The Rants of Issachar

I've been meaning to write this post for a long time. My first posting on abortion back in February got a few comments on it and I think some people offended some other people. So I stayed away from this for a while. It also got difficult to follow the conversations. Sixty-nine comments with no threading is not easy to read.

But this is my board, so I'm adding another post.

My opinion on abortion is in that original post, and I'm going to assume that everyone's reading below this point has read that post. Also, please comment here rather than in the February discussion. That discussion's been finished for a while now.


By the NARAL position, I mean the position that states that abortion should be completely legal without restriction. That the decision to abort or not to abort should rest entirely with the expectant mother and that abortion should be framed exclusively as an issue of choice.


So here's the problem with this position: It does not contain a coherent or defensible belief on the beginning of human life. (And by that I mean the beginning of a creature with "human rights").

Choice is fundamentally secondary to Human Rights. A black man has the right to live as a free man. He is not subject to any other man's "choice" to make him a slave. A woman has the right to say no to sexual advances. She is not subject to any man's "choice" to have sex. All human beings have the right to live. They are not subject to any other human beings choice to terminate their life.

Human Rights are called such for a reason. All humans have them. They are not dependent on intelligence, age or like that. They are subject only to other human rights. The right to life is regarded as the ultimate human right.

The NARAL position makes one of two assumptions. It either the assumes that human life begins at birth or that some human beings are superior to others and that their choices can overrule the human rights of inferior humans. I'm going to dispense with the second possibility because I don't think that NARAL or anyone else is going to try to defend it. So the NARAL position depends on the assumption that life begins at birth. For NARAL life has to begin at birth or else a woman's choice would always be secondary to a unborn child's right to life.


So does anyone want to actually defend the idea that human life and rights begin at birth?

It's not a coherent postion.
Fetus' are dependent on the mother. Infants are wholly dependent on others as are the very ill and a whole host of others. Dependency is not a determinant of human rights. A fetus' dependency on the mother is therefore irrelevent to when life begins. Next...

Biological differences. The counter argument to every biological argument is that a fetus one day before birth is not different from a newborn in any way of consequence.

So how else can the foundation to the NARAL position on abortion be defended? I don't think it can be.

If anyone wants to make a case for the NARAL position, please do. I'd be interested to discuss it. I want to hear from pro-choice people in particular. Can you defend unrestricted abortion in light of it's assumptions about human rights? If you can't, what restrictions on abortion do you think are necessary to reconcile human rights with the beginning of human life?


Update: Sept 1st 3:50PM

Please do not turn this into a flame war on abortion. I want discussion and learning, not pontificating. (I can do that all by myself). :)

Also there's only one pro-choice person in this discussion. It would be very nice if another pro-choice person could join in.

Also, some suggested ground rules. Please do not use the phrases "anti-choice", or "pro-abortion". Stick with pro-life and pro-choice. They're the commonly accepted terms anyway. (See discussion within as to why I added this).

Oh, and please don't turn this into round two of the last discussion.

Posted by:  zannebee

Oh Issachar. Always spoiling for a fight, aren't you?

*pinches Issachar's cheeks*

I think you try to deal in absolutes too much. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

:oP

It's too late to respond properly right now, I will respond later when I have more time.

Posted by:  zannebee

First, I have to say that women don't always have a choice when it comes to sex. Women are raped every day, even by their own husbands. Think that's not possible? Think again.

Now on to the main debate: In my opinion, you are asking the wrong question here. We can debate when life begins forever and ever and we will never solve anything. The question we should be asking is "How can we reduce the need for abortion?" Contrary to pro-life belief, pro-choice is not synonymous with "pro-abortion". Nobody wants more abortions and nobody really "wants" to have an abortion. And we already have laws in place which restrict abortion on demand to the first trimester, so that's not an issue.

I think that a lot of pro-life people are so completely focused on asking when life begins and trying to make abortion illegal that they have lost what I believe is the most important issue: how do we prevent abortion?

Will making abortions illegal stop abortion? No. We know this. It will only force women to go to back alley butchers, where they face humiliation, excruciating pain, sterility and death. Plus, you and I both know that rich people will always have access to safe abortions because they can afford to travel to other countries where abortion is legal. Therefore, the people who would be most effected by making abortion illegal is poor and lower middle class women. Is this fair? Is this humane? No.

To me, it seems that the pro-life contingent doesn't really seem concerned that making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. They spend all this time and energy on arguing about when life begins and trying to make abortion illegal. If abortion were made illegal, most of them would probably be satisfied and wash their hands of the whole affair.

We need to stop thinking about this in black and white terms (which is what I meant by when I said that you like to deal in absolutes). Life is not black and white. There are lots and lots of grey areas. Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. Clouding the issue by debating when life begins solves nothing. We need to ask ourselves: what is most important? Making abortion illegal or stopping abortion?

I must again quote the statistics in the Netherlands where abortion in the first trimester is legal and paid for by the government.

"The Netherlands’ abortion rate is lower than any other country’s, thanks to its comprehensive sex education and family planning programs."

Why do we not use the Netherlands as a role model for reducing the need for abortion? Because the issue is clouded by "moral" concerns. So rather than attempting to solve the issue at hand, which is reducing the need for abortion, pro-lifers just seem to want to feel that they live on higher "moral grounds", which doesn't solve anything at all. It appears to me that instead of wanting to solve a problem, what they really desire is control.

Also, you are making assumptions about the NARAL stance on abortion. NARAL is pro-choice, but their position on abortion is this: let's do what we can to reduce the need for abortion. However, let's not make it illegal because that just presents more problems. I will quote from their website:

"...the fact is, the need for abortion will never go away until we, as a country, can achieve two of NARAL Pro-Choice America's goals: better access to more effective contraceptive options and better access to other kinds of reproductive health care and information.

NARAL Pro-Choice America works to reduce the need for abortions. Americans need better access to contraception, health care and sex education".

Posted by:  issachar

Zannebee...

Where on earth did I suggest that women always have a choice with regards to sex? Obviously women are raped in this world, but that doesn't negate their human rights. Human Rights violations does not take away those rights. It just means that their rights were violated.

Nor did I suggest that pro-choice meant pro-abortion.

Nor am I making any assumptions about the NARAL position on abortion. NARAL has opposed every single attempt to place restrictions on a woman's ability to choose to have an abortion. It has always phrased the abortion issue as an issue of "choice". (Hence their use of the phrase "anti-choice").


Frankly, you haven't dealt with my question. You have made several good points, but they are all secondary to the question of whether or not a fetus has Human Rights.


Your question: "How can we reduce the need for abortion?" is not a replacement question. It is a subsequent question.

It is akin to asking how you can reduce demand for slaves or reducing the number of rapes. Those are worthwhile questions, but they are secondary to the issue of Human Rights. If there is a high demand for slaves, we should certainly find ways to reduce that demand because it would reduce human rights violations. However, the acceptance of the universal human right to be free from slavery comes first and is of primary importance.

The desires of some people to violate human rights are irrelevent to whether or not human rights violations should be against the law. The problem with a pro-choice position is that if a fetus has human rights then abortion is a human rights violation and consequently not subject to anyone's "choice". Only if a fetus does not have basic human rights does choice enter into the discussion.

The pro-choice position therefore must include a reason why a fetus does not have human rights. Since we all believe that all human beings have Human Rights and no human has superior rights to another, the pro-choice position must therefore provide a logical and defensible position on when human life begins. Without that, ethical justification for the pro-choice stance falls apart.

I still haven't heard a reason.

Posted by:  westcoastloon

Interesting how it's always rape that gets brought up so quickly in abortion debates. I would never want to downplay the horror of rape, however I don't see statistics that show rape as a leading cause of abortions.

The following stats come from a wikipedia article (and were cross-referenced on the site for the Institute.) According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.31 million abortions in the US in 2000, and cases of rape or incest accounted for 1.0% of abortions in 2000. Women from 27 nations reported the following reasons for seeking an induced abortion:

* 25.5% – Want to postpone childbearing
* 21.3% – Cannot afford a baby
* 14.1% – Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
* 12.2% – Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
* 10.8% – Having a child will disrupt education or job
* 7.9% – Want no (more) children
* 3.3% – Risk to fetal health
* 2.8% – Risk to maternal health
* 2.1% – Rape, incest, other

If you combine risk to fetal health, risk to maternal health, rape and incest together you're looking at less than 10% of all abortions.

As for the rest of those reasons, they're simply not good enough. I don't think that making abortion illegal with make abortion go away, but it would let people know that abortion is not okay. It would let people know that you can't end a life because you don't feel like it. I'll grant you that that last 10% don't have a lot of choice in the matter, but maybe the other 90% would think a little longer about who they're getting into bed with and when.

I'm not saying that raising a child is easy and I'm certainly not saying that giving a child up for adoption is easy either. But it's not like you can accidentally trip on the curb and get pregnant. In the majority of cases it doesn't just happen to you, there's an element of decision. Decisions have consequences. Why should an innocent be asked to pick up the tab?

Posted by:  zannebee

Issachar, you said in your post that a woman has the "choice" to say no to sex. I must have misunderstood you again. I have heard this argument made before to defend the pro-life position and I assumed that that was what you were doing. Sorry!!

I didn't answer the question because I think that it's moot. As I said, we can argue all day long about when life begins, but we will never solve the question. It's a bit like asking "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" We don't know. Now I may be wrong again, but it sounds like you are formulating an argument that if we can't define when life begins, then abortion must be illegal. This is a black and white argument. There are gray areas (some of which I addressed above) which aren't addressed in this argument. It's not just a matter of choice, although choice is part of it. Things happen. Condoms break, contraception fails, 14 year old girls are talked into going further than they'd like by older boys, girls are uneducated about sex facts, women are raped and girls are molested. When these things happen, sometimes it does come down to a matter of choice, but it is a forced choice. In any case, a first trimester a fetus is not considered a person under the law and therefore does not have rights. That being the case, you can't compare abortion with slavery or other human rights issues.

I guess that you are saying that the NARAL position is that it's just a matter of choice and nothing else. The point that I was trying to make is that it is not simply a matter of choice, that there are other factors as well. If the NARAL position is that it is just a matter of choice and noting else, then yes, they are missing the boat. However, I'm not sure that this is so, they may just be pushing that angle.

Westcoast Loon, do you think that it's it OK to force women into back alley abortions to face humiliation, pain, sterility and death because of a mistake or a lapse in judgment? Many pro-lifers would say yes, that this is what a woman deserves for having an abortion, that it's her punishment for having sex and getting pregnant, so too bad if she dies. And of course for men, this is easy enough to say because they will never, ever have to face the issue. However, have you ever considered that this stance does not take into account that these women who are forced into having risky illegal abortions are having abortions anyway which pro-lifers are against? The fact that she could very well die only makes it sadder, especially if the woman is your friend, your wife, your girlfriend, your daughter, your aunt, your niece, your mother... etc. She could be anyone, even someone who you think would never have an abortion.

We should be doing what we can to prevent abortion, instead of making moral judgments and simply pushing to make abortion illegal. I say that that is not enough, it's too easy. It is a lot easier to sit on a moral high horse and judge those around you for their mistakes rather than getting to work and trying to actually solve the problem. Again I say, what is more important? Preventing abortions or the need to feel morally superior?

People should take all this energy that they are spending on these types of issues and put it into helping poor families feed their children or lobbying for healthcare for the millions of children that do not have health care. I think that it is better spent helping the children who are already here on this earth or lobbying for the kinds of things which are proven to prevent abortion, rather than simply trying to outlaw abortion.

Posted by:  Katinka

Zannebee, you made a valid point that “We can debate when life begins forever and ever and we will never solve anything.” The fact that there is a “grey area” surrounding this issue seems to stem from a reluctance of mainstream Western society to openly acknowledge the notion of a ‘spirit’. Although for Christians this is not a question it does raise a subsequent issue of when a fertilized egg gains a spirit . Scriptures seems to indicate that we existed in God’s mind long before our bodies were ever created, and His spirit breathed into our bodies. Therefore, are our spiritual dimensions limited by our physicality?

The sad aspect of this issue of abortion is that in making it so accessible we inadvertently create even more obstacles to psychological healing for victims of rape. Not only is she bearing the burden of memories of the attack, but she is also encumbered with the onerous responsibility of having to make a decision in a context which, frankly, is still quite murky...at least from a secular perspective.

Whilst I agree that we should spend more time investing in ways to prevent the occasion for abortion, promote adoption and support teen-mothers, I don’t agree that providing legalised access to abortion is helpful either. It is simply condoning something which in reality has far-reaching and deleterious effects on the society at large. Very simply, legalized abortion reduces the significance of all human life.

We see this playing out numerous ways:

Eg. In IVF procedures whereby fertilized embryos are regularly destroyed. According to the Concept Fertility Centre (Aus):
“Embryos which are no longer wanted can be donated or destroyed. They can remain in storage for a maximum of three years.” http://www.dsh.com.my/clinics/concept_info/infertility_facts/ivf.htm

Eg. Forced abortion in China, as a result of one child family directives.

Eg. Minimal legal rights for fathers in potential abortion scenarios

Eg. Growing preponderance of abortion of Downs Syndrome or genetically imperfect individuals ultimately leads to a NARROWER DEFINITION OF WHAT IS HUMAN. For individuals like Einstein,Mozart and Churchill their various impediments could have been cause for their abortion had present-day technology been available then.

If this “advancement” is not beneficial for all, we need to be prepared to deal with the corresponding implications for society, government and the rights of the individual.

After all, who gives someone the right to define the parameters of another’s worth, anyway?

Posted by:  Marco

Zanne, three of your frequently repeated mantras:

1. that "Pro choice does not mean pro abortion".

That's a bit like saying "pro-abolish consenting adult age laws does not mean pro-pedophilia". It might as well, though. Or what would be the difference?

What would "pro-abortion" mean exactly?

