhaps leading us to the age of AIDS or economic collapse as "suffering", I'm afraid I don't see the connection.  And if the "suffering" to which you refer is the spread of war and neo-imperialism, the evidence (of the former Administration's beliefs) would at least hint at the reverse (though I personally doubt there's any connection beyond the superficial).

Ricky

"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn

________________________________
From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:45:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] abortion rights argument

Ricky,
I was not really making any argument based on violence, but rather I
was answering Ron Szoke's questions.

Your analogy of providing life support for another person seems to be
highly contrived, artificial and quite unlikely,
but it does recognize that there are 2 persons involved.
Pregnancy is a quite normal and likely event common among those who
have the human condition in comparison with
this contrived example.

Because normal non-pathologic human sexuality results quite commonly in
pregnancy,
most successful societies have established societal standards designed
to ensure an optimum outcome.
These form part of the basis of Natural Law.

Of course there are those who reject wholesale the concept of Natural
Law or seek to contend
that certain parts of Natural Law have been somehow suspended by virtue
of intellect.
This path of error leads away to destruction, and we find that we are
suffering some of the 
consequences of that sort of error.,

Ricky Baldwin wrote: 
Sorry,
I'm trimming my "To" line on the theory that you only need one copy of
my thoughts :-)  Also, I'm changing the subject line to reflect what
the discussion is actually about now that it has diverged significantly
from the question of placing an ad...

Here's the thing I want to say in response to your arguments, Wayne.  I
believe your analogy about violence doesn't work really.  The use of
billy clubs, etc., against people differs in several aspects from a
case of aborted pregnancy.  Chief among them, some would argue, is that
billy clubs are not medical instruments.  While true, of course,
violence against another person could easily involve medical
instruments.  I believe some famous movies I haven't seen illustrate
this gruesome prospect.

The more pertinent difference, in my view, is that those forms of
violence you mention involve a person *outside* one's body, a person
moreover who is not directly dependent on one, a person who is not
directly *draining* the stuff of life from one for his or her own
purposes.

It's not my own preferred argument in favor of abortion rights, which
involves 'personhood' and mental capacity - but that one has been
discussed on this list numerous times in the past - so I'd like to
mention another argument I remember reading in college for a biomedical
ethics course I took.  (I made an A, by the way ;-)  It's an argument
that even if a fetus is a 'full person' (a big 'if'), the fetus has no
absolute "right to life" in any particular person's womb.

Consider a person who wakes up one day in a hospital bed with another
person lying in the same bed.  The other person is sleeping.  Upon
inspection, the first person discovers to her horror that the second
person is attached to her by a bundle of tubes and cords of various
sizes and shapes.  It turns out the other person cannot live without
her, at least for a number of months, and even separating the two
(prematurely) will result in death of the other.  Allowing the
attachment to remain could cause death to the first person, but the
doctors say there is not a huge chance of that in today's hospitals.  

What is likely, however, is some form of permanent effect on the first
person (the "host"?), which could include sudden onset of diabetes,
high blood pressure, or other serious conditions, ranging down to less
serious effects like a permanent increase in shoe size.  The separation
at the end of the several-month period will also likely be extremely
painful for the first person (and I'd add: after which time she will be
legally responsible for the other person for some years absent certain
awkward but not impossible procedures, which are however stigmatized
quite harshly).  

However there is a safe, clean, legal alternative, not too awfully
expensive, that will terminate the connection and the other person's
life.

The question is: is the first person ethically *obliged* to go through
with this?  

Undoubtedly some of us would decide to sacrifice ourselves in such a
hypothetical case.  The question is not, however, what would you do? 
The question is, does the person *have* to go through with it?  The
answer from the ethicist who invented this scenario is that the answer
must be, No.  After some squirming, and protesting, I have to admit
that I agree.

It isn't a perfect analogy to pregnancy and termination, but it
illustrates a point.  That is, even leaving aside the question of
personhood of the fetus (a big enough question), it is by no means
clear that anyone is under this severe an obligation to any other
person ethically.  We humanitarians do not like to end human life, and
I think none of us would do so lightly.  But sometimes our choices are
not that simple.

And, could I just add by way of aside, that in my own book both
"pro-life" and "pro-choice" are silly euphemisms.  If you're
anti-abortion, pposed to abortion, or a supporter of abortion rights,
or reproductive freedom, just say so.  My 2c again.

Ricky

"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn 

________________________________
From: E.
Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
To: Ron Szoke <r-szoke at illinois.edu>
Cc: Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Sent: Saturday, March
28, 2009 1:36:21 PM
Subject: Re:
[Peace-discuss] Fw: CCHCC Annual Dinner & Adbook -- AWARE

Ron Szoke wrote: 
This page was sent to you by:  r-szoke at illinois.edu 

INTERNATIONAL / AMERICAS   | March 28, 2009 
Amid Abuse of Girls in Brazil, Abortion Debate Flares 
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO 

The case of a 9-year-old who had an abortion after saying she was raped has 
revived a debate over abortion rights. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/world/americas/28brazil.html?
emc=eta1

Comments:  

1.  Is "pro-life" an euphemism?  For what, exactly?

Pro-life is anti-abortion.  Some of the opposition calls it anti-choice.

Pro-life means to me that I support the right to life, and therefore a
future, for all people.

2.  Is all surgery on female bodies "violence against women?"   On only on 
pregnant women?  Or only on certain parts of pregnant women?  How do you 
decide?  (Suppose the surgery is to remove a tapeworm.)

Minor surgery is when they cut on someone else.  If it involves cutting
on me, its a Big Deal.

Wikipaedia says:  Violence is the expression of physical
force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on
pain of being hurt.

I would suppose then that surgery is seldom violence against a woman. 
Mutilation is something else.

The baby that she carries and nurtures in the womb is not part of her. 
It's easy to prove.  Check
the baby's genetic material.  Clearly the baby is not part of the
woman's body.

Generally it is not a good analogy to compare a baby with a tapeworm. 
Usually we reserve
that analogy until after the baby has several years of age on it.

3.  Note that my question was:  Are there any good philosophical arguments for 
the view that abortion is NOT wrong?  It was NOT a request for a general 
argument in support of abortion, only of abortion RIGHTS -- a very different 
matter.  There was no response to the question.  

It has been made clear time and again that the right to liberty does
not include the right to harm others,
particularly not the right to harm the innocent.

4.  Once again, we have seen only slogans, doctrines & evasions on the 
question of how far the "pro-life" people are willing to go in preventing or 
punishing abortion.  Should those who engage in it  ultimately have to face the 
guns & billyclubs of the police for having broken the law?  What if the woman 
has been raped, is a victim of incest, or her life is endangered by the 
pregnancy?

Endangerment of life by pregnancy appears to be a myth.  The source of
the baby's genetic material is no excuse for killing it.

Will we now receive yet another dose of slogans,  metaphysical doctrines, 
evasions, red herrings & idealistic effusions  in response?  Watch this space.  

Who knows?

-- Ron

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss 

________________________________

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090330/38ca8447/attachment.html