2. "If you outlaw abortion it will still happen." Well, duh. Nothing has ever stopped because it was outlawed. Let's legalize arson, because it's going on anyways, and pyromaniacs could finally be seen as victims instead of perpetrators.

3. "Life's beginning is a grey area, and not really relevant to the question." How is it not relevant? If it could be established scientifically that life does not begin until birth, that would put an abortion on the same moral grounds as an appendectomy. That's extremely relevant, because that would make it presumptuous indeed for one group of people to try to stop everyone else from performing this operation -- it would be like the Jehovah's Witnesses trying to outlaw the Red Cross because blood transfusions go against their religion. Many people would die and suffer needlessly because they are being refused a transfusion based on someone else's moral views that have been imposed on them.

BUT since it's pretty clear that life begins before birth, the question is one of human rights. No pro-lifer (except an insane one perhaps) is trying to make women suffer because he wants to see some personal moral view adhered to by the rest of the world. The pro-life position says that, whatever difficulties and suffering a woman may experience due to a pregnancy, the right of another human being to live supercedes that. We would all agree on this principle if the child were three years old, so why the arbitrary dividing line at the event of birth?

Kat, the question of a human spirit really does not enter the debate. You can be a materialist and believe that humans are only a mass of atoms, and still you have to have some position on why you believe it to be immoral to destroy (kill) the particular mass of atoms you call a "human being" and not any other mass of atoms (say a cow or a tree or a stone). And if you believe that to be so, you have to define when a particular mass of atoms IS in fact a human being. And there needs to be no entity we call "spirit" in order to defend the position that the fetus is already what we would, by all other standards, call a human being. So does it have human rights?

Posted by:  Marco

PS I do agree that outlawing abortion is in itself an insufficient act. And if it is the ONLY act that comes from a battle to defend the human rights of the unborn, then it might in fact be a somewhat harmful result.

Of course a society in which it didn't have to be outlawed because no one is doing it anyways would be ideal, but that goes for every human rights issue. Wouldn't it be grand if there didn't have to be laws against slavery, theft, murder, incest, etc., because these things were just not happening? In the meantime, everyone in a democracy (and in other systems as well) tries to make the laws reflect the same values that they believe would make such a great society. It's not a matter of trying to feel morally superior (Although that can, of course, happen -- to a pro-choicer just as easily as to a pro-lifer -- so we all need to be on our guard).

Posted by:  zannebee

None of this addresses the fact that if abortion is illegal, women will die, mostly poor and loewer middle class women. And they will still have abortions. I don't really understand why people don't care. To me, that is the central issue. The Netherlands model is proven to be the best and yet it is ignored because it doesn't fit into the ideology.

Kat, I think that the government regulating women's reproductive rights by making abortion illegal is the flip side of forcing women to have abortions. If a government is allowed to dictate to a woman what she can and can't do reproductively, forced abortions are the flip side of illegal abortions.

Posted by:  Marco

Zanne, are you still gonna answer my questions though?

(And BTW, since you're talking about none of this having anything to do with women dying if abortion is illegal -- most of your postings don't have much to do with the central question Issachar raised in the first place.)

So, about women dying -- Let's not underplay the horror of women dying because they still seek an abortion in spite of it being illegal. It is a tragedy, and I do not refuse to address that. But you are using this as a weapon to make the pro-life stance appear primarily concerned with ruthlessly upholding some private morality over the life and well-being of pregnant women. But unborn children are dying because abortion is legal -- you are refusing to address THAT. You pretend that the number of abortions would basically stay the same if it were illegal, only the health risks would increase. But how a handful of back-alley abortions creates a human rights problem greater than the millions of unborn children dying can only be justified if the unborn children are indeed not human (which was Issachar's original question). Shall we just throw politics aside and consider the question of whether destroying a fetus qualifies as murder, and why or why not? The questions of how legislation would affect the well-being of child and mother are also worthwhile, but you can't just say that "we're asking the wrong question here." It smells like a copout. By all means let's discuss how to reduce the number of abortions. But what's the point of asking that if we don't bother to ask why abortions should even be reduced in number? Just because it's a controvesial issue? Just because it hurts women? Or is there really a life at stake?

(Netherlands politics to be addressed afterwards.)

Posted by:  zannebee

Marco, I didn't have time to reply to you earlier. I barely had time to post anything!

What I meant when I said that the point is moot is that regardless of when life begins, women will still have abortions, whether it's legal or illegal. After that, it's just a question of whether we care enough about these women to make them safe. The argument for making abortion illegal because it sends a message that "it's not OK" is basically a symbolic gesture, which is fine when there are not lives at stake, but there are lives at stake. You can't compare abortion with a crime like committing arson. Women do not willfully go out and get themselves pregnant because they want to have abortions. You're comparing apples with oranges.

As far as "pro-choice" vs "pro-abortion" goes, there is a difference. People who are pro-choice believe that abortion should remain legal for many of the reasons that I have already mentioned. However, they would also like to see less abortions. So they are not "pro-abortion". This is a word that people like to use to confuse the issue and put a negative spin on pro-choice people and it pisses me off.

I think that most people would like to see less abortions, we just have different ways of understanding how we are going to acheive that end and we focus on different issues which we think are the most relevant.

Now I don't have time to address your second post as I just composed my reply to your first post before I saw the second one.

Posted by:  Katinka

Marco, the question of the human spirit IS a relevant one to this debate. It is a very significant factor in determining worth and human rights when for example deciding whether to dispose of a microscopic cluster of human cells from a sputum sample or those of a fertilised egg. Both are human and living. Why is one more valuable than another?

Personally, I hold the rather radical view that life may even begin prior to conception :) However, while no one can unequivocally prove that a fetus is not human until a specified period I believe that we should not be gambling with legalised abortion.

The truly important issue here is what are long term results of sanctifying abortion on our society, on our notion of self and on human rights. As a friend once expressed this "Not only does it seem that the human race is on a way-way ticket to self-destruction, but it seems that every decision that we make (as a society/species) is bent on taking any shred of dignity away from ourselves...and removing all moral boundaries that protect human beings as individuals..."

Do we, for example, want to be defined as a society that has no place for the physically imperfect Downes Syndrome individual?

I think it's easy to get caught up in the scenario of the rape victim and forget as Westcoastloon's stat.s demonstrated, a greater proportion of abortions are ones of convenience.

As a child of an unplanned pregnancy to a mother who was in the high risk period (40's) I could well have been aborted. I'm personally very greatful for my mothers respect for my right to life!

Posted by:  Marco

All right Zanne, let's take this one question at a time:

Why should we work towards a society in which there are fewer abortions?

(Two questions actually: #2 is just a repetition of a previous one. What exactly does a person believe if they are "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice"? Sure I believe there's a difference, but all you say is how pissed off you get when the two are used interchangeably, but you're not even saying what you believe the difference is.)

Posted by:  Super Dingo

I want to ask a question that some may dismiss; however, I would really like to see some articulation and elaboration.

Let's assume that an unborn child poses no health risk.

Let's also assume that an unborn child, at whatever stage, is just as human as one already born.

Suppose the mother or father wants to postpone childbearing. Why is it permissible for the child to die?

Suppose the mother or father cannot afford a baby. Why is it permissible for the child to die?

Suppose one party has a relationship problem or the partner does not want pregnancy. Why is it permissible for the child to die?

Suppose the woman is too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy. Why is it permissible for the child to die?

Suppose having a child will disrupt one's education or job. Why is it permissible for the child to die?

Suppose someone wants no (more) children. Why is it permissible for the child to die?

And yes, suppose there is a case of rape or incest. Why is it permissible for the child to die?

Sorry for my redundance, but I would really, really like to hear a direct answer to this. Does a parent's inconvenience, struggle, potential hardship, shame, etc. make it permissible to take a life?

Posted by:  Katinka

(On the issue of the health risk factor, here is a true story of a family friend, Dawn Ruth. Ten years ago she was diagnosed with a malignant cancer. Despite the fact that doctors urged termination of the pregnancy so as to commence chemotherapy, and despite jeopardizing her marriage, Dawn continued the pregnancy and delivered a healthy child. Today she is in full remission, the marriage survived and her son is alive. Makes me wonder why we try to limit God so much!)

Posted by:  issachar

Okay... First of all, I think we all need to thank Zannebee for discussing this issue despite being the only pro-choice person on the board right now. I want to gain insight here, not just rehash tired discussions. Oh, and if you're pro-choice and reading this, please contribute your thoughts.

I've also added an update to the main post.

Posted by:  issachar

Back to the discussion:

Zannebee said:
In any case, a first trimester a fetus is not considered a person under the law and therefore does not have rights. That being the case, you can't compare abortion with slavery or other human rights issues.

This is an appeal to authority, not an argument. We know that fetus' are not considered persons under the law. The question is "How is that ethically justified?". Black people were once not considered fully "persons" under the law. Ditto for women. Someone justifying slavery on the basis of "black people aren't legal persons", would have been avoiding the argument rather than engaging it.

To justify witholding human rights from fetus' one must provide a reason why fetus' are not considered human. Referring to the legal system is begging the question.

Posted by:  issachar

So I guess the currently represented pro-choice answer to the question at hand is "the question is not relevant". If anyone pro-choice would like to correct me on this, please do.

Fair enough. The question is asked and answered. So what are the implications of this answer?

In my opinion, this answer implies that:

Establishing a logically consistent reason for denying that a "being" is endowed with human rights is not necessary for harmful action to be taken against that "being" if it can be demonstrated that harm would occur to a "being" whose human rights are legally recognized.

Two questions:

1) Is this assesement of the implications correct?

2) Are pro-choicers comfortable with those implications?

Posted by:  issachar

Sidenotes:

Marco... I like how you phrased the question.

The pro-life position says that, whatever difficulties and suffering a woman may experience due to a pregnancy, the right of another human being to live supercedes that. We would all agree on this principle if the child were three years old, so why the arbitrary dividing line at the event of birth?

Very succinct. (I could use some of that).



Another issue:
Zannebee... You said:
I think that the government regulating women's reproductive rights by making abortion illegal is the flip side of forcing women to have abortions. If a government is allowed to dictate to a woman what she can and can't do reproductively, forced abortions are the flip side of illegal abortions.

False. And demonstrably so, if abortions are legally restricted because of the human rights of the fetus. That line of reasoning only makes sense if abortions are restricted for some other reason unrelated to human rights. And I can't think of any good reason to restrict abortions other than the fetus' right to life. "Our society needs a higher growth rate" is an example of a bad reason. But then I've never heard that argument given by any pro-lifer, and a recognition of fetal human rights could not possibly lead to force abortions.

I don't want to be rude, but the "flip side" argument seems like pure FUD. It is not logical.

Posted by:  issachar

Kat,

I think Marco's right. A materialist could argue that destroying a fetus is immoral without recognizing any spirit or soul. He could do it on the basis of DNA. Arguing that unique human DNA needs to be protected for the good of the species. There are other ways, (not that I buy them), but belief in a soul isn't strictly necessary to be against abortion.

Posted by:  issachar

Welcom Super Dingo...

I suspect that most pro-choicers would object to your second assumption.

In fact, it's the crux of the argument.

I believe that virtually everyone (including pro-choicers), would agree that a parent's inconvenience, struggle, potential hardship, or shame do NOT make it permissible to take a human life. The issue is when does "human" life begin.

That's why I think it's vital that a pro-choice stance be buttressed by a defensible belief as to when "human" life begins.

Posted by:  Super Dingo

Thanks, Issachar --- that was exactly my point. The question of when life begins is something that needs to be answered and defended, because it is foundational to any stance on abortion.

But it's not NARAL's only inconsistency: the quote "...the fact is, the need for abortion will never go away until we, as a country, can achieve two of NARAL Pro-Choice America's goals: better access to more effective contraceptive options and better access to other kinds of reproductive health care and information." implies a couple of things:

one: the NEED for abortion....
I don't want to argue semantics here (but I will), but this makes it seem that abortion is necessary (?) yet they follow with

two: will never go away....
Implying that abortion is a less than desirable event that at some point, hopefully, will NOT be necessary.... Why?

So how should abortion be categorized? Saying it's a need makes it a necessity, so how can it go away? If it's not a need, but a choice, then why is it necessary? If the goal is to make it go away, then how do we discourage people from making undesirable choices? Do we legalize and fund the means for them to make choices that we want to go away?

Posted by:  Katinka

Issachar,

as yet another pro-life proponent I apologise for unnecessarily contributing to this discussion…;) I had no intention of re-hashing tired issues or ‘pontificating’, but was simply concerned with exploring the long-range ramifications of the pro-choice stance. (And potentially a Christian pro-choice stance…!)

I am willing to bow out of the debate here, but before doing so would like to respond to the statement that “a materialist could argue that destroying a fetus is immoral without recognizing any spirit or soul.” It is news to me that a materialist would claim any real alignment with formal morality as you or I would describe it…correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t relativism be a more commonly held stance of the materialist? Perhaps I’m splitting hairs here.

I must admit, without the concept of a spirit, I would entirely concur with the view that abortion is acceptable….why not? (After all, in terms of preservation of the species, DNA could be perpetuated by other means…indeed, the idea of cloning from human cells may not be all that fanciful).

I wonder if the answer to your question regarding the pro-choice stance centres around the notion of functionalism. Perhaps ‘fetal viability’ (ie becoming ‘human’) occurs when it can be deemed useful/beneficial to others in some way?

If so, is that a valid definition of being human?

Posted by:  Katinka

ps.( Regarding a materialist pro-choice position: without acknowledging an accountability to a higher, irrefutable moral order, any choice becomes a subjective and an amoral one. Even the notion of "Human Rights" looses it's significance, becoming simply a fallible humanistic ideology that has gained collective approval and which will inevitably adapt to suit the times.

Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect a materialist to accept the view that the fetus should have human rights which supersede those of it's mother. Without introducing the reality of a human soul, how then can we possibly ever offer any other legitimate incentive to recognize the rights of the unborn child? AND someone please tell me, what basis do we have for discriminating between live human cells and the wonderfully euphemistic term the ‘beginning of life’...if not for the presence of a spirit…? )

Posted by:  issachar

Kat...

I'm not asking anyone to bow out, I'm hoping to attract more contributors. Please don't think I'm trying to get to pipe down...

As for the whole moralism vs. relativism thing... Well I'm not going to try to get too deep in defending something I don't hold to be true anyway. (I'll probably do it wrong).

I believe that human rights are intrinsic to all people as we are creatures made in the image of God. I'd be playing devil's advocate to a silly degree if I took up your argument.

:P

Posted by:  issachar

Super Dingo,

Perhaps I should let someone else address this, but I don't think you've found another inconsistency in NARAL's position.

They say it will always be necessary until unwanted pregnancies no longer occur.

That doesn't seem like a contradiction to me. It's skipping the whole human rights issue as I said, but I fail to see how classifying abortion as a need is an inconsistency on NARAL's part.

Posted by:  Lisa

That is a well-noted point ( among all of the others you made!), Kat: human rights is a humanistic ideology. We were certainly not put on earth here to assert our human rights, though some might think so.

Evidently, throughout history, groups of people who have been enslaved, abused, and oppressed have come together to realize their "rights" and fight for them. Those who didn't own land, Blacks, immigrants, and women gained the right to be seen as real persons, to hold citizenship, vote, and ultimately to be free individuals. These victories reveal the absolute necessity to be identified by the law as a human with rights; this came out of their oppression. Amidst their trials and hardships they realized their desperate need to fight for others to see them as truly "human" and deserving of freedom and equality.

Unfortunately, the unborn child can't speak up for his or her self, at least not in the way other oppressed groups have been able to.

I am totally just "re-hashing" an old argument here.

I think that it is essential that a foetus, at all stages, is identified by the law as a person. Whether you see that human life begins before or at conception - everyone would agree that a foetus is developing into a person, and thus, should be identfied by the law as one. (I've oversimplified, I know.)

But, the root of the problem - and the massive obstacle to illegalizing abortion is feminism. Feminists can't accept that human life begins as a foetus, nor can they accept that they are the ones 'oppressing' by aborting, because they still feel oppressed themselves. Like Zanne said at one point in her argument, abortion is a "forced decision". How is it it "forced" but also "pro-choice"?

I think that, in general, because feminists are still convinced of their own oppression and victimization,they continue to see themselves as victims in all situations, whether suffering in university, in their careers, in their relationships, in their view of themselves or in their consideration of whether or not to keep their child. Consequently, women will forever be justified.

I think that it is only when feminists realize that they are no longer oppressed, and that their past oppression doesn't give them the perogative to oppress human life, can there be any real support for the unborn child's human rights in the law. Until then, I think that feminists will refuse to acknowledge that a foetus is a human life, deserving of life. Feminists want it all - they want the freedom to make choices, (ie. to have sex with whoever) and at the same time to have the freedom to trample the human rights of another, weak, helpless, unborn child. Strange how the tables have turned; it used to be that women were the weak helpless ones with no rights, having to submit to men who were the oppressors. The first feminists would be turning over in their graves if they saw feminism today.

So, my riculous opinion for what it's worth: dissolve the kind of feminism we have today and in so doing, resurrect the unborn child's human right to life.

Posted by:  Super Dingo

My point wasn't exactly clear; maybe I could illustrate it better with a comparison.

Suppose I say that the need to nourish ourselves will never go away unless we no longer require food. But we will always require food, so the need to nourish ourselves will never go away.

Suppose I then say that the need for abortion will never go away unless we no longer have unwanted pregnancies. But no matter how many precautions are taken and how much education is provided, there will always be some unwanted pregnancies, so consequently the need for abortion will never go away.

But if unwanted pregnancies can be dealt with in ways other than abortion, why does abortion then qualify as a need?

I suppose according to NARAL that if anyone really wants to completely eliminate abortion (if it is undesirable, then isn't that the goal?), they will have to prevent ALL unwanted pregnancies.

I guess this is not an inconsistency but rather a misappropriated term and a pipe dream.

Posted by:  issachar

Feminists can't accept that human life begins as a foetus

I think the pro-life feminists might disagree with you on that one Coul. Good thing you're a woman, or we might have to yell "sexist" at you. /tease

Posted by:  zannebee

I have been unable to continue this discussion due to a hectic schedule. With my mom in the hospital, a full time job, two kids to take care of, etc. I've been rather busy.

In any case, since I am the only pro-choice person in this discussion, it's not a lot of fun to formulate a post and then have a whole bunch of people attacking it all at once. Nevertheless, when I get the time, I will formulate another post, but please forgive me if I do not address everything that everyon said on here. I simply don't have the time.

Posted by:  issachar

No problem. This discussion is supposed to be enjoyable. I wouldn't blog if it felt like a chore.

Drop in whenever you want. :)

Posted by:  Katinka

Issachar, you said:

"Since we all believe that all human beings have Human Rights and no human has superior rights to another, the pro-choice position must therefore provide a logical and defensible position on when human life begins. Without that, ethical justification for the pro-choice stance falls apart".

I wonder if the premise that 'no human has superior rights to another' is an accurate reflection of our present societies standards. After all, how do you account for legal sanctification of capital punishment, and war?

To be honest, even as a pro-choicer I would find it challenging to provide a "defensible position on when human life begins"...it's not as though you can use a litmus test to prove the presence of a spirit. Although Truth stands regardless, our understanding in this realm is limited. Do any of us really know for sure?

(A similar parallel would be deciding to take a brain-dead patient off life-support..how can we prove that the entity we call a 'person' is not still present?)

Posted by:  Katinka

*grn* that should read "as a Pro-lifer" .....ooops!

Posted by:  issachar

I think that western societies would generally agree with my "no human has superior rights to another" statement.

Our recognition of human rights has always included situations where we justify the removal of those rights. (Putting people in prison being the best example of that).

(And I think you mean legal sanction, not santification)... :P

Posted by:  Lisa

By the way Issachar,

You said, "I think the pro-life feminists might disagree with you on that one Coul. Good thing you're a woman, or we might have to yell "sexist" at you. /tease"

Phew, good thing; thanks for not yelling. :) But, really, what pro-life feminists? :) It depends on how you define "feminist"; I was thinking of the 'radical' feminists of today. (The early feminists would have probably been pro-life; they were actually quite traditional, by our standards today.) IMO, a strong,secular, modern day feminist who is also totally committed to the pro-life position can't be that common? But, then again, Western culture holds a 'feminist' ideology to one degree or another, doesn't it - and has benefited and suffered consequences from it.

Frankly, I refuse to consider myself a feminist in today's terms...but I digress.

Posted by:  Cameron

Hello. I’ve been recommended to this blog and confess that I have read all the posts in only one sitting so if I rehash anything, I apologize.

I applaud you all for taking your various stances and posing the questions you have. The abortion debate has only recently been brought to my attention and I am finding it captivating in the way in which people respond to this issue.

I see that the primary question remains unaddressed though. What actually defines a human being? It is a question of fundamental importance in this debate of pro-choice and pro-life. The reality is that we don’t know (not according to contemporary definitions anyway…which appear to be the only ones that will be acknowledged as ‘credible’ in this debate).

There are plenty of theories on what constitutes a human being...but they will remain theories in the argument of pro-choice and pro-life. Why? Simple – because the striking part in all this is that humanity (as a race) is refusing to ‘make a stand’ on what defines a human being (this discussion is a good example of this problem). As a result, ALL things, as Zannebee rightly says, are ‘grey’ and morality becomes a very fluid term. In my humble opinion, this is not a compliment to the human race. The fact is that there 'are' absolutes in this world whether we acknowledge them or not. There are things that are black and white. We simply fear to acknowledge them (as a race) because to do so involves then making ourselves accountable to them.

This world is grey because of our inability to take a stand when making decisions that will effect our moral position on such things as human rights. In this way no individual is accountable to another, or to society as a whole…and furthermore, no society as a whole is accountable to the individual…or to itself for that matter…

Let’s hypothesize for a moment and actually take a stand (rightly or wrongly) and boldly suggest that a fetus becomes a human being at the point of conception and is entitled to all the rights of humanity from that point. What is the effect of this ‘decision’? What would be the ramifications for humanity if we were to acknowledge, legally, that a human being begins life (as a human being) at conception? I will not provide an answer here, but would at least like to pose the question.

People will undoubtedly struggle with this possibility, largely because we are continually attempting to define humanity according to physiology only (a fetus as such struggles to obtain any respect). However, why is it that humanity is defined merely by the physical? Why is it that the spiritual and intellectual aspects of human beings are relegated to places of secondary importance…nay, irrelevance? You cannot tell me that all I am, and all that you are, is just complex chemistry? Advocates of pro-choice...face this question. It is fundamental. What makes us who we are (again we return to the fundamental question which remains unanswered)? If the consensus is that we are just a bunch of cleverly arranged atoms, then perhaps we should all look further into the extremely complex nature of human physiology, because to use this argument on a superficial level is easy...to get deep into the physical ‘stuff of life’ becomes much more complex (much more complex than any of us are able to comprehend). The evidence of ‘intelligent design’ is all around us and to refuse to acknowledge this is to bury our heads in the sand and to believe what we are force fed our entire lives. We claim to be critical thinkers, and an ‘educated’ civilization…I am yet to genuinely see this in the vase majority (present company excluded of course).

The reality is that science continually attempts to degrade humanity through dehumanization. It is shameful that, like blind sheep, we, the ignorant masses, do likewise. The precepts of science affect our humanity in more ways than we can acknowledge and the vast majority of us justify our beliefs and morality using science; science that we know little or nothing about. The stance on pro-choice in the argument for abortion is a classic example of this hypocrisy and inconsistency, as ever-changing scientific data and conclusions are used to suit our own ever-changing moralities.

The reality is that evolutionary science underpins and ultimately determines modern morality and has done so through a gradual transition from the realms of the physical to that of the metaphysical. If you are an advocate of evolution and base your moral beliefs on its conclusions, ask yourself coldly, how much of evolution can you say you actually understand with absolute certainty?

Whatever your leanings, it is problematic and erroneous to attempt to claim that we can classify a human being according to physiology only...and to then make moral choices based on this is ridiculous. We must be prepared to acknowledge, or even discuss, the definition of humanity in its ‘entirety’, as I believe that it is this entire definition, that actually ‘is’ our humanity. To deny these important aspects is to simply avoid making a decision and to further base our beliefs on ignorance and weak foundations.

Though I have not provided an answer to what makes a human a human (as I have readily acknowledged that this is not (at this stage) entirely possible according to the definitions that are (at this stage) being sought in this debate), I am merely proposing that, as a race, we should be prepared to make cold, hard decisions in which human dignity is restored…wherein we protect and nurture those that are “most” vulnerable...those who are “most” dependent on our humanity...for theirs...

…This is my first time at posting anything on the net, so I hope that you will all have ‘mercy’ on me as you’re all obviously much more experienced and learned than I at this…Thanks…

Posted by:  Katinka

(Actually I meant sanctification...I used it here in a facetious sense to communicate how the loss of certain Rights have been elevated to something morally acceptable. ie. it has been 'sanctified'...made holy, if you will. It amuses me that by some act of human law we can seemingly make something right.)

I would like to steal part of a comment my mum made recently:

"…I don't think there is now
any question that life begins at
conception. The activity of growth and development, (surely part of the essence of life)is all too well known and documented.

"At what stage a foetus become human" is a grey area, not so much in fact as in belief. It is conceived by human cell activity; it "inherits" human DNA; it cannot develop anything other than a human body (including mind and self consciousness).

Even from a purely materialistic view point a foetus is human. (It does not "become" human - that argument is based on the supposed visual similarities between early stage foetuses of various species - and is of course evolutionary. But it lacks evidence)

The question of human rights really derives from that view point. If the foetus is not human (at some stage of development), then it cannot have human rights. Even if this were true, we have to ask, does it then have no rights? What rights does it have? In the present philosophical climate we accord rights to animals…

…Do we have the ethical right to pick and choose who lives and who dies? Are some people more equal than others? (Hitler thought so)”

Posted by:  Marco

Poor Zannebee -- getting pounced on like that by a whole bunch of us, and having to defend her position all by herself...

I'll probably add more comments later, even within the pro-life camp there are plenty of differences between us, although they would bring us far off the topic. [not that anyone was concentrating too much on Issachar's original post to begin with...]

Posted by:  Katinka

I can only speak for myself, but I have no desire to deride someone else’s opinion. I appreciated what others, including Zannebee have contributed, and actually would be curious at some point to explore the idea of what can be done to prevent the occasion for
abortion, as she suggested. As for Issachars original three-fold question, I do believe that some of us have begun to attempt to un-package it…but it is a many-faceted one, and to be realistic, we all have our own personal variations on the broader issue of abortion, as Marco points out. As the question is predominantly aimed at the Pro-Choice camp and there appears to be only one person defending this, I think we may be excused for tangenting at times. However, I now intend to go quietly with a mouthful of cotton balls. Enjoy the debate! *grin*

Posted by:  westcoastloon

This debate has got me thinking more specifically about this issue than I have in awhile so thanks, so all of you and especially to Issachar for bringing it up in the first place.

I have always been pro-life and the question of when life begins never bothered me much -- I just stood by the "at conception" answer because it seemed the most logical. But I was thinking the other day, if for a moment we take that out as a possibility, what other options remain?

To better understand when life begins I started thinking about when life ends. There seem to be two major indicators of death:

1. The heart ceases to beat.
2. The brain ceases all function.

So that got me thinking, playing devil's advocate for a minute here, is a fetus a living human being before there is a heart to beat? I had no idea when the heart starts beating so I looked it up. Turns out there's a heartbeat by the end of the first month and the brain is forming nerves by the seventh week.

Is a fetus human in those very early weeks before they have these signs of life? For me, yes. Can I prove it? I'm still working on that :)

Posted by:  Sarah

I was refusing to get involved in this discussion, but Westcoastloon and Kat have both touched on something that interests me, completely aside from the abortion issue.

Where does life begin? Does it begin? Does it end? I'm a biologist, not a theologist, and personally I don't think anybody can put a beginning and an end point on life. Its convenient to do so in human society, but I don't think its necessarily correct to do so.
Conception is an easy place to label the beginning of life, but what is conception if not the fusion of two live human gametic cells? There's nothing particularly magical about this - it happens in all forms of life, including in fungus that kill humans (my particular research passion). I believe that life is a continuum, a cycle if you will, with no beginning and no end. I know someone is going to raise an issue with me here, because clearly death represents the end of a life. But if you take an altruistic look at life - some call it the big picture - then its really not.
Something else that has bothered me throughout this thread, is the assumption that human life is any more valuable than other forms of life. What an arrogant creature the human is.
I'm well aware that I'm completely off topic, but I agree with Zannebee that the original topic for discussion was moot before it began.

Posted by:  zannebee

Sorry I've been absent. Got mom home from the hospital yesterday and she's doing well.

First I want to address what coul said earlier about my statement about a forced choice. What I meant was, once a woman finds out that she is pregnant, she is forced into choosing whether to continue the pregnancy or end it. That's the "forced choice". Pro-choice means that you believe that a woman should be allowed to legally have that choice. Otherwise, you would legally have no choice at all. It's two different ideas.

I also wanted to talk about what Cameron said - "What would be the ramifications for humanity if we were to acknowledge, legally, that a human being begins life (as a human being) at conception? I will not provide an answer here, but would at least like to pose the question."

This is what I have been thinking about. It seems to me that we'd be opening another can of worms if we did that. How far would we want to go? Would we want to arrest women if they were not taking proper care of themselves during pregnancy? Would we want the government monitoring pregnant women? Would we want the police coming round to Mrs. Johnson's house because her neighbor reported that she's not taking her prenatal vitamins?

And what do we do about poor women who can't afford prenatal care? Do we arrest them for not taking proper care of their fetuses?

Posted by:  Valerius

Great discussion. Unfortunately I'm joining it a little late so I'll try not to rehash what has already been said here and in the other topic.

I'd like to back up a bit and comment on the NARAL position and the abortion debate in general. It seems to me that the opposition to any restriction on abortion (and this can even extend to opposition to mandatory counseling, for some pro-choice groups) is motivated more by a slippery slope argument than the debate about when human life begins. In the abortion debate, there is no compromise available to the pro-life position due to the nature of their argument (life begins at conception, all abortion is murder). So for pro-choice groups like NARAL, it seems to me that there is no motivation for compromise, because you believe that any compromise you make (say, for example, placing restrictions on late term abortions) will simply be a step towards banning all abortions - the slippery slope argument.

And yet I think there are a lot of pro-choice people (such as myself) that would not object to a compromise of some sort, such as restrictions on late term abortions (with exceptions for the womans and fetal health). From the statistics I've seen, if you were to restrict, say, third trimester abortions, you wouldn't really be restricting the ability to choose abortion, because a large majority of abortions occur in the first two trimesters anyway. And yet, pro-life groups wouldn't stop their opposition, the debate would continue as before. So the debate crystalizes into the two "extremes", which does nothing positive for either the public or resolving government policy.

For myself, if there is no compromise available between "no abortions at any time" and "no restrictions on abortion at any time" I would have to choose the latter. And I think it does society a great disservice to restrict the debate to the two extremes. It means that the debate will go on without resolution.

I haven't defended the NARAL position here - and I've sidestepped the "primary issue" everyone else is discussing. I'll probably post my two cents worth later when I've organized my thoughts a little more. But hopefully a slightly different perspective helps.

Posted by:  Super Dingo

Good point, Valerius -- you are correct in saying that even with some sort of compromise, a pro-lifer such as myself would still have concerns. I think this just reinforces that the question "where does life begin" does need to be discussed!

And Zannebee, I also do shudder at the prospect of "Law & Order: Miscarriage Unit." But having said that, a nosy neighbour could just as easily inform authorities that someone is abusing their child if they do not approve of the way the child is being raised. And as for women who have trouble affording prenatal care, how about this radical proposal: I would much rather have my tax dollars spent on programs that support women having healthy pregnancies, and yes, even supporting those children after they were born, rather than supporting government-funded abortion. Undoubtedly such a proposal would be far more expensive, but I wonder if such an idea wouldn't have a trickle-down effect, such as encouraging more accountability for one's own choices and sex education.....

Posted by:  issachar

Something Sarah said piqued my interest.
I don't think anybody can put a beginning and an end point on life. Its convenient to do so in human society, but I don't think its necessarily correct to do so.

You're actually right on-topic. (It just seems that you're off because everyone else is).
:)

Beginnings and ends are pretty murky. We call death permanent, but then we can revive people who have been "dead" for some time. So the end of "life" is uncertain. (As is the beginning).

So one might ask when should we cease to recognize a person as having human rights because they are "dead". It's a parallel question to when we should initially recognize a person as having human rights.

Now that's the question I'm really interested in right now. How would you answer it?


oh, and I wouldn't say it's arrogant of us to assume humans are more valuable. That would only be the the case if it weren't actually true. For instance, I don't think it would be a bit arrogant of you to assume that you're more intelligent than the average person. (Because that's simply a true statement). Now if you were to assume that you were somehow worth more than another human...
:P

Posted by:  issachar

Zannebee,

I think you're overstating the case. No one gets reported to the police for giving their toddlers Flintsones vitamins.


Still, your points about the ramifications of legally recognizing the personhood of at least some fetus' are well taken. We would have to take some long hard looks at the implications of recognizing some fetus' as fully human if we took that step as a society.


Do you think that having to look at the potential ramifications is a valid reason not to actually examine whether or not fetus' are fully human?

Would it be legitimate for a society to consider the ramifications of abolishing slavery before they recognized the human rights of their slaves? If it wouldn't be legitimate to do that, I can't see how one could justify looking at the ramifications of fetal personhood before deciding whether or not fetus' have human rights.

Posted by:  zannebee

Super Dingo, you said "a nosy neighbour could just as easily inform authorities that someone is abusing their child if they do not approve of the way the child is being raised."

Very true. It happens all the time. The difference being, the child in question could be taken away from the parent by CPS. What the heck are you going to do with a pregnant woman? The fetus is inside of her. You can't take the fetus away from her. You would have to take HER. I also shudder at the prospect of "Law & Order: Miscarriage Unit", very well put!

And I agree, "I would much rather have my tax dollars spent on programs that support women having healthy pregnancies, and yes, even supporting those children after they were born.." This is why I am a democrat. I support this kind of so-called "creeping socialism". And as my father would say "BOOGA BOOGA!" (probably nobody else will get the joke, but my father, bless his soul, would).

Issachar, yes my reference to pre-natal vitamins was a little over the top, but my point was just what valerius was asking, where do we draw the line? Personally I have no problem with drawing the line exactly where it is.

But I must add, the point that you are trying to make, comparing slavery with fetuses, I don't see as valid. Slaves are, or were, born people. Not the same as fetuses. I see more of a correlation between slaves and women being forced to go through with pregnancies that they do not want to go through with.

But, you know, that's just me.

Posted by:  issachar

Zannebee...
the point that you are trying to make, comparing slavery with fetuses, I don't see as valid

I know that. No pro-choice person can. The question is: Why?

I know I'm asking this all kinds of ways, but what I want to know is what it is about the nature of a fetus that provides the ethical justification for your viewpoint. It has to be something in the nature of the fetus itself. (And to be fair, I think you'd have to provide a justification for the latest stage abortion that you're prepared to have legal).

Posted by:  Day Monster

Hello, I would enjoy entering this fray, if I may.

I am agnostic and pro-choice, albeit with a distaste for abortion. Spiritually we must agree to disagree. I realize my stance on abortion is not entirely clear, and, selfishly, I would like to use this debate to challenge and clarify my own beliefs.

I have read both the original post, though not all of its comments, and the new post and most of its comments. I apologize if I have missed any points.

I do not wish to offend, though I believe our worldviews are quite different. I would like to benefit from intelligent debate.

1. For this debate, I will say that up to and including fourteen weeks(first trimester) in utero the developing human being is just a fetus. The separate issue of fetal rights can be another topic. After fourteen weeks, since the issue is no longer clear, I will say life has begun.

It follows therefore, that at fourteen or less weeks abortion-on-demand is acceptable from a fetal standpoing(if not perhaps from that of the mother's well-being), and that after fourteen weeks the unborn child has human rights, including the right to life, and that any legislation would relate to protecting the life rather than preventing the abortion(ie systematically depriving the mother of those rights and freedoms that conflict with principles of fundamental justice.

2. It seems that the NARAL position makes sense, if perhaps it is at one end of the spectrum. Although not explicitly, it seems to suggest that a child life begins when it is no longer umbilically attached to its mother.

Incidently this also seems to be the position taken by the UN in the declaration of human rights, and by the Canadian Supreme Court in the interpretation of article 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As a note, human rights exist because we as a society have agreed upon them. They are not inherent.

The analysis of dependency is a false analogy as the fetus is dependent upon the mother specifically, not generally.

With respect, a fetus a day before birth is a universe away from a baby a day after. Environment, oxygen supply, stimulus and nutrition are all radically different.

I do not personally agree with the NARAL position, but I do believe the general position can be powerfully defended (although I found what I saw of the web site to be a titch ladden with inflammatory language).

Posted by:  Day Monster

Two pieces of tangentially related propaganda:

StatCan
BC women have the second highest rate of induced abortion
Why?

The legislative path to criminalising abortion travels this way:
"The most significant impact of the 2002 law...was a record-keeping change. Previously, a miscarriage before viability was classified as a spontaneous abortion. Under the new provision, it is recorded as a live birth followed by a neonatal death, and parents can claim the child as a tax deduction for that year"

Posted by:  Eric

“I know I'm asking this all kinds of ways, but what I want to know is what it is about the nature of a fetus that provides the ethical justification for your viewpoint. It has to be something in the nature of the fetus itself. (And to be fair, I think you'd have to provide a justification for the latest stage abortion that you're prepared to have legal).

Issachar, the wording of this question is much more accessible. I hope you don’t mind me joining the debate at this stage, but I found this through a link from another blog I read. I’ve been following the discussion with much curiosity and would like to offer my own 10cents now.

RE NARAL: “So here's the problem with this position: It does not contain a coherent or defensible belief on the beginning of human life. (And by that I mean the beginning of a creature with "human rights").”

This previous question seemed a bit dubious to me because it implies that NARAL activists would not consider abortion an option if it could be proved that the fetus is human and has associated rights…a fallacious assumption. Let me explain why:

Many of the Pro-choice people that are represented here have made their arguments on the basis of functionalism (well noted, Kat). That is, they have presented practical reasons for the justification of abortion in terms of it’s social implications, it’s benefit to the mother and to government. Having read your initial posting in February I came across your statement : “there are a lot of weird implications if you say that a zygote is a human being...So I'm positive that life begins before birth, but I'm not sure when life actually begins.” Just as you are not entirely sure when life begins but believe that no risk qualifies abortion, similarly it seems that many of the Pro-Choice camp in spite of recognizing a “grey area” are willing to proceed for the practical considerations it believes outweigh the risk. I dare to suggest that they would be prepared to justify abortion regardless of the answer to when life begins, primarily because of a perceived ‘necessity factor’.

Before we cry “bloody murder”, let’s not forget that we readily withhold anothers’ Right to life all the time in war (sometimes even that of the innocent as in the case of bombing a town where a terrorist is believed to be hiding). In a sense, that is making one persons’ Rights superior to another, is it not?

And as Day Monster aptly notes: “Human rights exist because we as a society have agreed upon them. They are not inherent.”


Let’s also consider the atheist position. If we really are soul-less animals (presuming of course that animals have no soul) then why should we apply a moral high ground that we wouldn’t apply to another animal? (Incidentally, you may wish to select a more effective debating tool than simply negating Sarah’s comment regarding the worth of animals, such as offering justification for that stance)
After all, rabbits are known for their tendency to re-absorb their young when undergoing stress, such as a result of shortages of food. I suppose this could be described as abortion? Eagles will feed only one of the two hatchlings when shortages are a factor. Similarly, preferring the life of the young adult woman over the fetus makes sense if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective. After all, if she already has other children, more resources and care will be available to them if there is one less mouth to feed. They have a greater opportunity to thrive as a result.

Therefore, it seems that we approve the withholding of Rights when we can justify the reasons….and as you rightly ask, Issachar, the question remains as to whether those reasons are valid ones in terms of how we perceive the fetus, and in terms of it’s actual worth.

For this purpose, I do not believe you can leave a faith perspective out of the debate. I would be interested to hear how a Christian Pro-Choice advocate would defend their position on the nature and value of the fetus.

Postscript: (having just read a very pertinent piece of info. on BC Legislature that D. Monster provided, the question arises: is this all a matter of semantics, or is there a greater Truth that stands!)

Posted by:  issachar

Day Monster...

Interesting.

Although I'm confused by the last sentence of your first point. I think you're saying that abortion prior to your 14 week cut-off is okay as only one human is involved, (the woman), but it is not generally okay after that point because two humans are involved and the fetus' right to life would be of primary concern?

As for the 14 week cut-off, that could be attacked as either too early or too late, but you have got a position that does address the issue.

About the biology of fetus' a day before birth vs. a day after. With respect, everything I've ever read on the subject would contradict your statement. (For the record, fetus' do consume oxygen). I am unclear on how ones stimulus, nutrition or environment could have any impact on their human rights. It would be nonsensical to suggest that a person's human rights should in any way be affected by what they eat, what external stimulus they experience or where they are.



Your position on human rights is interesting but I don't believe it's shared by most people. I suspect that most of us don't believe human rights to be arbitrary rules decided on by our society. We consider them to be universal truths that apply to all people. Hence our condemnation of people in other cultures who don't recognize human rights. We don't insist all laws be universal to human societies, but we do for human rights... I'm unclear on how one can have a universal truth when one doesn't believe in the metaphysical, but apparently some people don't see the contradiction.

Posted by:  Marco

Hello, I'm back, and glad to see more pro-choicers in the debate.

Zanne (and others), I'll just repeat the question:

Why should we try to move towards becoming a society in which there are fewer abortions?

Posted by:  Marco

Eric, you have touched on something vital here:

"let’s not forget that we readily withhold anothers’ Right to life all the time in war (sometimes even that of the innocent as in the case of bombing a town where a terrorist is believed to be hiding)."

Very true. The question is, when do we withhold one person's right in favor of another's, to the point of taking human life (as in war)? Isn't it always when it's more HUMAN LIFE that's on the line?

That's why an abortion to save the mother is a completely different ballgame from an abortion made for the mother's convenience (and the latter is far more common).

I will agree with Zannebee that there is that in-between area - pregnant women whose life isn't biologically endangered by the pregnancy, but whose very existence seems threatened by it because of the huge (and traumatic) changes brought about by an unwanted pregnancy. But this too accounts for only a small percentage of abortions.

I see several problems with this, of which I'll state two here:

1. Do we know many women who have solved these (admittedly huge) problems by having an abortion? I personally don't. I know women who have had unwanted pregnancies, and a REALLY ROUGH time of it, but they carried it through and all of them are glad they did -- I have not yet heard a woman say, "If only I had had an abortion."

2. Does the existential fear accompanying an unwanted pregnancy pose a justification for abortion? So far no one here (except maybe Day Monster) has suggested that life begins at birth; our suggestions are 14 weeks, second trimester, conception, or "grey area" (can't really be pinpointed). But what interests me is that those who are saying that the beginning of life is a "grey area" aren't treating it as one. They are categorically saying that a woman should have the right to abort if her pregnancy is threatening to result in trauma. This is not "grey area", this is still very much sticking to the argument that the fetus can't have human rights that would supercede the mother's right to end the pregnancy.

Like I said before, we all agree that no mother is justified in killing her 1-year-old baby no matter how traumatic her life may be as a mother. Why do we insist that she is justified in killing her unborn child, even though we are calling it a "grey area"? If it truly were a "grey area", shouldn't we have some doubts as to her justification for doing this? If you don't have such doubts, then sorry, you don't really believe the area to be grey after all. If you do have such doubts (and I think Zannebee does, given how she talks about late-term abortions and stuff) then the next question would be if there are any abortions that should be outlawed under human rights laws.

Posted by:  Valerius

Issachar, I think in a way you are circling back to the original question. If you take as a given that human rights applies to human beings, then you have to ask yourself "what defines a human being?". Personally, I think the answer is our consciousness, sentience, our ability to reason, etc. In a somewhat less secular approach, you could refer to "soul" or "spirit" etc. It is what separates us from other animals.

In this manner our DNA is human, but not a human being. Your DNA defines your physical attributes such as eye colour, etc., and probably has more subtle influences on numerous other characteristics (personality etc.), but it is not you. If we were to clone you (scary thought! - just kidding) and send your clone to live in a very different culture and environment, chances are that clone would grow up to be a very different person. Perhaps the behaviour would be similar in a variety of ways - the old nature vs. nurture debate, but you would be fundamentally different people. By the same measure, if you were to take my DNA, and clone, say, a new heart and lungs to be implanted in me, these organs would be alive and be human, but are they equivalent to me? If these organs were destroyed, would it be murder? I don't think so.

The crux of the argument is that you have two points, with disagreement on how to draw a boundary between the two (and some, of course, say you shouldn't be drawing boundaries at all). At conception, you have a cell that is alive and, (by its DNA) human, and yet has none of the qualities I described above. (You can argue it has the potential to be a human being, but future rights do not imply present rights. A five year old will have the right to vote in thirteen years, that does not give him the right to vote now.) And then you have a baby at birth, which everyone agrees has fundamental rights.

This is the "grey area" and you can draw this boundary a number of different ways. Heartbeat, brain activity, and viability (when a fetus can survive outside of the womb, albiet with the aid of technology) are all ones I've seen mentioned. Viability seems to me at the moment to be a sensible one, but has the drawback that it changes with technological progress. Perhaps technology will eventually make the abortion debate moot altogether. Unfortunately, future progress doesn't help people in the present.

So when you address the problem in terms of human rights, I think by implication your considering the original question, i.e. what defines a human being. But considering the question of rights, I think, forces us to consider not just what defines us physically or biologically, but also what defines us as sentient beings.

Posted by:  zannebee

Marco - Why do we as a society wish to lower the abortion rate? I think that there is more than one reason. We are a society of varying beliefs. Some people believe that life begins at conception or shortly thereafter. Out of respect to these beliefs, it would be desirable to lower the abortion rate. But also, unwanted pregnancies are traumatic, whether the woman chooses abortion or chooses to continue with the pregnancy. Therefore, it is desirable to prevent them. There are other reasons too, such as wishing to avoid the need for invasive procedures, like surgical abortions, if we can.

My personal belief is that abortion on demand should be available during the first trimester. My understanding is that a fetus is not viable (cannot live outside the mother's body) before about 20 weeks, which is halfway through the second trimester. Even at 20 weeks, it's rare that the fetus survives. That being so, I think that abortion up to the end of the first trimester is a good compromise, well before a fetus becomes viable.

It is at the point that the fetus is viable that abortion becomes abhorrent to me. So yes, it is a grey area, but I do have feelings about it. However, the whole notion of a "grey area" is that we don't really have a black/white answer. I have some opinions, but I don't know have all the answers. This is what makes it a grey area.

Issachar, you said I know I'm asking this all kinds of ways, but what I want to know is what it is about the nature of a fetus that provides the ethical justification for your viewpoint. It has to be something in the nature of the fetus itself. (And to be fair, I think you'd have to provide a justification for the latest stage abortion that you're prepared to have legal).

I hope I answered this in my reply to Marco. I am speaking only of abortion on demand. It doesn't apply to an abortion that is necessary for the health of the mother.

Posted by:  Marco

Zannebee, thanks for that answer. Another question:

-You say abortion becomes abhorrent to you after the fetus is viable. Do you think that it is right to legislate against abortion after that point? (In other words, do you support laws that forbid abortions after the first trimester?)

Posted by:  zannebee

Well, as I said before, I'm comfortable with legislation the way it is. I am not comfortable with late term abortions, but they are not legal (except in cases in which it effects the health of the mother) and abortion on demand is only legal during the first trimester. I support a woman's right to choose and I think that by the end of the first trimester, a woman has had time to make her decision. That said, however, rather than focusing on legislation which limits abortion, I prefer to focus on what we can do to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place and what we can do to help women who do choose to go through with their pregnancies, and also what we can do to help expectant mothers and children who are poor.

Posted by:  Marco

When you say you're comfortable with "legislation the way it is" it unfortunately doesn't speak for itself. I assume you mean American laws. Would it bother you to hear that other countries allow abortions much later?

I do realize that your main thrust is not in changing legislation, but in changing results. But does your abhorrence of late-term abortions go so far that you would support law changes if you were a citizen of a country in which they were allowed?

Related question: if technology were to develop so that a fetus is viable mid-way through the first trimester, would that change your stance? i. e. you say that you abhor abortions performed after the fetus is viable. Would that still be a true statement if viability date were moved around?

Posted by:  zannebee

I really don't think that it's possible to move the viablitity date around. A fetus in the first trimester is simply not developed enough to live outside of the womb. If you mean something like remove the fetus from the woman and grow it in a test tube or something, well, that's a different debate.

I think that if I lived in a country which allowed late term abortions, I'd still focus on prevention rather than legislation.

Posted by:  zannebee

I menat viability, of course. Dur.

Posted by:  zannebee

MEANT!!!!

Dang fingers won't type right.

Posted by:  Marco

Why do you find late-term abortinos abhorrent?

Posted by:  zannebee

Why do you ask? :oP

Just personal feelings.

Posted by:  Marco

Ack, I mean "abortions" of course, not "abortinos".

What do you mean, "why do I ask?" Isn't it obvious that if we're gonna find common ground, we can start with late-term abortions, since we both feel the same way about them? I just want to know why you abhor them. I abhor them because I think that it's actually a human life going down the tubes. And I think there's a lot of pain involved. We feel so distant from a fetus -- can't relate to it or remember when we were one -- that we often assume that it doesn't feel pain or fear (or that if it does, it's of no major consequence). But I think that, though the sensations may be far more primal and less developed, pain and fear -- and a great deal of it -- are exactly what a fetus feels as it is aborted. And I also believe that it's not just cosmic suffering (although it is that too), but that it is specifically human suffering. But more than that, I believe that it is human life.

So why do YOU abhor late-term abortions? ("Personal feelings" isn't a satisfying answer, unless by "personal feelings" you mean "personal reasons" -- i. e. reasons you don't feel comfortable sharing on this forum -- in which case I obviously won't pressure you. But if you mean you as a person have feelings about it, and don't mind sharing them, then I would like to know what they are.)

Posted by:  Marco

Sarah, if you're still reading this, I have a few responses to your post from a while ago:

#1 you say that human beings are arrogant to assume that their lives are more important than other lifeforms. How do you think the laws should be changed to rectify this attitude? Should I be tried for murder if I shoot a pigeon? Should a doctor face imprisonment if he prescribes antibiotics? (After all, they kill bacteria, which are lifeforms just like us.)

#2 I don't understand at all what you mean by the following:

"Conception is an easy place to label the beginning of life, but what is conception if not the fusion of two live human gametic cells? There's nothing particularly magical about this - it happens in all forms of life, including in fungus that kill humans (my particular research passion)."

Wait -- so because conception is a process that happens in other lifeforms as well, it can't possibly be the beginning of specifically human life? I mean, there may be arguments in favor of the idea that a fertilized egg is not yet a human being, but this one is ridiculous. It's like saying that because a child grows, it can't be human because mushrooms grow as well and they're not human. Or that because I eat, I'm not a person because cows eat as well and aren't persons. You seem to be saying that because we have a function (conception) in common with other lifeforms, we really have no right to call it a human being in one instance and not in another. Or do I misunderstand what you're saying?

#3: You say:

"I believe that life is a continuum, a cycle if you will, with no beginning and no end. I know someone is going to raise an issue with me here, because clearly death represents the end of a life. But if you take an altruistic look at life - some call it the big picture - then its really not."

I take it you mean that by my death the life cycle in the universe keeps going. But do you mean that if I were only to take an altruistic view of life, I would demand that war criminals and murderers be pardoned because "no one really got hurt, you know, in the big picture. Sure some people died, but that, as I have just learned, is not the end of life, right?"

(But on the other hand, if death weren't the end of life, then why should we pardon them? There would be no reason not to give them the death penalty either. What's the harm done? "Think big picture, baby. No one's life is REALLY ending here.")

I think you have to define what you mean by "death" and whether or not you believe murder to actually be wrong, because it sounds like you're saying that death is nothing.

Posted by:  zannebee

Marco, I was just being silly. Trying to lighten things up. Hence the emoticon with the tongue sticking out. Like so :op

What I meant was that I have personal feelings about it that I don't necessarily want to share. But I'll say that part of it is that by the time a fetus is viable, it has all it's parts and is fully formed and can survive outside the womb, and is therefore more human and more like a "baby".

Posted by:  Sarah

Marco, here's some quick responses.

#1 you say that human beings are arrogant to assume that their lives are more important than other lifeforms. How do you think the laws should be changed to rectify this attitude? Should I be tried for murder if I shoot a pigeon? Should a doctor face imprisonment if he prescribes antibiotics? (After all, they kill bacteria, which are lifeforms just like us.)

I don't think any laws should be changed. Why is everything about changing laws with you? I did not expect anyone to actually agree with me - I think perhaps that was my point...
Obviously, humans generally value other humans above all other life forms - that is human nature. But why? My personal belief is that we are no more valuable in the grand scheme of things than any other life form. It depends on what you believe to be the grand scheme of things, and how you place your values, right?

Wait -- so because conception is a process that happens in other lifeforms as well, it can't possibly be the beginning of specifically human life? I mean, there may be arguments in favor of the idea that a fertilized egg is not yet a human being, but this one is ridiculous. It's like saying that because a child grows, it can't be human because mushrooms grow as well and they're not human. Or that because I eat, I'm not a person because cows eat as well and aren't persons. You seem to be saying that because we have a function (conception) in common with other lifeforms, we really have no right to call it a human being in one instance and not in another. Or do I misunderstand what you're saying?

Yeah, I think you misunderstood. I wasn't making any comparison of the relative 'humanness' of lifeforms, just that I don't view conception as the beginning of life. And I don't think we can call conception a "function" of humans. I don't really know where you were going with that. Nevermind.

I take it you mean that by my death the life cycle in the universe keeps going. But do you mean that if I were only to take an altruistic view of life, I would demand that war criminals and murderers be pardoned because "no one really got hurt, you know, in the big picture. Sure some people died, but that, as I have just learned, is not the end of life, right?"

(But on the other hand, if death weren't the end of life, then why should we pardon them? There would be no reason not to give them the death penalty either. What's the harm done? "Think big picture, baby. No one's life is REALLY ending here.")

I think you have to define what you mean by "death" and whether or not you believe murder to actually be wrong, because it sounds like you're saying that death is nothing.

I think you're reading FAR too much in to my comments Marco. My comments were based purely upon passing comments from a couple of other people in the discussion (as I stated), and really had no bearing on the abortion/what-is-life topic (as I stated).

Posted by:  westcoastloon

I think you could build a case that Sarah's view of a longer version of life (for lack of a better term) -- life that begins before conception and does not end at death -- is compatible with several major world religions, Christianity among them.

Christians believe that God knows the number of our days before one of them comes to pass. They (we, in my case) also believe in an afterlife, a concept of eternity that begins with the human body fails. Christians also believe that although the body reaches an end point the true essence of a person remains in this eternity. Faiths that follow a credence of reincarnation also ascribe to this "longer life" idea, so Sarah, you might not have so much trouble finding people who agree with you after all.

Posted by:  Marco

All right Sarah. Sorry I started talking about "legal implications" (what laws to change...) of your views. Much of this discussion has been about laws, and especially human rights laws. Laws usually reflect the values of a society at large -- if most people in a society believe that it's wrong for men to have sex with children, then there will probably be some laws about pedophilia in that society. So I was just wondering what sort of laws a society would come up with if they all agreed that all life is equal. Would it be a crime to kill a mosquito?

But we can gladly drop the subject of laws if you want, sorry if I come across as a "change our laws" fanatic.

You say:
"I did not expect anyone to actually agree with me - I think perhaps that was my point..."

Who said anything about agreement? I'm trying to *understand* what you're saying.


"Obviously, humans generally value other humans above all other life forms - that is human nature."

It is human nature. I think one of the questions at hand is whether it's right for humans to believe this. You apparently don't think it is, because you've called it an "arrogant" attitude, and because you say:

"My personal belief is that we are no more valuable in the grand scheme of things than any other life form. It depends on what you believe to be the grand scheme of things, and how you place your values, right?"

But the problem I'm finding is that you're not really telling me how you place your values. You say "all life is equal", but you don't tell me whether you'd take antibiotics if you had pneumonia or tuberculosis. If all life were equal, then your life is no more worth preserving than that of the microbes you'd be killing with that medication, right?

Much of what we do to survive includes killing other life forms. Even if you're vegan, you'd have to cross carrots and potatoes and lots of other plants from your diet because the plant dies in order for you to eat it. You'd have to stick with mangoes and pears and the like.

If I believed human life to be of equal value with all other life then I wouldn't give any help to humaniarian aid, since my money might end up killing the parasites in some starving child's belly. Why would I do that if I believed those parasites to be as important as the child?

You say:
"Yeah, I think you misunderstood. I wasn't making any comparison of the relative 'humanness' of lifeforms, just that I don't view conception as the beginning of life."

The misunderstandings are piling up here, because you apparently misunderstood what I had (erroneously) interpreted you to have said as well. We might iron this one out sometime in the future. But moving on...

"And I don't think we can call conception a "function" of humans. I don't really know where you were going with that. Nevermind."

Sorry if my terminology is off, I never was very good in biology. :)
I was referring to the question you asked as to what conception is other than the union of two human gametic cells. That sounds like a "life function" to me -- by that I mean something that living organisms in fact do. Gametic cells do unite. I thought you could call "life functions" such things as eating, growing, reproducing, etc., but if I'm using incorrect wording here, please feel free to correct me. Or just ignore the statement if it contributes to the confusion.

"I think you're reading FAR too much in to my comments Marco. My comments were based purely upon passing comments from a couple of other people in the discussion (as I stated), and really had no bearing on the abortion/what-is-life topic (as I stated)."

Whether they had any bearing on the topic or not, what you said is that life does not end at death. I'm just wondering what you mean by that. Like Westcoastloon said, most religions would agree with you on that. I agree with you as well. But in general we believe that if someone is guilty of causing the death of others, there is some sort of moral value being breached. We usually feel incensed at someone who heads up a genocide. We generally consider the deaths of our close friends and family members to be large tragedies. Are we right in doing so, or is this arrogance? Or is it ignorance?

Posted by:  Blessed

If I may join in briefly....
Marco.... I think what Sarah had in mind by her comment was simply that the living human is a vehicle for genetic information. Our genetic makeup is given by our parents who obviously live before our birth, and our genes continue into the next generation long after our death if we happen (or "choose", as might be a better expression in this forum) to pass them on. With this in mind, it might well be argued that the beginings and endings of life extend well beyond the dividing lines of birth and death. I think that is about all Sarah was trying to say, and it deserves a bit of quality pondering I think. What this has to do with the issue at hand is up to everyone else here- I am not interested in battling out the topic of abortion- but it was a legitimate point, and certainly relates back to the original topic of the debate in perhaps the most informative way that has been suggested thus far.

Posted by:  Blessed

Let me just qualify my comment by substituting the word "conception" for "birth". There...thats better

Posted by:  zannebee

I think maybe this article might be relevant in explaining what Sarah meant when she said that humans are arrogant in their belief that they are more important than other life forms. It explains the consequences of what can happen when humans and human needs are placed first, above those of other life forms.

I think that she was talking about the big picture rather than specifics. In other words, humans need to have some respect for the world, nature and other life forms. This does not mean that it should be illegal to kill a mosquito or use roach motels. That is too narrow of a view and another example of black/white thinking. It simply means that it would be best to look at the big picture and if we do things, like destroy wetlands to build a strip mall, we should consider the implications of our actions.

Of course I may be off of what Sarah was trying to say. I can't really speak for her, I can only tell you what I understood from her post.

Posted by:  Katinka

I realise this has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate topic, but the question of the respective value of humans and animals intrigued me. I know it's a common assumption that creatures we kill and consume must be less valuable because we are permitted to take their lives. It's kind of interesting though that God gave his only Son to sacrifice His life for our benefit...and yet no Christian would suggest that Christ is any less valuable than us because of this act.

So in a way, perhaps it's not just killing something that denotes value or the lack there-of.

Also, I believe there is a difference between Human Rights and Human Worth...one is a social construct, the other is a gift and therefore not something we can merit or earn.

Anyway, apologies for the obscure tangent! :)

Posted by:  zannebee

That's interesting Kat. I agree, just because we need nourisment from plants and animals does not mean that they are less valuable than we are. I understand that some of the native American tribes would actually thank an animal after killing it, for sacrificing itself for their nourishment. That kind of respect for the earth, nature, other creatures, even God, has largely been lost in our culture.

Posted by:  Marco

Hmmm,...
Zanne, thanks for the explanation. I guess you either summarized Sarah's position well or she's no longer following the discussion, because she didn't respond yet...

So I don't have too much to add. I think that ecological disaster is exactly that: disaster. And I think that it generally does have serious human failure as its cause. Problems like greed, misplaced values, etc.

This raises all sorts of interesting issues. I still say that I agree with Sarah that it is human nature to assume that our lives are more important than that of other lifeforms; and I'd disagree with Sarah when she calls that arrogance. If a man sacrifices his life for a child, he's a hero. If he sacrifices his life for a tomato plant, he's a nut. I think it can be generally agreed upon that the tomato plant is not something that outweighs the value of his life.

BUT then what about ecological disaster. What about species going extinct everyday. Extinct is forever, while our lives are just a few decades at most. So would a man be a nut if he sacrificed himself for the LAST tomato plant left in the world?

Even when it isn't life though. If some loon was flying a bomber towards Arizona to drop The Bomb on the grand canyon, should he be shot down? Even if the area were evacuated and no lives would be lost in the explosion? The whole effect of something as majestic and beautiful as the Grand Canyon is to remind us how small we are in comparison. In reminding us of how small we are, we start thinking of the life of one lone bomber as being worth far less than the preservation of this beauty.

We sort of feel the same way about artwork, don't we? Should the cops take a man down if he's at the point of setting fire to the Sistine Chapel?

I don't know the answers to this. I agree that all life is valuable, and that wantonly destroying it is usually the sign of some disturbance. But I also see that we cannot live without taking life (even, like I said, if we go vegan). And I think we can't go around saying that we're only justified in destroying other lifeforms if it is for our own survival. These things have to do with responsibility, with greed, with motive, with instinct,... even utilitarianism... spirituality...

I'm babbling.

Posted by:  Sarah

Thanks to Zannebee, Blessed and Kat. I didn't think I would cause such a stir with my off-the-topic comments - but I think you guys hit the nail on the head, and explained (far better than I did) the point I was originally getting at.

Posted by:  Marco

PS Zannebee, I may sound like I'm nitpicking here, but you said the article explains what happens when humans put themselves and their own needs first, before other lifeforms...

I think ecological disaster often happens precisely because humans DON'T put their needs first. They put their "wants" first. Neil Young says that "A greedy man never knows what he's done" -- and he's right. Greed blinds you to your needs, and makes you sacrifice them in favor of what you WANT.

Humans need oxygen, for example. They don't NEED oil as such, they just WANT it. If they were attending to their NEEDS, they wouldn't be deforesting the Amazon. I don't think it's arrogant for humans to put their needs first, because they will find that their real needs are usually not really in conflict with the survival of other lifeforms on the planet.

Like I say, I may be nitpicking, and we are probably not really in disagreement on this matter -- only in how to word it.

Posted by:  zannebee

Nitpicker! Hairsplitter! :oP I'm just teasing again.

You're right, I should have used the word "wants".

Posted by:  Leaf

Good afternoon. This discussion has been recommended to me. I am going to jump into what looks like an intensive dialogue...

The following is a personal story which I hope could bring further thoughts and learning on this issue.

My mother was a public health nurse who worked with young single women and girls facing crisis pregnancies in the 1950s in two Canadian urban centres. She continued to work in public health throughout the last half of the twentieth century. She is also a devout Christian and church attender, and would bristle at pro-life messages and abortion debates which invariably arose at church meetings.

When I asked her about this, she would not support a staunchly pro-life movement and any "all abortions are illegal" law. She had witnessed many complications from "illegal" abortions and could not imagine a return to similar conditions if the laws were to change. In addition to this, however, she has been in the trenches with people facing the emotional grief and physical consequences of "safe,legal" abortions, and has also supported mothers who have decided to keep their babies.

She did not have absolute answers on this debate, but her decades of service spoke loudly to me: which is to love people no matter what messes they find themselves in, whether self-inflicted or not, and bring restoration and healing wherever possible...this is, really, where life begins.

Posted by:  Sarah

Thankyou Leaf! I absolutely agree with you. I'm going to be moving my career from biology into public health over the next year or two, and I hope to be able to make such a difference in peoples lives as your mother has done.

Posted by:  zannebee

Amen Leaf!

Posted by:  issachar

Everyone...

A couple of things. Sorry I dropped off the map there. The students are back at school and things just seemed to get in the way. I hope there's still people reading this.


Another thing. Day Monster has asserted that “Human rights exist because we as a society have agreed upon them. They are not inherent.” Quick sound-off... Who agrees and who disagrees? I'd be interested in a quick show of hands to see where we all are on this, because I assumed a common belief in inherent human rights.


oh, and I think that blogger needs a spell-check if only for my sake. Also, I'd be interested to know how you all found this discussion... (Those of you I don't know)

Posted by:  issachar

Eric,

What you suggested in this post, is a departure from the pro-choice arguments I am most familiar with. I believe I have yet to meet the pro-choice advocate who will concede that some fetus' are human beings (with associated human rights), but will insist that it is still legitimate to terminate their lives at the choice of the mother. That is the conclusion I have drawn from your fourth paragraph. Am I incorrect? The only way I could see for my conclusion to be incorrect is if human life does in fact begin at birth. (A position I think most people would find logically indefensible).

You are of course correct in pointing out that we do in fact violate the "right to life" in time of war. Of course, we generally regard wars as justifiable on in the case of extreme necessity and to safeguard competing rights to life. Wars for territory, plunder or glory find few advocates. When they do occur, they are generally regarded as immoral. A similar logic is not held by pro-choice advocacy groups like NARAL.

As for Sarah's comment regarding the worth of animals, I rejected that argument on the basis of the fact that almost no one actually believes it. First starters anyone holding the position that animals were worth as much as humans would have to stop actually eating animals or they're contradicting themselves with every mouthful.

I don't think comparisons with the animal world will help much here. They certainly provide some examples of abortion, but they provide a lot of examples of "infanticide" as well. While many people would argue that we are in fact "soul-less animals", almost no one actually behaves as if we are.

Posted by:  issachar

Valerius,

Exactly! :)
The soul/sentient/alive issue underlies the whole discussion.

Since we can't quantify that in the way that we can quantify a heartbeat, it seems likely that our society would have to choose one of your criteria unless we were going to legally recognize the existence of a soul.

A couple of issues though...

Firstly, wouldn't using any of your criteria make late term abortions unjustifiable?

Secondly, if we start using "consciousness, sentience, our ability to reason", as criteria, don't we run into the problem that these aren't binary attributes? Different people have different capacities to reason. Would using that criteria then imply that different people have different levels of rights?

As for what defines us as humans... Creatures made in the image of God seems like a good answer to me.

Posted by:  issachar

Zannebee,

I think you misunderstood me. (Don't worry, it seems to be a common occurence). I wasn't trying to include medically necessary abortions. I was refering to late-stage abortion on demand which occurs in the United States. This whole discussion has largely been about abortion on demand. (Because choice is a foundation of the NARAL position).

But you answered my question in your reply to Marco . You're not a NARAL pro-choicer. You justify only on-demand abortion in the first trimester.


However, you've also asserted that abortion on demand is only legal during the first trimester in the United States. As far as I can determine this isn't true. One should be careful trusting Wikipedia too much, but considering how controversial abortion is, those pages tend to be watched very closely for vandalism.

Drawing from here and here. I've found the following.

The original 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling stated that state governments could outlaw abortion altogether in the third trimester and restrict it in the second. However, Doe v. Bolton in 1973 introduced abortion exception in any case if her doctor "in his best clinical judgment", in light of the patient's age, "physical, emotional, psychological [and] familial" circumstances, finds it "necessary for her physical or mental health". However, this definition of "health" allowed any doctor willing to perform a late-term abortion the legal option to do so, thereby removing the trimester requirements of Roe, although they were not officially overturned until 1992.

According to Wikipedia, it was the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey that finally eliminated Roe's adherence to a trimester formula.


All this seems to indicate that abortions outside of the first trimester are very much legal in the United States. Also at issue is the definition of "health". I think almost everyone here would agree that abortion to save a mother's life is simple common sense. We regard it as legitimate to kill a person when we separate cojoined twins rather than let both die. A similar logic would apply to abortion for most. However I suspect that this near-universal agreement would evaporate if health is defined as it has been as a result of Doe v. Bolton.

Posted by:  Katinka

*grn* Issachar, I know this is on a tangent, but I really must respond to your bold generalisation: "As for Sarah's comment regarding the worth of animals, I rejected that argument on the basis of the fact that almost no one actually believes it".

Actually, I know plenty of people who do believe this, many of whom are Sikh.

Also you said: "First starters anyone holding the position that animals were worth as much as humans would have to stop actually eating animals or they're contradicting themselves with every mouthful."

If eating something denotes lesser value, then what of the Bena-Bena people in PNG who eat their dead relatives with the view to obtaining their spiritual qualities?

I know this discussion pertains to Western society, however we are not a homogenous group and there are many 3rd World communities that are joining the Global village, bringing with them their own particular set of beliefs and values...:)

Issachar, thank you for providing a forum for discussion about the issue of abortion and for being so accomodating...I invited a number of my friends to read and respond to this post, and although most were interested I came across two that took the perspective that "I don't worry about things like that until it happens to me".

So, I really appreciate and respect all those of you who do take the time to consider this issue and struggle to find answers. Good on you!!

Posted by:  issachar

Sikh's believe that humans and animals are of equal value?

Really? That would imply that a Sikh would get equally upset over someone killing and eating a human being as they would over us eating animals. Could you keep a being of equal value to yourself as a pet?

The Bena-Bena are not a good comparison point because I assume that they don't kill and then eat their relatives.

Thanks for joining in. The question isn't really abortion though. It's more about the lack of a defensible "this is when human rights begin" statement in the NARAL platform.

Any thoughts?

Posted by:  issachar

ha!

I should have checked...

katinka is kat. :)

Why the name change?

Posted by:  Katinka

Issachar,

a) Why Katinka? Why not? :)

b) Please note, I introduced my comment to the effect that it was a response to a tangent you previously addressed.

c)You are welcome to your opinion regarding the comparison of the Bena-Bena people. As an MK that lived among those people from childhood I am fortunate to have been exposed to a broad world view. Although the Bena's never practiced this, certain other people-groups were known to kill and consume humans in tribal warfare situations.

This aside, I believe that your initial comment did not refer to killing something, but to eating it. This is what I was taking exception to.

And of course there are many devout vegetarians who are consistent with their belief that animals have equal worth.

d)I'll ask my Sikh friends...I imagine that it does horrify them when we eat beef. It is to their credit that they are so gracious toward other perspectives.

...tangent aside! :)

Posted by:  zannebee

Issachar, I feel that I must stress that regardless of what my personal beliefs are, I prefer education and prevention over legislation as a means to combat the problem.

As far as whether human rights are inherent, I'm not sure what you mean by that. If we were to look at the natural world, I'd have to say no, they are not. Nature does not give humans or creatures of any kind "rights". Our concept of "human rights" therefore is a social construct. However, if you are looking at it in a spiritual context, well, again.... who knows? It's a matter of opinion.

Posted by:  issachar

Zannebee,

By "inherent", I mean that they are "inherited". They are part of our fundamental human nature. Inherent human rights are valid for all people, in all times, and in all cultures. They are not a social construct. A social construct would be valid only in societies that recognize the construct as legitimate.

With respect, this isn't a matter or opinion. Either human rights are inherent in our natures and therefore universal or they are not. I could be right about human rights being inherent, or I could be wrong, but I certainly can't be both.

The "inherent" nature of human rights is what gives us the ability to say "murder is wrong" rather than "my culture does not like murder". If human rights are merely a social construct than they have no absolute authority in human affairs.


PS- I do not think that human rights violations negate the existence of those rights.

Posted by:  Super Dingo

If human rights are inherited, which rights would those be?

Warning: Super Dingo is putting on his collar here....

From a Christian perspective, if human rights are indeed part of our inherited nature, I raise the question of why God felt it necessary to explicitly lay out the ten commandments (including "thou shalt not kill") to the Israelites (and consequently to the rest of humanity).

If there is anything that the Bible states we have inherited, it is our "sinful" nature.....

One could say that the concept of human rights is equivalent to some sort of absolute morality, and that not adhering to such a morality does not negate its existence, but does its existence imply that it is inherent within us? Or is such a thing in existence and established by God, and it is pursued because it is not part of our inherent nature, but His?

Posted by:  zannebee

Issachar,

Oh, OK, I didn't understand the question. I do believe that we, as humans, have an innate sense of morality. So I guess I agree with you.

Posted by:  Marco

If human rights aren't inherent, then what right have we to demand that dictators be humane with POWs? Maybe in their culture they're just not into "humane treatment" and "social constructs" and that sort of thing, so who are we to judge?

The "all life is equal" position has me in turmoil. I've said some things about it already. I think no one -- even cannibal tribes, Sikhs, vegans, whoever -- would consider ANY destruction of life tantamount to murder. Even where cows are revered as sacred, potatoes may be ruthlessly butchered for eating purposes. So they don't consider all life to be equal, they just happen to consider bovine life to be of equal value to human life. [Or even of greater value, which in itself would already discredit the "all life is equal" position.]

Cannibals who eat their enemies in order to acquire their power -- how is that different from muggers who kill their victims in order to get at their wallets? The conclusion here is not that they consider all life equal, but that some people's death means that I can avail myself of their resources. Or even that some people's resources can justifiably be taken by me at the expense of their life. This is NOT a life-affirming position, and does not arise in contexts where life is deemed valuable.

[digression: Of course, someone who believes that NO life has value may consistently hold that human life is as valuable (read: as value-less) as any other life. The real question to ask someone who holds this view is why they don't just kill themselves.]

On the other hand, much of what is being discussed here is not INDIVIDUAL life -- say, whether a human life is more important than a carrot's -- but life in a more general, collective way. Like, how we should categorize ecological disasters in their relationship to human life. And that is something I don't have an answer to, but am also in turmoil about because I somehow feel that it is a completely different discussion. As if an important piece of differentiation were missing here.

Posted by:  Katinka

It seems that the concept of Human Rights is rather slippery one...according to a Wikipedia search: although "a formal concept of human rights has not been universally accepted, the term has some degree of variance between its use in different local jurisdictions", while “In the Western political tradition, human rights are held to be "inalienable" and to belong to all humans.”

However, when examining the philosophical basis of Human Rights there appears to be some controversy over whether these rights are: ‘natural’ (intrinsic, and based upon an objective understanding of justice), ‘biological’ (based on altruism as a response to Natural Selection), or ‘social’ (which evolve through the process of public reasoning according to human needs and struggles). As such, we must allow some variance in interpretation of it as a construct or as part of a higher moral order.

From a biblical reading, it appears that Rights are something which have correspondingly developed as a response to human sin and can be seen as early as in the days of Cain and his descendants and in the Mosaic Law, as Super Dingo noted.

For me, this means that although I do value Human Rights, I believe that these have their origin both as a social construct, and as a response to a biblical injunction “to love your neighbour as yourself”. I would suggest that prior to the existence of human sin, the notion of Human Worth was the prevailing perspective and is still superior to Human Rights, because it is something that has and will endure beyond this world. For out of an appreciation of (divinely appointed) Human Worth, expectations about Rights emerge.

Posted by:  Katinka

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Posted by:  Katinka

ps( Marco, you raised an interesting issue when you said in an earlier comment "we cannot live without taking life (even, like I said, if we go vegan). And I think we can't go around saying that we're only justified in destroying other lifeforms if it is for our own survival".

With Rights comes responsibility. The dilemma begins here.

My point with the analogies of the cannibalism in PNG, was that it’s not just eating, or killing something that denotes actual value or the lack thereof. There are other determining factors to be considered. In the same way, killing another human being, regardless of your perspective, does not take away their actual value. There are such things as absolutes.)

Posted by:  Marco

Well said, Katinka. My point is precisely this: The value of the other person is independent of my own perspective on it. I can't kill someone just because *I* happen to find him annoying or obstructive to my purposes. How is that different from saying that that person has inherent human rights?

It's the word "rights", isn't it? As opposed to "value"?

We can speculate about the "unfallen" world (yes, where God is the only power over humans, there need be no talk of human rights), but the world in which we live is one in which humans have power over one another, and, as you say, "with power comes responsibility." "Love your neighbor as yourself" is a summary of many other commands: do not murder, do not cheat on your spouse, do not steal, do not lie, etc. In other words, the people around you have a RIGHT to be allowed to live, and to live free from the fear of losing their lives, their posessions, their spouses, their dignity, their opportunity for an honest look at the world, etc. It's not just a PRIVILEDGE they are to enjoy, it is a RIGHT that we are to grant them.

So, Issachar having asked for a show of hands here, I vote that human rights are inherent. How exactly they are to be defended and even where exactly their boundaries are is of course a difficult question, and how a legal system is to protect these rights is another challenge, but these things don't mean they don't exist. (The fact that we can't determine at what exact point a slice of bread becomes a slice of toast does not mean that we believe there is no difference between the two.)

I do believe that we are to protect human rights, through education (as Zannebee says) as well as through legislation (though Sarah will say I'm a "change our laws" fanatic).

Posted by:  super dingo

My hand is still down... for the following reasons:

The idea of inherent human rights does have its strong points. In its best sense this perspective recognizes the value of life, which is certainly beneficial. My concern is the humanistic aspect which implies that my mere existence necessitates certain entitlements being bestowed upon me. As I believe that human nature is inherently selfish, the rub is that such entitlements become the primary focus, and can therefore be selfishly distorted and misguided.

Would it not be more beneficial to rather emphasize responsibilities over rights? Aren't "love thy neighbour", "thou shalt not kill", etc. examples of such responsibilities? Isn't it ingenious the Bible delivers its message in this way rather than illustrating the concept of "rights"... after all, when the focus is on others over ourselves, how can things be distorted?

Posted by:  zannebee

Super Dingo -

Are you are saying that humans should not be bestowed with "rights" only "rules" (responsibilities) to follow? And this is because some people are selfish and might demand their rights if they are told that they have them... or because people become focused on humans rather than God if they believe that they have rights? That's what I understand from your post and I just want to double check and see if I misunderstand you.

I don't believe that human nature is inherently selfish. I believe that some people are selfish, but there are many unselfish people in the world as well. I believe that if people are told simply to follow rules without regard to the reasons for the rules and without giving people a sense of dignity and self worth, people become all twisted inside. Funnily enough, contrary to what you believe, I believe that focusing only on "responsibilities" or "rules" and ignoring "rights" creates selfish people... people who are not particularly insightful, contemplative, reflective, thoughtful or perceptive. Sometimes these people become extraordinarily selfish in order to feel that they are worth anything because they are not given "rights".

So anyway, if I understand you correctly, I have to say that I don't agree with your assessment.

Posted by:  Marco

Hmmm, do I agree with Zannebee here? Hard to say, because it may after all be another semantic difference.

I do think humans are generally selfish... even our most altruistic acts have some selfish motives, like enjoying the satisfaction of having done a good deed or something like that. Selfish does not equal bad always, but if I do something -- however altruistic -- because I know it will help me sleep better at night, then my "self" is one of the beneficiaries of my decision and as such it has been, partially at least, selfish.

In that sense I think true altruism is impossible, even for a masochist. Our selves are involved in every decision we make, and thus derive SOME benefit, however hidden and dubious, from the possibilities that the decision opens.

But if there are a few unselfish people, does that mean that it is not human nature to be selfish, or that some people can overcome or transcend that part of their nature? If "human nature" is defined as those things we ALL have in common, it becomes a very narrow category because you'll always find exceptions. I think "human nature" can be defined as "how we humans generally function" -- and as I believe we're generally selfish, I'd say that selfishness is human nature.

NOW, regarding super dingo with rights vs. responsibilities -- there I think I'd agree with Zannebee. I think "Thou shalt not kill" expresses the subtle difference between "you have a responsibility to keep your hands off another person's life" and "that other person has a right to live".

On the other hand, if our rights aren't inherent, our responsibilities would have to be, right? Because the law makes no suggestion that we are to become people who sooner or later learn to carry such a responsibility -- it assumes that we already have it, and are aware of it.

So what will it be, inherent rights or inherent responsibilities? The only other option I see is that morality is just a social construct, which I refuse to believe (though that would take an extra post to explain).

Posted by:  Super Dingo

Maybe it's my perception.... I was considering this quote:

"In other words, the people around you have a RIGHT to be allowed to live, and to live free from the fear of losing their lives, their posessions, their spouses, their dignity, their opportunity for an honest look at the world, etc."

Since I am part of the same species, it is only logical that I can rewrite it in the first person:
"In other words, I have a RIGHT to be allowed to live, and to live free from the fear of losing my life, my posessions, my spouses, my dignity, my opportunity for an honest look at the world, etc."

Do I really?

If life is given from God, is it a gift or a right/entitlement? If God allows my spouse to suffer and die from cancer, is he violating my right to live without fear of losing my spouse, since he has the power to heal and is not doing so?

My concern is that with humanity's selfish nature (my belief) we will cease to look at God's gifts as privileges to be appreciated, and instead see them as entitlements that are bestowed upon us simply because we happen to exist.

And if anyone reading this does not believe in God, you may not agree with this point of view... that is your right. ;) It is my responsibility to still treat you with respect. :)

Posted by:  Marco

Well, if what we have is God's anyways, then of course our right to it does not extend to forbidding His interference.

What I'm saying is that if you're robbed, you feel (to some degree) violated. Why is that, when all that really happened is that someone did not take his/her responsibility to refrain from stealing seriously? Isn't it because you feel that you have a right to demand this responsibility from others?

I don't think that "human rights" will cause us to become more selfish. They will only do this if we think only of our own rights, which is of course possible for a selfish person. It is, however, equally possible (and I'd argue it is easier) to think of responsibilities as belonging only to OTHERS. Selfishness will twist everything to one's own gain, whether we talk about rights or responsibilities.

But since you believe we all have responsibilities, I would like to know whether you consider them inherent, and what you would mean by that.

Posted by:  Katinka

I'd like to pose a question for those of you who do not hold that Rights are also a social construct:

Who defines Rights…society? God? Both of the above? Before there were legislated Rights for women or slaves, or animals, did this mean that people who mistreated them are not actually culpable for their actions since there were no laws acknowleding the victim at that time?

It seems obvious to me that Rights are also a product of society…they tend to reflect whatever the current trends in thought may be. (Whether or not these correspond with a higher moral order is a different matter!) For this reason, I tend to agree with Super Dingo that the emphasis on moral responsibility is more advantageous to this argument.

However, it is unnecessary to make Rights and Responsibilities dichotomous. As I see it, Rights are overtly defined as the occasion requires them...before the Fall, there was no need to speak in terms of Rights because we didn't understand what evil or sin could be, and therefore the concept of a need for Rights would have been irrelevant.

I don't see responsibility as a shackling form of legalism. Responsibility is a positive opportunity to fulfill the will of God...just as Adam and Eve were given their care-taker responsibilities for the earth prior to the Fall. Generally even within our frame of reference today, responsibilities are given to children as they are become fit enough to carry them....the implication being that it is a hallmark adulthood. Rights are correspondingly accorded as responsibility is demonstrated; responsibility brings with it a special kind of freedom or power.

As to whether Rights are inherent or not...if the preponderence to sin is inherent in the sense that we become burdened with /exposed to the same temptations of this world that our parents are subject to, then I suppose it could be argued that Rights are also inherited. Where sin is present, Rights must be specified. However, at a purely biological level, I hesitate to agree that either sinfulness or Rights are inherent.

Posted by:  Katinka

ps.(btw Marco, nice to have another MK on here :) You said: "The value of the other person is independent of my own perspective on it...How is that different from saying that that person has inherent human rights?"

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but to me the difference is crucial. History demonstrates that Human Rights can be absent,gained, or even superseded by a perceived "greater good", whereas Human Worth is always inherent because we are all made by God.)

Posted by:  Marco

All right, two more questions.

1. Zannebee and Sarah (in case you're still following this discussion) : I'm being accused of always harping on laws, so I'd like your perspective on this: should human rights generally be protected by laws? For example, should there be laws against slavery, or just social movements to try to reduce the number of slaves, or both?

2. Katinka, what history shows us is not that human rights can be gained, superceded, etc. What it shows us is that in fact they are sometimes upheld and sometimes denied. This does not mean that this SHOULD happen. History does not show us that murder is right; it shows us that murder in fact takes place.
Although I do admit that in any viable governmental system certain rights are curtailed as punitive measures. If someone is in jail for murder, you don't say his human rights (in this case, right to freedom) are being denied him. But if he's in jail without a sentence, it is generally agreed that this is a violation of one of his rights (the right to a fair trial).

Perhaps we are just splitting hairs on this. But as you said, "responsibility" is something that has to do with adulthood. "Rights", I would argue, do not. If a kid becomes a murderer, has he not yet grown into his responsibility? Or did he infringe on the right to life of his victim? Until what age should people be allowed to murder?

Posted by:  Katinka

Marco, you said: "what history shows us is not that human rights can be gained, superceded, etc. What it shows us is that in fact they are sometimes upheld and sometimes denied. This does not mean that this SHOULD happen… ". Your statement nicely illustrates my point: the system of legalized Human Rights, although a good and useful tool, is not infallible. (I am of course assuming that we are all talking about legalized Rights, since the issue at hand is one of legality). If these Rights are inherent in the purely biological sense (ie. interwoven into our DNA at conception by some Devine device) then what mere human has the "Right"(!) to deny these, as you justify in the case of punitive measures?

It would be a great comfort to me if I had been condemned to death for a crime to know that although society may withhold my Rights, my value has not been stripped away, at least in God's eyes. This is why I regard human value or worth as much superior to Rights.

I also need to clarify my use of an analogy regarding children and responsibility. I by no means intended to imply that Rights are always dependent on proven responsibility…my point was that responsibility is not a negative thing, it brings with it privileges and power. (hence the analogy).

I would still be interested to hear more particularly what you think about the question: “Who defines Human Rights?”

Posted by:  Katinka

ps ( I'm not entirely sure what you mean: "If someone is in jail for murder, you don't say his human rights (in this case, right to freedom) are being denied him". Actually, I think most people would concur that his Right to freedom has been removed/withheld. Isn't that the reality of the situation,in any case?)

Posted by:  Marco

All right Kat, I do agree with you that value of human life, and of us as human beings, is inherent in a different way from that of any human rights. Value is still there even if all rights are withheld, trampled on, removed, ...whatever.

So what ARE our human rights? I'd say the ten commandments summarize how far humans should be safe from each other. Sure, the law says "thou shalt not murder" and that same law had a death penalty attached to a wide assortment of crimes. So the state had rights over people that people didn't have over each other. And obviously (as I said before) God has rights over us that we don't have over each other.

Hmmmm, rights and responsibilities... how are we using these words? To say that, in a democracy, a person has a "right to vote", is that the same thing as saying that we all have a "responsibility" to allow them to vote? Perhaps. In that case our quarrel here is futile.

I'd say, for example, a girl has the right to be dropped off at home after a date and not get raped along the way. This, I believe, is a human right. I believe that people have the right to be protected from torture. Things like that.

You could rephrase it as "a guy on a date has the responsibility to get his date home without raping her along the way", or "a prison warden has the responsibility to refrain from shoving a red-hot iron up a prisoner's rectum". Is this paragraph and the last one saying the same thing, only using different words? Is this paragraph more accurate than the last one because it focuses on "responsibilities"? I think it sounds slightly more silly.

But since this debate is originally about abortion, I'd say that, inherent rights here or there, anyone who agrees that no person should be killed for another person's convenience or trauma avoidance should seriously ask what makes the unborn baby the exception. That's why I don't understand why so many people hold that the question of when life begins is irrelevant to the point; the question of whether or not someone is human makes all the difference when you're discussing a point about human rights.

Posted by:  Katinka

*grin* Marco, I think it’s entirely possible to make anything sound ridiculous depending on the phraseology used. eg. “It’s my Right to refrain from torturing someone by thrusting a red hot poker into their rectum”. (Just as pedantic, don’t you think?)

It’s interesting that a great majority of scripture is framed as responsibilities, and these are neatly summed up as “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbour as yourself.” I know I’m speaking from a Christian perspective but I believe that if this two-fold injunction were to be taken seriously, the decision making process and outcomes would look quite different in regard to this issue.

I agree however, that the crux of this argument is *when* do we acknowledge the humanness of an unborn fetus? As Sarah and Westcoastloon observed, life is a continuum….so perhaps the question is not so much ‘when does life begin’, but rather ‘when do we assert that that entity is actually a human being’ (and therefore worthy of loving as ourselves). Since it can be demonstrated that a cluster of fetal cells is indeed human as it cannot develop into anything else, should we discriminate between a human tumour and a developing human fetus in terms of intrinsic worth…and if so why?

Posted by:  Marco

? ? ???

Your last sentence really confuses me.

"Since it can be demonstrated that a cluster of fetal cells is indeed human as it cannot develop into anything else, should we discriminate between a human tumour and a developing human fetus in terms of intrinsic worth…and if so why?"

Uh, ... since it can be demonstrated that no human tumor will ever develop into a human being, should we discriminate indeed? Or are you saying there is no appreciable difference between a fetus and a tumor? Please explain.

I guess you may be asking about human value, and whether a human being has more intrinsic worth than any other cluster of cells (like, say, a tumor). I think everyone agrees that a human being does have more intrinsic worth than a tumor, although we may use different arguments to justify this belief. And, of course, we're not in agreement over when something is first a "human being", or even on the importance of this question. But no one has ever claimed that a tumor is, or will someday be, a human being.

Oh, and you rephrasing the torture scenario -- it doesn't really fit, you know? To say that someone has a right not to be tortured is very similar, perhaps identical, to saying that someone else has the responsibility not to torture. It is not the same as saying they have the RIGHT not to torture. That does sound silly. (Although it may actually be applicable in certain situations -- like if your superiors command you to torture, perhaps -- but it's still something completely different.)

But I am prepared to call a truce on the rights/responsibilities question. What do we mean by "defend the rights of the oppressed" if not "embrace your responsibility to free them of their oppression?" Perhaps we're saying the same thing, we just understand it differently. I personally find it more convincing to argue that slaves should be freed on the basis of their rights as human beings than on the basis of our responsibility towards them.

Posted by:  Katinka

Marco, I don't mean to offend or engage in a fruitless argument about semantics. I was simply trying to point out that the initial illustration you made regarding the torture scenario seemed to be phrased in a rather unusual way. I've not come across a charter of Rights that is that specific in it's language.

As to my last sentence regarding tumours and fetuses.In one sense, both are human and both are living...so what makes one worth preserving?

I'm currently reading an article on tumours and abortion. An oft used argument to defend abortion is that the mother has the right to control what happens to her own body.

Researchers at the Medical College of Georgia in 1998 found that the embryo produces a special enzyme called 'indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenease (IDO)', which suppresses the mothers T cell reaction allowing pregnancy to proceed. This research highlights the fact that the baby is not part of the mother’s body, but a separate entity. (Which is logical considering that half of the invested DNA is not hers) Normally the T cell reaction would be used as a defense mechanism to reject tumours, indicating that the body is designed to differentiate between the fetus and a mere cluster of mutated cells.

This research also demonstrates that the child's unique genetic individuality exists from the moment of conception.

Despite these findings, it seems that Pro-choice advocates regard the fetus in the same category as a tumour…as though it’s removal is an amoral act. The conundrum then is on what basis do we arbitrarily decide that one fetus is valuable (a human being), and another not?

Posted by:  Katinka

*(Munn. D.H. et al, Prevention of allogenic fetal rejection by tryptophan catabolism, Science 281 (5380): 1122-1124, 1998)

Posted by:  zannebee

I think that pro-choice people just have a different way of looking at it. I can't speak for every pro-choice person, but for myself, I think that what's important to me is taking care of the people who are living on the planet RIGHT NOW. I think that quality of life is very important (and by quality of life I don't mean having lots of money to buy bling bling, but being able to live comfortably with food and shelter and adaquate health care) and I don't see the point in forcing women to have children that they don't want just so that many of these children can grow up in poverty, unloved and unwanted. It really makes me sad to think of any child having to grow up not knowing love. I don't understand the point in focusing on a "culture of life" when this "life" sucks for many people. I think that it makes more sense to focus on making life better for people rather than just focusing on creating more humans.

Posted by:  Marco

OK Kat, comparing a fetus to a tumor is really clutching at straws. People may debate at what point a fetus becomes a human being, but no one denies that there is some point at which it is definitely human. No tumor, no matter how it is cultivated, will ever be a human being. "Human tissue" perhaps, but so are your fingernails which you (I assume) clip regularly. They will never develop a circulatory system, nervous system, eyes, ears, and all those other things that a normal human body has.

Zanne, I understand your point and I feel a certain despair at being unable to explain my position without seeming to scorn yours. I agree to make life better for the living, I agree we're not doing too well at that, I agree putting more people in the world is not the answer, I agree it can seem quite cruel to put someone in a world in which they will (probably) be unloved, I agree that an unwanted pregnancy can be a huge burden and bring much suffering. But I disagree that abortion solves any of those problems. It removes the most obvious obstacle, but with it it takes a very valuable part of our own dignity and humanity that makes the situation, as bad as it is, even worse because something inside the person gets damaged, and that something is really the only thing that can help the person surmount the external obstacles.

I don't know how much sense this makes. I guess I could say that the cycle of hopelessness can be broken by affirming life.

It would be a little like (please don't push these analogies too far -- I'm doing my best here) someone suffering all the effects of poverty. If he has nothing to eat, nothing to feed his family with, no future and no hope, can anyone really blame him for robbing a bank or a grocery store? Can anyone really say that society isn't just as guilty for allowing this? Well, no. But can anyone really say that this act of robbery, though it may (temporarily) alleviate many of the horrors of poverty for him, has really improved any aspect of the world around and within?

Posted by:  Katinka

Marco, if you actually really read what I said, I was responding to your emphasis on when life begins...ie. at a specific point. Please note that I clearly stated that I think it's more fruitful to examine WHEN we assert that the fetus is a HUMAN BEING.

“No tumor, no matter how it is cultivated, will ever be a human being.” Precisely, the fact that a clump of fetal cells is more valuable than a tumour is because it has the capabilities to develop into something more. That is my point.

Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but it's interesting in light of the question of intrinsic value, that there is an inbuilt mechanism to help the body differentiate by day 7 between what is human and what is a human BEING!

Forgive the pun, but aren't you throwing the baby out with the bathwater with regard to the rest of what I said?

Zannebee, I completely agree...the focus should be on loving people here and now. My concern is that by making local adoptions so difficult and expensive (apparently it's cheaper and easier to adopt overseas, or go through IVF) we place women in a position where they may think abortion is their best option. Even for the sake of the unborn child, as you aptly pointed out.